AACA Museum & AACA, What is Going On

[Pete Phillips]

I received the AACA's mailing on this issue about two weeks ago, and I received the AACA Museum's mailing about it a couple of days ago. I have read both, and I have read some but not all 20 pages of the comments here. I fail to see why the Museum's letter and proposal(s) are held in such low regard by the commenters here. I know I'm not privy to all of the comments, meetings, and personalities involved--nor do I want to be, but it seems to me that the Museum's proposal of approximately $1 million of free land in return for $10 on the dues of every AACA member was a generous offer, even with some of the caveats that were attached to it. For crying out loud, these two groups need to be located next to each other, if not under the same roof. A new, separate AACA & library facility somewhere will cost a lot more than a $10 increase in the dues. If two groups of grown adults can't find a way to make it happen, then they all ought to resign in disgrace, give both boards a clean slate, and submit the whole thing to a professional mediator (I know one who is a very active Buick Club member).

 

Pete Phillips

Leonard, Texas

AACA, Buick Club, Studebaker Driver's Club, H-E-T Club, Cadillac/LaSalle Club, Nash Club member

[MCHinson]

The land was not free, no matter how the museum wants to spin that story.

 

Pete you may want to read a bit more. You missed a few of the important points. The final offer from the museum would have required the club to raise the money to build the addition to the museum, increase the size of the project so that the museum would receive 1/3 of the space that the club paid to build, and would also require the club to raise double what was needed for the addition because the club would have to give 50% of the money raised to the museum. The museum board also refused the club's offer to use a mediator to try to come up with a merger agreement. There are other issues but those are the top ones in my opinion.

 

The club and the museum can function out of two separate facilities without a problem... they have been doing that since the museum was first built.  Hopefully in the future, the museum and the club will be able to get back to a more "family like" relationship. Unless that happens in the next few months, there is no way the club and the museum will end up on the same campus. It would have been nice if it would have worked out, but it will not be a major problem for the club that it did not work out. 

 

[Steve Moskowitz]

Pete, you need to read over this material again.  You mention the $10.00 per membership.  That is over $300,000 a year to support a organization that has no legal affiliation with AACA.  The club cannot afford to give them that amount of income without raising dues.  So again, you are asking all members of AACA to support a museum that bears our name but otherwise is not connected to us nor would we have any say  in regards to their operation at all.  That is one issue.  The point about the "free" land worth a "Million" is it is not free at all.  THEIR proposal also asks for 50% of all the money raised to build a new HQ/Library.  That would amount to millions.  So, no matter how you dress this pig up it still means that we would have to raise twice the money we need in order to accomplish our goals.  How does this not sound like a one sided deal?

 

Take a step back and add the fact that the club has already generously given them over a $1,000,000 and guess who raised the money to pay for the land in the first place?  Is the museum offer of land truly generous as you say?   

 

I did not want to post here anymore but the dis-information is unfair to our board of directors.  The club would have submitted to mediation or binding arbitration at any time!  When our club attempted one more time after the fall meet to go back to the table it included the offer for the negotiating committee to take leave and be replace by three new non-board members including a retired federal judge who is a practicing mediator. That opportunity was not accepted by the other side unless we rescinded our vote to not donate to them in 2017.  Another words pay to play. Pay to simply talk.

 

Look, I understand all of this is frustrating and that it is hard for people to understand how we got into this mess.  There is a lot more background to this but the facts are the facts and AACA has no desire to make this personal nor to cast anyone in a bad light.  Not us.  This is a business deal gone bad, we attempted to explain why.  I would also ask you to read comments about how little our donation means to the museum in terms of their overall budget.  If that is really the truth then what is all the fuss.  Just move on and replace that income right? 

 

I've actually said more than I wanted to but I do not think that national board needs to be found at fault.  They have simply done what they felt they had to.  My advice is to let this play out and hope that in the future things work out for everyone.

[Bhigdog]

I'm of the opinion that the Club should worry about the Club and do what's best for the Club. I have nothing against the museum but the Club's done a lot more for me than the museum ever could or will. In fact only recently have they even spoken to me by sending me mailings. Wonder where they got my address?..........Bob

Edited January 19, 2017 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[R W Burgess]

10 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

 In fact only recently have they even spoken to me by sending me mailings. Wonder where they got my address?..........Bob

They haven't spoken to me at all Bob, and I made donations to them the last few years. 

[Bhigdog]

 I must be their new best friend...............Bob

[Doug Novak]

I don't know exactly when the AACA Official Publication, "Antique Automobile", is coming out, hopefully it's coming soon. 

With in the Magazine we should have the Final Word about what has been discussed in this forum pertaining to the Club and the Museum.

 

 After the Magazine has been given time for review by the Club Membership, I suggest we close the book on this forum Topic  ".......What is Going On" .  Then start a new Topic in the forum, "Information and Details of the New Construction of our HQ and Library. 

[Bhigdog]

I suggest a free flow of information and comment is the best medicine for the situation. I further suggest that each and every forum member has the ability to personally close his or her book on the topic by simply not opening the thread.

Like every previous contentious thread it's worked out most amicably when it's been  allowed to burn itself out and die a natural death without heavy handed intervention.

I doubt the magazine article will be the final word. In fact I think it will generate a spate of comments. And that's a very good thing. How else will the BOD know the feelings of the people they represent?................Bob

Edited January 20, 2017 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[R W Burgess]

30 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

How else will the BOD know the feelings of the people they represent?................Bob

Some call me, Bob!

804-313-1983

[Bhigdog]

15 minutes ago, R W Burgess said:

Some call me, Bob!

804-313-1983

Of course, but many others voice their concerns and comments in other ways. I would think any BOD would welcome and encourage them all whether they agreed or not. At least I would...................Bob

[gwells]

I received the museum's letter yesterday and read it tonight.

 

For me, a few questions arise from the museum's letter.

 

1) Three acres in Hershey, PA, is valued at a million dollars? Maybe I am out of touch with land values, but that seems excessively high to me. In certain areas, of course, but in Hershey, PA? 

 

2) Exactly what was the reason Tom Cox was voted off the musuem BoD, "under section 2.6.2 of [the museum's] bylaws." Not going to bother to research the museum's bylaws, but seems logical he was removed for "cause." Anyone know what that cause is? I have met Tom, and know of his activities in other fields, and would be surprised to learn he was removed for clearly objectionable actions.

 

3) Why does the museum now have access to the AACA's membership mailing list to enable them to mail me and the other AACA members?

[Doug Novak]

1 hour ago, Bhigdog said:

I suggest a free flow of information and comment is the best medicine for the situation. I further suggest that each and every forum member has the ability to personally close his or her book on the topic by simply not opening the thread.

Like every previous contentious thread it's worked out most amicably when it's been  allowed to burn itself out and die a natural death without heavy handed intervention.

I doubt the magazine article will be the final word. In fact I think it will generate a spate of comments. And that's a very good thing. How else will the BOD know the feelings of the people they represent?................Bob

 

The problem I see is that we are starting to see the same conversations here, over and over again with people starting to raise the same issues, concerns and questions that have already been addressed, answered and explained with in the 20 pages of 495 Posts. Once the Magazine is issued there is the potential that the number of people who have not reviewed the information within this forum will dramatically increase and bury the BOD in having to respond, slowing the work that they need to be doing to get things moving. We have a good BOD and ultimately they need to do what they were entrusted with for the good of the Club and begin the work needed to enlarge the HQ & Library.

[Bhigdog]

4 minutes ago, Doug Novak said:

The problem I see is that we are starting to see the same conversations here, over and over again with people starting to raise the same issues, concerns and questions that have already been addressed, answered and explained with in the 20 pages of 495 Posts

And most of the time the BOD does not or even need to respond. It's merely chatter among the members and does neither harm nor good.

 

6 minutes ago, Doug Novak said:

Once the Magazine is issued there is the potential that the number of people who have not reviewed the information within this forum will dramatically increase and bury the BOD in having to respond,

This will happen with or with out the forum or it's comments. In fact if the readers check in here they may find their questions answered. As a point,there are only a few BOD members who take the time to respond here. In fact the statement has been made that most BOD members do not even visit the forum

 

10 minutes ago, Doug Novak said:

We have a good BOD and ultimately they need to do what they were entrusted with for the good of the Club and begin the work needed to enlarge the HQ & Library.

.Agreed. I hope you will agree that part of managing for the good of the club is making the time necessary to consider the views of it's members thus ensuring continued satisfaction with the club's direction and continued renewals....................Bob

[Marty Roth]

3 hours ago, R W Burgess said:

Some call me, Bob!

804-313-1983

 

Others call me,

504-452-1955 (Central time zone)

[Steve Moskowitz]

10 hours ago, gwells said:

I received the museum's letter yesterday and read it tonight.

 

For me, a few questions arise from the museum's letter.

 

1) Three acres in Hershey, PA, is valued at a million dollars? Maybe I am out of touch with land values, but that seems excessively high to me. In certain areas, of course, but in Hershey, PA? 

 

2) Exactly what was the reason Tom Cox was voted off the musuem BoD, "under section 2.6.2 of [the museum's] bylaws." Not going to bother to research the museum's bylaws, but seems logical he was removed for "cause." Anyone know what that cause is? I have met Tom, and know of his activities in other fields, and would be surprised to learn he was removed for clearly objectionable actions.

 

3) Why does the museum now have access to the AACA's membership mailing list to enable them to mail me and the other AACA members?

 

1.  $330,000 an acre?  You betcha it is high!  Also the acreage is not flat and will cause concessions in building.  However if you have read the letter thoroughly you will realize they are asking literally millions per acre.

2.  Ask yourself this.  Why bring up the issue of Tom?  Does it not sound like they are trying to smear him personally?  Does it or other issues the museum has brought up have anything to do with a failed business deal?  What type of people would behave this way?  In any event, Tom stood up for our members and does not shy away from his responsibilities to speak out.  What's that movie line "you can't stand the truth?" 

3.  Good question, they were not given permission by us in any way. We have in all our rosters either a copyright or a disclaimer that the rosters are not to be used without our permission.  Hmmmmm.

 

I am doing my best to still not say anything personal about those that would try to harm this club or find it fun to attack individuals.  I will let all of you decide who is handling their business ethically. 

[Bhigdog]

12 hours ago, R W Burgess said:

Some call me, Bob!

804-313-1983

 

9 hours ago, Marty Roth said:

Others call me,

504-452-1955 (Central time zone)

 

You both, along with Steve M and most likely other BOD members are to commended for making your selves available to members. About the only thing that gets me exercised over this thread is the occasional call to close it out. I'm very pleased that management's chosen to resist that urge and has presented it's position open to public scrutiny..................Bob

 

[Doug Novak]

11 hours ago, Bhigdog said:

And most of the time the BOD does not or even need to respond. It's merely chatter among the members and does neither harm nor good.

 

This will happen with or with out the forum or it's comments. In fact if the readers check in here they may find their questions answered. As a point,there are only a few BOD members who take the time to respond here. In fact the statement has been made that most BOD members do not even visit the forum

 

.Agreed. I hope you will agree that part of managing for the good of the club is making the time necessary to consider the views of it's members thus ensuring continued satisfaction with the club's direction and continued renewals....................Bob

 

Bob, per my original comment, "After the Magazine has been given time for review by the Club Membership", I think this is agreeing some what with what you are saying, but lets get the wheels rolling with what happens next.

[Bhigdog]

Agreed. I think we're all waiting for the other shoe to drop although I don't know what more can be said. My prediction is a flurry of comments,  this thread (if allowed) will die a natural death, and the BOD will do what they will do. But the important thing is we were both kept informed and allowed to express ourselves..........Bob

11 minutes ago, Doug Novak said:

 

Bob, per my original comment, "After the Magazine has been given time for review by the Club Membership", I think this is agreeing some what with what you are saying, but lets get the wheels rolling with what happens next.

[padgett]

And just to reiterate, if the whole library could be put online for "members only", the value would far outstrip any physical museum.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Padgett, our library is becoming more and more digital every day with hundreds of thousands of documents scanned.  However, we are a FREE PUBLIC Library and we are proud of that.  Too many other libraries are "members only" or cannot be accessed by average folk.  If we love the hobby we should make it available to everyone worldwide,  Those that decided it should be a public library are to be commended as AACA should be about helping the entire collectible vehicle hobby. 

 

This is also a reason why people should support our library as it has little sources of income...

[TomCox]

On 1/19/2017 at 9:25 PM, gwells said:

I received the museum's letter yesterday and read it tonight.

 

2) Exactly what was the reason Tom Cox was voted off the musuem BoD, "under section 2.6.2 of [the museum's] bylaws." Not going to bother to research the museum's bylaws, but seems logical he was removed for "cause." Anyone know what that cause is? I have met Tom, and know of his activities in other fields, and would be surprised to learn he was removed for clearly objectionable actions.

 

The Museum Board in addition to being self appointed, may remove a sitting Board member for any reason whatsoever (neither is conducive to good practice in my opinion). In this case, the Museum leadership never bothered to contact me regarding their intentions or reasoning. They did however have one of their members call to ask if I was attending that particular meeting, which I was not. I'm sure they were emboldened by my absence. I might add that I have since found their vote was not unanimous.

 

In absentia, the Museum leadership elected to shoot the messenger, but never had the fortitude to contact me prior to or after their actions, which speaks volumes. Museum leadership made this a personal issue, and took the opportunity to take a swipe at the entire club as this decision was made with full knowledge that I would be National President again this year. Such an action is also very telling about how they were postured for future discussions,...or lack thereof.

 

I could say more, but it serves no higher purpose. Just know that as always, I put the hobby and the membership first, and in this case suffered the consequences of carrying out the duties of my job representing the will of the Board on behalf of the membership. I look forward to our future, as the Club and our Library continue to be very consequential to the entire worldwide automotive hobby. 

[Doug Novak]

I just received the AACA Magazine in the Mail today.

The explanation given there in was well stated. I don't see that anything more is needed to be said.

Well done!

[Terry Wiegand]

We received The Antique Automobile magazine in the mail late this afternoon.  I must say that I am really bummed out by the article.  Why you ask?  Well, there wasn't any deep, dark secret revealed that no one knew anything about.  Everything that was contained in the magazine article has been hashed out here in this thread umpteen times over.  So, nothing new was brought up.  We also got something else in the mail, but, this was from the AACA Museum.  It was not a letter stating their side of this saga like some of you have mentioned on here of getting.  No, this was a three page, fold out, color brochure advertising the AACA Museum.  On the inside left hand side of the first page there is a complete listing of their Board of Directors members.  After reading all of the names from top to bottom it immediately came into focus WHY and WHO the problem is in this situation.  I am not going to mention any names (gotta be politically correct you know), but there is more than one person here that if you looked at the South end of a horse that is running North and then looked at these persons, you could not tell any difference in what and who you were looking at.  I think that was cleaned up rather nicely.  So long as certain individuals are involved with the museum, the AACA Board will get absolutely nowhere.  I commend the AACA Board for cutting their losses and moving on.  I personally am more interested in The AACA Library anyway.  I think the AACA Board is heading in the right direction in getting a new administrative headquarters and library complex underway.  Mr. Cox, I feel awful for you in the way that you have been treated in this ordeal.  I could say more but I won't.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

AACA Life Member

[John_S_in_Penna]

On 1/20/2017 at 1:47 PM, TomCox said:

The Museum Board in addition to being self appointed, may remove a sitting Board member for any reason whatsoever (neither is conducive to good practice in my opinion). In this case, the Museum leadership never bothered to contact me regarding their intentions or reasoning....

It sounds as if the museum needs to have better by-laws.

By-laws should protect against animosity and its

opposite, personal attachment.  The correct idea is to enforce

order, justice, and democracy, and protect everyone's rights.

 

According to Robert's Rules of Order, members have

a right to trial when they are accused of wrong-doing.

Such an occurrence should be very rare.  However,

the accused has the right to due process--to be notified

of the charges, given time to prepare his defense,

and be allowed to appear to defend himself.

[From Robert's Rules of Order Simplified and Applied,

by Robert McConnell Productions]  And removing a person

from membership requires a two-thirds vote.

 

And if no one did anything wrong, why would he be removed?

Does the museum board use Robert's?  Do parts of their by-laws

supersede Robert's, or did they not follow the proper procedure?

Without a hearing as above, I hate to say, the removal

may well have been through animosity, and at the least,

gives a bad impression.

Edited January 22, 2017 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

22 hours ago, Terry Wiegand said:

We received The Antique Automobile magazine in the mail late this afternoon.  I must say that I am really bummed out by the article.  Why you ask?  Well, there wasn't any deep, dark secret revealed that no one knew anything about.  Everything that was contained in the magazine article has been hashed out here in this thread umpteen times over.  So, nothing new was brought up.  We also got something else in the mail, but, this was from the AACA Museum.  It was not a letter stating their side of this saga like some of you have mentioned on here of getting.  No, this was a three page, fold out, color brochure advertising the AACA Museum.  On the inside left hand side of the first page there is a complete listing of their Board of Directors members.  After reading all of the names from top to bottom it immediately came into focus WHY and WHO the problem is in this situation.  I am not going to mention any names (gotta be politically correct you know), but there is more than one person here that if you looked at the South end of a horse that is running North and then looked at these persons, you could not tell any difference in what and who you were looking at.  I think that was cleaned up rather nicely.  So long as certain individuals are involved with the museum, the AACA Board will get absolutely nowhere.  I commend the AACA Board for cutting their losses and moving on.  I personally am more interested in The AACA Library anyway.  I think the AACA Board is heading in the right direction in getting a new administrative headquarters and library complex underway.  Mr. Cox, I feel awful for you in the way that you have been treated in this ordeal.  I could say more but I won't.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

AACA Life Member

Terry,

 

I just got home from the NC Region Annual Business meeting. At the meeting, I was just able to interact with a lot of AACA Members who are not active on the forum. I think that the magazine article should be very informative to those "average members" who have been waiting to see the club's response to the "propoganda" that they have received from the museum.  As regular forum readers, I think we can easily lose sight of the fact that most AACA Members are not on the forum and thus have been more "out of the loop" on this issue much more so than the forum members.

 

Upon my return home, I too discovered that I had received more mail from the AACA Museum. I was surprised and upset to see that in addition to their previous propoganda mailing, they seem to have added me to their regular mailing list without my approval. I would have to guess from the fact that you and I both received their slick, glossy "Winter 2017 Reflections", they have most likely added all AACA Members to their mailing list without authorization of AACA or approval of the members. They may be publicly trying to minimize the effect of the loss of funding from the club and they may say that they are not worried about the removal of the club's contributions but their actions sound to me like they are quite concerned.

 

I plan to mail a letter to the Museum (as well as to each of their board members personally) informing them that due to their positions on this issue, I will never make any other financial or other contributions to the Museum. I plan to lobby to make sure that my local Chapter and the Regions that I am a member of also do likewise. I will also demand to be removed from their mailing list. I think that the Museum board needs to be told that their propoganda has been ineffective and that by and large, AACA Members are not going to support the museum until their board of directors changes their direction. When they realize the consequences of their actions, maybe they will change their tune.  It may do no good, but the Postal Service is going to be busy.

 

Hopefully the museum will change their leadership and/or their board's direction. Maybe this will enable the Club and the Museum to again have a cordial "family" relationship at some time in the future. I don't expect it  to happen soon, but I certainly think that they will eventually realize that they have made a serious mistake with dire financial consequences for their future.  

[Belvedere]

Just curious, was legally assessing a portion of land on the Museum campus as a subdivision for purchase by the Club for headquarters/library construction never an option?  The club and Museum could then have continued as separate entities with the "family" intact.  Isn't this what was done for the Hershey Region headquarters?  I don't know.  I also wonder how the Hershey Region feels about all of this, considering they are neighbors?

[John_S_in_Penna]

1 hour ago, lovesolderplymouths said:

... I also wonder how the Hershey Region feels about all of this, considering they are neighbors?

 

Good point, since the Hershey Region's clubhouse

is right next to the museum.  Are any of their services

(lawn mowing, driveway maintenance, etc.) shared?

 

Their proximity should mean they'll try harder to appreciate each other.

Edited January 22, 2017 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

1 hour ago, lovesolderplymouths said:

Just curious, was legally assessing a portion of land on the Museum campus as a subdivision for purchase by the Club for headquarters/library construction never an option?  The club and Museum could then have continued as separate entities with the "family" intact. 

 

The museum turned down the club's request to buy land to locate a new headquarters/library building on the museum campus.

[novaman]

My understanding is a number of years ago the club approached the museum about purchasing a parcel and was refused as they had other plans for that parcel. Now they are wanting to "give" that same parcel to  the club.  I looked at the tax records and it didn't show how Hershey Region got their land other than it was a Sheriff  sale. I did note that the land value of the 17.8 acres is $114,400. My question would be how the museum came up with 2-3 acres being worth $1M+.  I can't imagine Dauphin  county assessing the land at 11% of market value. https://gis.dauphincounty.org/dauphincountyparcelviewer/ 

 

Edited:  Matt got his posted before me.

 

Edit #2: there was a discussion here about location/townships. The museum is in Hanover Township.

Edited January 22, 2017 by novaman (see edit history)

[Doug Novak]

It was my understanding from the earlier Postings in the Forum, and the Museum's Documents, that what the Museum wanted the Club to do was build a 3 story addition to the existing Museum Building so that they could use 1/3rd of the new addition, the first story at ground level, for their own expansion at our cost? This would have given the Museum control over our space and some authority to be involved in our intentions.

See Documents in GRIMY's post #185   DOC #1, page 4

 

Absolutely, Not a good deal for the Club, as the Board of Directors correctly responded to.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Doug Novak (see edit history)

[capngrog]

Well, I finally got around to reading the letter I received a few weeks ago from the AACA Museum, explaining its position in this situation of the Museum merging with the Club, or vice versa.  This letter was most enlightening since it only confirms to me what Steve Moskowitz has been explaining in his Posts Nos. 461,475 and 487.  The letter from the Museum also makes it clear that the "grant" of 3 acres of land to the Club for the construction of the Club's new headquarters and library, was extremely conditional.  The conditions of the "grant" were such that if several conditions were not met by future Club operations, the " ... real estate would revert to the ownership of the Museum ... ". 

 

One thing that I noticed in the Museum's letter (dated December 29, 2016) to Club members, is the apparent intent of the Museum to become the dominant organization, with the Club being subservient to the Museum's Board of Directors.  I reached this conclusion via reading the contents of the third paragraph of that letter:  ":Two and a half years ago, we (the Museum) began exploring ways to bring the Club and Library and Research Center together with the Museum on OUR (emphasis mine) campus."  The next sentence winds up with "and move the Club and Library to a separate wing within OUR (emphasis mine) building".

 

I am now convinced, beyond reasonable doubt (in what's left of my mind), that what the AACA Board Members and Moderators have been saying on this thread is the correct story.  I appreciate their participation in this thread and allowing it to continue on and on ...

 

Cheers,

Grog

 

 

[gwells]

Don't think this has been mentioned before, but I have been told (and this is third or fourth hand info, so keep that in mind) that the club asked the museum to submit the issues between the two parties to arbitration and that the museum's BoD refused to agree to this. Can anyone confirm this information?

[MCHinson]

Yes, I admit that without some research I can't remember which document I read it in, but yes the club merger committee made an offer to submit the issue to arbitration and the museum board made additional unreasonable demands and refused to participate in arbitration as requested by the club's merger committee.

[gwells]

Thanks for the confirmation, Matthew.

 

[Steve Moskowitz]

Not quite accurate guys.  It is very important that everything here is truthful. A member of AACA wanted to act as a mediator and get the parties together.  One of our representatives was a mediator and was going to represent us and actually everyone to try and get a settlement.  As was correctly stated, the museum's terms to meet were onerous as they required money from us and an unwillingness to hold harmless our volunteer representatives.

 

I have never heard anyone against mediation or binding arbitration on the national board side.  This never seemed a viable option anyway as it would have meant both sides wanted it fixed. 

[gwells]

And thanks for that clarification, Steve.

[Dynaflash8]

I'm hearing about these mailings from the museum, but I have received nothing.  I assume this is because I have supported the club's position and the current AACA Board in this matter.  How high handed can those people be?  I joined the Board in 1995 when the museum was an embryo idea.  I worked to raise money, knew others who made major donations.  I mean, how did that museum get built?  It's time to move on.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

[John_S_in_Penna]

5 hours ago, Dynaflash8 said:

I'm hearing about these mailings from the museum, but I have received nothing.  

 

Mine came just last week, at least 2 weeks

after some people reported receiving the mailing.

A mailing that large might be being sent out

in subsets.  You'll probably get yours, Dyna.

 

[R W Burgess]

44 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

 

Mine came just last week, at least 2 weeks

after some people reported receiving the mailing.

A mailing that large might be being sent out

in subsets.  You'll probably get yours, Dyna.

 

 

After what they have suggested about myself and the other AACA Board members, I welcome a letter from them. I will be sure to respond and let the museum know how I feel about being treated the way they treated AACA. My life has been going along sweetly in the hobby since before 2001, and I have visited the museum many times. I have made donations and I was happy with the World with Wayne. Now, after they finally showed an interest in everyone combining forces, they take shots at  us and ridicule all of us after the fact. That is uncalled for. I still need to stop by and see if MY membership card will get me in???

 

This has been going on for a month now, and they just can not move on and leave it alone! My 2 cents.

 

Wayne

[Guest JimJones]

7 hours ago, Dynaflash8 said:

I'm hearing about these mailings from the museum, but I have received nothing.  I assume this is because I have supported the club's position and the current AACA Board in this matter.  How high handed can those people be?  I joined the Board in 1995 when the museum was an embryo idea.  I worked to raise money, knew others who made major donations.  I mean, how did that museum get built?  It's time to move on.

 

Yep. Lots of people donated or raised thousands of dollars. Those people over at the Museum don't care.  I looked at their Board list on their website, and I cant say that I have ever seen but one of them at an AACA event, and he is a judge. The rest of those people are ghosts...not involved with the club. I googled some of them, and one of them is a big Concours d'elegance guy. I've never seen him at an AACA event. I guess we're too low rent for him. They want our money though, or they wouldn't keep sending out propaganda letters trashing the clubs board.

Most people I talk to think the museum has overstayed its welcome in their mailbox. I agree...everyone should send a message and tell them to take them off their mailing and email list.

Go away museum....I agree with Dynaflash. Lets move on