Should a new thread be opened for discussion of BCA BOD Nominees?

[Peter Gariepy]

Should a new thread be opened for discussion of BCA BOD Nominees?

 

NOTE: It will be heavily moderators to adhere to forum rules, ie civil, constructive and NO personal attacks.

[BUICK RACER]

Most of the nominees, do not frequent the forum so more heresay and useless information would abound. Respect and grown up thoughts would be welcome, but nobody ever listens to to me, cause I'm usually right and that is the way it has been. so see you in OK.

[JohnD1956]

It would be one thing to open this discussion on the BCA's members only section, and then leave it unmoderated.  That at least, would limit the comments to those from BCA members,  the people who have a stake in the situation.  

 

The danger of moderation, and heavy moderation at that, would be that the moderator's own perception would become the "flavor" of the thread, and possibly change the poster's intentions. 

[Jack Welch]

The level of rancor and the level of misinformation that is being generated on this subject will create a situation in short order, that will  have you "moderating"  this thread to the point where it will be a full time project. Peter , I am sure from the past threads that you know , but consider what you are getting yourself into.

[BUICK RACER]

If it was even 20 years ago, we might be able to do this, and look at some of the predictions from 20 years ago, may still be available on here. 

[Peter Gariepy]

27 minutes ago, JohnD1956 said:

It would be one thing to open this discussion on the BCA's members only section, and then leave it unmoderated.  That at least, would limit the comments to those from BCA members,  the people who have a stake in the situation.  

 

The danger of moderation, and heavy moderation at that, would be that the moderator's own perception would become the "flavor" of the thread, and possibly change the poster's intentions. 

 

There is no "BCA Members Only Section".

[Peter Gariepy]

3 minutes ago, BUICK RACER said:

If it was even 20 years ago, we might be able to do this, and look at some of the predictions from 20 years ago, may still be available on here. 

 

Not a clue what you just said.

[JohnD1956]

I meant the Bca webpage members only section. Sorry!

[Peter Gariepy]

14 minutes ago, Jack Welch said:

The level of rancor and the level of misinformation that is being generated on this subject will create a situation in short order, that will  have you "moderating"  this thread to the point where it will be a full time project. Peter , I am sure from the past threads that you know , but consider what you are getting yourself into.

 

Not disagreeing. However, I think the perception from many that have sent private messages is that NOT allowing it is censorship. So I'm seeing what the users have to say.

[Peter Gariepy]

1 minute ago, JohnD1956 said:

I meant the Bca webpage members only section. Sorry!

 

John, there is no forum within the member login area of the bca website.

Only these open forums exist.

I get what you are saying, but it's simply not currently setup that way.

[Brad Conley]

Simply no.  I am a mod on several forums and see nothing but never-ending moderation for you and others.  Leave it be.

[Peter Gariepy]

11 minutes ago, Brad Conley said:

Simply no.  I am a mod on several forums and see nothing but never-ending moderation for you and others.  Leave it be.

 

Brad, please chose your position in the pole so it gets counted.

Thanks

[John]

Not allowing the discussion is censorship, and I'm disappointed the issue is being put up for a vote.   Those of you who don't want to contribute to or follow the discussion have the option to ignore it---why isn't that good enough?   

 

IMO the rules of the forum should be enforced consistently.  I see no need to single out this topic for censorship and heavy-handed moderating as long as opinions are being stated in a civil manner.

[NTX5467]

Peter, thanks for the question.  I suspect that at THIS point in time, much of what might be said already has been.  Further discussion would very possibly be a re-hash of what's already been said in the two deleted threads.  Either side has their own orientations and those most probably are not going to change.  The only people who might benefit are those that have yet to visit the forum.  which could be a very small number of the total possible viewers.

 

What might be an option, would be to reinstate the "2019 BOD Candidates" thread, but in locked mode (no comments other than those already in there)?  This option might also diminish any ideas of "squelching of comments", by some, if that's a possibility.

 

I'll vote above,

Willis Bell  20811

[JohnD1956]

2 hours ago, Peter Gariepy said:

 

John, there is no forum within the member login area of the bca website.

Only these open forums exist.

I get what you are saying, but it's simply not currently setup that way.

 

Yes, I was aware of that when I wrote my post.  Probably just as well. 

[1937-44]

 Peter I think a thread to discuss the upcoming election would be great if the candidates would join in. More than likely they probably will not participate so it will require a lot of moderating as there will be a lot of innuendo and rehashing of previous comments that were borderline appropriate. Unfortunately there is no other place to discuss the candidates and issues so I would say yes if you're up to the challenge.

 

 

[Bhigdog]

I,m a long time buick owner/restorer and forum participant. I,m also an on again off again bca member. Since i,m not a current member i won,t vote but as a forum member i,ll excercise my right to comment.

Free and open discussion is the most important facit of a sucessful organization. Hiding differing opinions or trying to silence dissent is both short sighted and deadly to it. 

The thought has been voiced that bod members or prospective members dont participate in the forum. If so, shame on them and they deserve not to have their ideas  and opinions heard.

My only reservation is the heavily moderated comment.

These are all big boys here, or should be. Any moderation should be to insure civility not direction of thought or content.

Carry on folks. Carry on and fight nice..........bob

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[Ronnie]

I suggest we have a thread opened where only the BOD candidates can discuss the issues and tell us the reasons why they think they are the best candidate.  They are the ones running for office and they are the ones who will determine the direction of the club once they get in office.  It only makes sense that candidates should be the ones on here having a debate that the club members can watch instead of the other way around.  If the candidates want to get in heated arguments, call each other out by name, and sling mud that is fine.  Then the voting members of the club can not only learn the candidates position on the issues, we can also learn the content of their character by how they conduct themselves in an open debate. 

 

Moderating a thread like this would be simple.  Remove all  posts that are NOT made by a BOD candidate, and then let the candidates have a no holds barred debate!

[NTX5467]

To me, the issue with "censorship" is that it CAN be a variable situation, dependent upon which side of the fence one might be on.  Forum Moderation might be censorship, if those posting don't "follow the rules", which might be tempered by the person doing the moderation or the person's post that was "moderated out of the postings".  Even "facts" can have different orientations, unless they are checked for accuracy (which is not always in the Moderator's capabilities).  Although some "facts" have been previously stated in these forums, in  prior postings or archived forum data.

 

Everybody has their own sensitivities on what might constitute "censorship".  That will never change.  YET, there are multiple ways to say the same thing, if desired.

 

Perhaps the Candidate Profiles could contain some standardized questions in addition to the "free form" statements they now tend to contain?

 

Willis Bell  20811

Edited March 30, 2019 by NTX5467
sp (see edit history)

[B Jake Moran]

I say NO.   No more topics related to BCA politics.  My only comments were rebuttals of Mr. Welch and were respectful.  It's human nature that when a person has something stated to them that they respond.  But it's not a good use of the forum right now.  

[B Jake Moran]

14 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

Peter, thanks for the question.  I suspect that at THIS point in time, much of what might be said already has been.  

 

What might be an option, would be to reinstate the "2019 BOD Candidates" thread, but in locked mode (no comments other than those already in there)?  This option might also diminish any ideas of "squelching of comments", by some, if that's a possibility.

 

I'll vote above,

Willis Bell  20811

I agree with Willis here.  This has actually been going on for 10 years, not the most recent cycle.  Nothing more to be said.  But if you do reopen that other thread, edit it fairly, and lock it then any BCA member that is not aware, which is doubtful, will see commentary that might help them.  

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

TOO LATE!    BALLOT IS IN THE MAIL.

 

  Ben

[Brian_Heil]

I have a larger question. 

 

Threads just disappear in the night.  No explanation given and often with numerours comments and discussion lost.  Since many of the threads ran for days or weeks with numerous comments, I have to assume a recent comment caused the entire post/thread to be lost.   At least I hope that is the reason and not someone pulling strings. 

 

Why is this the case that the entire thread is lost?

 

Why is no explanation given?

 

Why not remove just the offending comment?

 

Thank you. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Brian_Heil (see edit history)

[MrEarl]

Peter, firstly thank you for stepping up to moderate the BCA Forum in the apparent exodus of several moderators of late. And secondly thanks for posting this poll and giving the members a voice in the old question as to whether or not to allow this such discussion. And thirdly thanks for offering to moderate such discussion if it is the members ultimate choice. You like myself sometimes set yourself up for self imposed punishment and it is a task I would not wish on my worst enemy much less a friend.  As a past moderator I have had to consider and deal with the "political and club business discussion"  issue many times and while I have wavered with the answer to it in my own mind I have always came to the conclusion that the right and diplomatically best thing to do, (but by all means not the easiest thing for a mod) is to allow it under the guidelines I had always tried to make clear of and moderate by. 

So I am casting my vote as Yes (sorry buddy) and offering the following suggestions.

 

Post threads with links back to this thread across the BCA forum so that those who may not frequent the General forum are aware they are being given the opportunity and later can't say they "weren't informed". And believe me, sadly there are those in the PW, Rivi and Reatta forums who seldom stray from their specific forum.

 

This forum is a very small percentage of the entire BCA membership  and is in essence like preaching to the choir so I suggest opening  the discussion to ALL BCA members by asking the BCA office to send out an email to all members giving directions to accessing this site if they wish to view comments and possibly comment on the current BOD campaign.

 

In addition to the above, ask the BCA president to STRONGLY URGE all candidates to participate and restate their platform here for objective discussion.

 

Reinsert the candidates bios into the new thread

 

That you consider setting some guidelines in addition to the standard forum guidelines. I offer a thread on the subject that was started by few months ago for possible use in whole or in part.  https://forums.aaca.org/topic/314427-about-discussions-of-bca-club-businesspolitics/

 

I would offer to help in the moderating of such a thread but I have been wrongly accused of being one sided and attempting to suppress transparency and certain factions arguments so will decline, while you Peter on the other hand have no Buick in the race so should not be prone to such.

 

Again a big THANK YOU to you  in all your administrative duties you do here and the AACA for hosting our BCA forum.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by MrEarl (see edit history)

[Smartin]

People are going to vote for those who they already know...call it a glorified popularity contest?  That said, I do think most of the nominees have a common goal in mind.  I don't think it's going to help to start another thread.

[Matt Harwood]

I don't really know if I want to wade in here, but I did receive an E-mail recently where apparently one BCA member/board member/board candidate suggested that there were three candidates who were trying to "hijack" the board. I will admit that I have not paid much attention to the situation, which is perhaps a mistake on my part, but when it gets down to it, few of us join clubs for the political aspects. I am grateful for those who choose to serve and I understand the difficulties of trying to make all the people happy all the time (I have served on the local CCCA board for several years and was the director for a while as well--not the same as national, but not all that different, either).

 

Anyway, that E-mail got me thinking and paying attention. I received my recent Bugle and read each candidate's bio carefully, and since I didn't know who the "hijackers" were or even who sent me that E-mail, which I deleted, I didn't see any obvious agendas. Clearly there's something else going on.

 

With that in mind, can anyone summarize--perhaps without using names--what, exactly is going on? Can both sides be explained in a cool, calm way so that someone like me (and I presume a great majority of the BCA membership) can sort of understand what's going on?

 

That said, I see more people than I can vote for on the list of candidates who are friends, both those I know in person and through this message board, and they are all people I admire, respect, and trust. Just the same, for those people who are not personally acquainted with candidates, and maybe to help all of us better see what's going on that's causing so much friction, can someone present a succinct, careful, non-accusatory summary of the situation?

 

If not, I get it and I understand. But if it's important enough to make people resign and send secret message and delete threads and make angry comments, it's probably worth discussing like adults.

 

Thanks!

[SpecialEducation]

16 hours ago, John said:

Not allowing the discussion is censorship, and I'm disappointed the issue is being put up for a vote.   Those of you who don't want to contribute to or follow the discussion have the option to ignore it---why isn't that good enough?   

 

IMO the rules of the forum should be enforced consistently.  I see no need to single out this topic for censorship and heavy-handed moderating as long as opinions are being stated in a civil manner.

 

 

Yeah, so if I want a heavily UNMODERATED discussion, which do I choose?  I guess NO, because I’m inclined to think a heavily censored forum is worse than no form at all. 

 

IMO, Chuck’s posts were civil, constructive and contained NO personal attacks yet they were taken down. The only response was a list of 6,000 rules, and we were left to guess which rule was broken. 

 

If ANY post falls outside of the rules, TELL THE OP AND THE FORUM WHICH SPECIFIC RULE WAS BROKEN, and give the OP a chance to fix it. 

 

 

[MCHinson]

Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for. I personally think that transparency is the best policy in an organization although that might make it more work for the volunteer moderating staff here on the forum. I have to agree with both Ronnie's suggestion and MrEarl's suggestion. Both are two different versions that would allow a bit of transparency in a topic that is obviously of great interest based on the large number of emails that I have recently received on the subject. Ronnie's suggestion would probably take less time from the moderators, but either of them would be better than trying to prevent discussion of the topic. The good news is that the timeline for the entire discussion will be self limiting. It will soon be of no use as the ballots will have all be returned in the near future and we will then know who the members have chosen to lead the club into the future.  

[KongaMan]

Let's assume there's a contentious issue, and that two members take different sides on that issue and enter into a debate on the hypothetical thread.  Let's assume further that the folks who read this debate are persuaded to agree with one or the other.  Then what?  Without knowing where the candidates fall on the issue, how would you know how to vote?  If the candidates don't answer the question, how do you identify the candidate(s) with whom you agree?

 

Point being, while it's fine for the members to debate the issues, it's crucial for the candidates to participate.  If they don't respond to membership concerns now, why would you think they'd be responsive if elected?  If they don't feel they need to work to earn your vote, why should a voter have any confidence that they will work after they've received it?

[B Jake Moran]

6 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

I don't really know if I want to wade in here, but I did receive an E-mail recently where apparently one BCA member/board member/board candidate suggested that there were three candidates who were trying to "hijack" the board. I will admit that I have not paid much attention to the situation, which is perhaps a mistake on my part, but when it gets down to it, few of us join clubs for the political aspects. I am grateful for those who choose to serve and I understand the difficulties of trying to make all the people happy all the time (I have served on the local CCCA board for several years and was the director for a while as well--not the same as national, but not all that different, either).

 

Anyway, that E-mail got me thinking and paying attention. I received my recent Bugle and read each candidate's bio carefully, and since I didn't know who the "hijackers" were or even who sent me that E-mail, which I deleted, I didn't see any obvious agendas. Clearly there's something else going on.

 

With that in mind, can anyone summarize--perhaps without using names--what, exactly is going on? Can both sides be explained in a cool, calm way so that someone like me (and I presume a great majority of the BCA membership) can sort of understand what's going on?

 

That said, I see more people than I can vote for on the list of candidates who are friends, both those I know in person and through this message board, and they are all people I admire, respect, and trust. Just the same, for those people who are not personally acquainted with candidates, and maybe to help all of us better see what's going on that's causing so much friction, can someone present a succinct, careful, non-accusatory summary of the situation?

 

If not, I get it and I understand. But if it's important enough to make people resign and send secret message and delete threads and make angry comments, it's probably worth discussing like adults.

 

Thanks!

PM sent.  Not going to put it on here.  Jack Welch may want to send you the opposing viewpoint. 

[B Jake Moran]

KongaMan-

 

Alan Oldfield (President), Mike Book, and Bill Stoneberg are all members of this forum.  I don't know about Sidney Meyer.  I don't recall seeing Mr. Eichelberger on here nor Gordon.    One of our group Joe Suarez I do not believe is active on the forums.  I am always happy to answer questions and one of my respondents by email came with a membership number in the 500's and he countered everything I stated and I loved it!  I'm not always right for sure.  It was civil and I learned a lot.

 

But I don't think it's a good use of the forum.  Just read our profiles. 

[BUICK RACER]

Jake, you would be surprised who reads and never posts!

 

[Pete Phillips]

"With that in mind, can anyone summarize--perhaps without using names--what, exactly is going on? Can both sides be explained in a cool, calm way so that someone like me (and I presume a great majority of the BCA membership) can sort of understand what's going on?"

 

Since I am a writer, I will try to summarize:

I think the bad feelings began when the Driven Class (not judged to high standards, but a little more than just "display-only) cars were relegated to a remote parking lot that was walled off from the rest of the meet by a high fence at the South Bend, IN. national meet. This led to a feeling among Driven Class and non-judged car owners that they were being treated as unwanted step-children compared to the cars being judged in the 400-point classes. The awards banquet at the end of each national meet tends to reinforce that perception, with most of its emphasis being on trophies and awards. Pre-War cars, being harder to get parts for and tougher to keep in an original state--especially if you want to drive them on today's roads--tend to congregate in the Driven Class, the Modified Class, or the Display-only class, unless the owner is well-heeled enough to do a total restoration and bring the car to the meet in an enclosed trailer. There are exceptions, but that's the norm.

 

The bad feelings got worse when in subsequent national meets the Pre-War (and other) cars were separated from each other depending on what they had signed up for (400-point; Archival; Display-only;  Modified, or Driven Class), and at some meets there were assigned parking spaces for the entire meet, based on what type of judging or non-judging the car's owner had signed up for.

 

In the meantime, people got elected to the BCA Board who were and are quite stratified in the types of Buicks they focus on. We have some Board members who are only interested in Pre-WWII cars, and have little knowledge or interest in newer Buicks. Likewise, we have some Board members who are only interested in the later model Buicks and have little knowledge or interest in the older ones. This deepens the divide.

 

Add to that, a lack of financial reporting to the membership of the club for nearly three years, following the sudden death of our long-time club accountant, Joel Gauthier, and suspicions tend to build up about what is going on with the club's finances. This has recently been rectified, with the publication a few months ago of an annual financial report in the magazine, but it took nearly three years to do so and a lot of reputational damage was done in the meantime. In addition, an outside auditing firm has recently been hired, after a Board member made an issue out of the lack of audits and adequate financial reports for many years and the club's build-up of a large financial reserve, which, (from my perhaps uninformed point of view), the reasons for and size of the reserve were not adequately communicated to new Board members as they came onboard. When the reserve reached or got close to $700,000, one alarmed Board member reported the club to the IRS, out of fear that it would lose its non-profit status, and when he could not get a majority of the Board to acquiesce to his concerns. He also alleged wrong-doing by some, but that has not been proven and should not be brought up unless or until it is proven, and I doubt that it will be. Carelessness--maybe. Evil or bad intent--I sincerely doubt it.  This has made the divisions and bad feelings even worse.

 

At about the same time, the BCA Board majority removed the Director of the BCA's Pre-War Division due to concerns that the division's membership records were not being tracked and newsletters were not being distributed with regularity. The majority of the  Board then took the step of appointing another Pre-War Division Director, and this person at about the same time attacked the Board member who reported the club to the IRS, with a petition for his removal from the club. At the same time, the Pre-War Division held their own election and elected another member as their Director. So, now you had two competing directors for the same Division--one with a lot of "baggage" due to his very public attack on the Board member at a national meet and not having been elected by anybody other than the Board majority, and the other duly elected but by a somewhat questionable list of Pre-War Division members.

 

This brings us down to the current BCA Board election situation, in which there is a definite "us versus them"  group, as well as a couple of unaffiliated or perhaps uninformed Board candidates in the current group of eight candidates. Much like the national Republicans versus Democrats, each camp is making claims about the other that are probably more extreme than reality. For example, the establishment group (for lack of a better term) is not against Pre-War cars or non-judged cars as the challengers might have you believe; and the challengers (for lack of a better term) do not want to eliminate BCA judging (as the establishment group would have you believe), they just feel there is too much emphasis on it. So, that's where we are, and I will probably be attacked by one group or the other for what I have written above--so be it. I'm a 40-year BCA member who has had a lot of involvement with the club and that's my perspective, as fairly as I can write it.

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

[38Buick 80C]

Pete,

 

Edited March 31, 2019 by 38Buick 80C (see edit history)

[jscheib]

Well said, Pete.  I wish we could get your comments out to all members, not just those on the forum. So, I am challenging all members on the forum to get Pete's most logical explanation out to those that have not  yet voted.  I will probably write more on this, but this is Saturday evening.  Also, I hate to see various "groups" trying to sway votes by mailings only to certain members based on "suggestions as what will happen if they vote for certain people".  (We made to have our own Mueller investigation on illegal ballot influencing.) 

 

John

[B Jake Moran]

Pete's summary is spot on.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

[Matt Harwood]

Thank you, Pete, and others who took the time to send me a PM. I understand the situation much better and hope that the path forward is productive for the club. We're all here for the same reasons and everyone serving on the board is a volunteer, so hopefully it will be a fresh start. It sounds like the right things have been done to rectify the biggest complaints. Thank you for all the feedback and remember that we're all friends here with a common love for all things Buick.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

40 year member?  Were you still in diapers?

 

   Thanks for that explanation, my friend.  Perceptions can be terrible. Or not. Depending upon how things are perceived! 

 

  See everybody in OKC!

 

  Ben

[Dynaflash8]

I'm member #55, second member outside the state of California, and I've been an active member of AACA since 1962.  These things come and go in all the car clubs from time to time.  In the end, one side or the other's position will win out and, unlike the current USA government, the majority will move on.  I have my own personal likes and dislikes regarding the cars I like.  I noticed that I know one member, have met one other and have a longtime recollection of another.  But, I didn't vote based on those associations, except for two.  I got an opinion from somebody who is impeccable and close to the action than I am.  And I used what he told me 2 out of 3 times.  The "check" is in the mail.  In the end, after all, we're all like fleas on a dogs back.....................we go where the dog goes.

[Brian_Heil]

Thank you Pete. Well stated. 

 

Additional points on the PWD if I may. 

 

The PWD Interim Director appointed by the BOD, who did the attacking, was subsequently removed from his PWD position by the BOD.  I believe the BOD Minutes recording this action have yet to be posted. 

 

The PWD member who was elected PWD Director, chose to relinquish his position to make the PWD election a moot point, end any discussion on the election, who voted or who did not vote and revert the PWD Directorship back to Mr Shaw.  

 

The PWD has been working with the PWD Membership and the new BCA Office to improve the PWD membership roster.  Note this effort is not the Bugle PWD 2.0 article as that effort did not generate any shared information once that individual was removed by the BOD.