DISINFORMATION / JANUARY-2020 BUGLE

[1953mack]

For starters . . . there are numerous people on this Forum and within the BCA organization (do you want a list?) that don’t like me or my style of writing. Doesn't bother me one iota. My style is based on facts and information that were published in the BUGLE, BOD Meeting Minutes, Buick documents or admissions documented in an e-mail letter. Numerous people don’t like hearing the facts and have a problem admitting that they made a mistake. This Thread is based on the first and last sources noted above. The January-2020 BUGLE published false information. I’ve been accused of bashing people, a trouble-maker and many other names for telling the truth. This Thread is not bashing. This Thread is based on just the facts that the General Membership with short memories deserve to be reminded of.

 

January 24, 2020

 

To Pete:  Consider this as Part 2 of my “letter to the BUGLE editor” for the March-2020 issue. It is my understanding that the deadline is today, January 24. Part 1 addressing BOARD CANDIDATE QUESTIONS was posted on January 21 on this same BCA General Forum. You shouldn’t have any questions why I’m going this route and posting this on the Forum rather than sending you an e-mail. I’m asking that you acknowledge having seen and read this before the deadline and state herein if you disagree with any of the facts below.

 

……………………………..

 

To President John Steed,

 

The following picture is part of your message from the board that was published on Page 4 of the January-2020 BUGLE.

 

 

It’s a well-known fact that Rick Schick never served as Treasurer on the BCA’s BOD. Saying and publishing just the opposite is disinformation. More on this later.

 

Pete is always looking for interesting articles for the BUGLE. IMHO, a detailed article from you explaining to the General Membership what the duties and responsibilities are for the following titles/positions and how they differ from one another would be more than interesting and informative for all. Be specific with your answers.

 

-  appointed Assistant Treasurer (A first that I can recall in the 54-year history of the BCA. What dictated creating this title/position now?)

-  elected Treasurer

-  appointed Chief Financial Officer (A title/position that was “created” in July 2012 and “disappeared” in June 2019. The BCA had an appointed CFO thru 2021. What happened? I've always contended that this was nothing but a sham appointment to skirt the one-year hiatus requirement after serving two consecutive terms on the BOD.) 

-  combination non-elected Treasurer/appointed CFO (Bill Stoneberg’s title from July-2012 thru June-2018)

 

More questions:

(1)  Your first sentence in the above picture is vague. What positions do you consider as the “various critical positions” on the BOD?

(2)  What does it take for a member to be considered qualified for an appointed position? Does it help knowing someone on the BOD?

 

Back to Rick Schick . . .

-  Rick was elected to the BOD for the July-2015 thru June-2018 fiscal years.

-  In his July 24, 2018 e-mail to me, Rick admitted that he never served as a BCA Treasurer. Rick copied President Oldfield and Office Manager Mike Book at the time, the BCA Minnesota Fireball Chapter membership and many others in his e-mail.

-  In my May 22, 2019 e-mail sent to the BOD and Pete Phillips, I stated this same fact along with legality questions and concerns about the 2019 BCA Election candidates. John, you were on the BOD at that time. Do you acknowledge receiving and reading this e-mail? Pete acknowledged my e-mail saying that "he doesn't want to get involved."

-  After one of the most impressive bio/profiles (for a Treasurer’s position) that you will ever read in a BUGLE (April-2015, page 16), one needs to ask themselves why things went haywire during Rick's term on the BOD: financial statements were not published in the BUGLE, the parking issue at the Nationals was still an issue and the hot topic of an IRS audit came up. The incomplete financials were finally published in the August and September-2018 BUGLES. Check out the bottom lines too.   

-  Back up a couple of years. The BUGLE incorrectly listed Rick as Treasurer for his first of his three-year term, July 2015 thru June 2016.

-  The BUGLE correctly listed Rick as Director for his last two years on the BOD, July 2016 thru June 2018.

-  Rick did not seek re-election beyond June 30, 2018, yet eighteen months later, Rick was issued a free pass and appointed Assistant Treasurer.

 

As of today, the BCA's 6,000+ renewals is as low as it was in the mid-1980s. The BCA had ± 60% more members in 2003 without an Assistant Treasurer. Why do we need help with all the software that is available out there today? As of today, the BCA has an Office Manager, an Assistant Treasurer, Treasurer and CPA knocking their heads together and massaging the same numbers and even after the May-2019 auditor’s findings and recommendations, detailed financial statements coming from the CPA on the CPA's letterhead for those Nationals have yet to be published in the BUGLE.  John, be specific and let everyone know what the holdup is and why you can’t crack the whip and get your job done.  

 

The General Membership deserves knowing just the facts. Thanks.

………………………………

 

To all the readers on this Forum: should you decide to add to this Thread, let everyone know if you disagree with any of the facts stated above. 

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by 1953mack (see edit history)

[ted sweet]

what did i miss?

[BUICK RACER]

Assistant to any office is the Presidents option as other offices too. this was due to a situation with the current treasurer to advert any issues should the current treasurer become unavailable. SO as not to repeat what happened when Joel passed away. 

Want to help make the BCA great again run for an office for the BCA BOD, see info in the February 2020 Bugle.

[Mark Shaw]

Misinformation is one issue.  No information is another issue. 

As of 1/25/2020, the BCA Board Minutes were last posted on the BCA website five months ago on 9/18/2019.  

[ted sweet]

all this will do is drive more away

[Pete Phillips]

Mr. Malachowski,

Your letter will not be in the March issue of the Bugle because I just now saw this (Jan. 26th), and the deadline was two days ago. The March issue is already full and laid out. If you want to send me a letter to the Editor, you can use my contact information in the magazine and send it to me directly, not through a public website that I might happen to look at every 2-3 days. And, yes, since you asked, I disagree with one or two of your "facts".

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

 

[old-tank]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:18 AM, Mark Shaw said:

Misinformation is one issue.  No information is another issue. 

As of 1/25/2020, the BCA Board Minutes were last posted on the BCA website five months ago on 9/18/2019.  

Seems that you are no longer a BCA member....

[NTX5467]

WE (BCA members-of-record) elect the BOD to handle the organization's business.  As long as they do so within the stated bounds of the By-Laws, Policies and Procedures, etc., then they are doing their job.  Rather than use up valuable print space in the club magazine, or this forum, it might be best to directly address concerns directly to the BOD itself, first by LETTER and then possibly by participating in the BOD Conference Call (prepared for in advance, by all involved).

 

I highly suspect that many might have the orientation that being on the BCA BOD might be similar to being on their local car club BOD . . . which is not necessarily so.  I highly suspect the BOD's operation is somewhat more complicated than any local/regional car club.  

 

Any good BOD plans for the future, using their past experiences as a guide.  If any problems might have existed, finding ways to keep them from repeating is a very good orientation to have.  In what has been termed "Continuous Improvement".

 

BOD . . . Carry on, y'all.

Willis Bell  20811

[Jack Welch]

On 1/25/2020 at 11:18 AM, Mark Shaw said:

Misinformation is one issue.  No information is another issue. 

As of 1/25/2020, the BCA Board Minutes were last posted on the BCA website five months ago on 9/18/2019.  

Actually, it was the October minutes that were published last. They got out of order on the listing, but they are (and have been ) there. Sept is on top and Oct right under them 

[Mark Shaw]

19 hours ago, Jack Welch said:

Actually, it was the October minutes that were published last.

Jack,

    Thanks for the correction, but January is almost over.  Why does it take you three months to post the minutes when the last BCA Secretary did it in just over a week?

Edited January 27, 2020 by Mark Shaw (see edit history)

[old-tank]

14 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

20 hours ago, Jack Welch said:

Actually, it was the October minutes that were published last.

Jack,

    Thanks for the correction, but January is almost over.  Why does it take you three months to post the minutes when the last BCA Secretary did it in just over a week?

My question is:  Why are the minutes posted outside the members only area?  It might save Jack some time responding to non-members.

[Jack Welch]

16 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

Jack,

    Thanks for the correction, but January is almost over.  Why does it take you three months to post the minutes when the last BCA Secretary did it in just over a week?

I would guess, he was just a better Secretary than I am. Not that anyone ever appreciated his efforts at the time. The bottom line is that John D was one of the best Secretaries this club ever had, and we have had a lot of good ones. 

[Jack Welch]

2 minutes ago, old-tank said:

My question is:  Why are the minutes posted outside the members only area?  It might save Jack some time responding to non-members.

Thanks for the good thought. Actually, I am not sure why they are outside of the members only section , but the only questions I get about the minutes come from the Forum. BTW, I think the minutes for November and December should be up and posted on the Web today or tomorrow.

[old-tank]

18 minutes ago, Jack Welch said:

Actually, I am not sure why they are outside of the members only section

Ok, let's see if we can put them there (please).

[Dynaflash8]

I'm not sure I should say even one word here, but I've been in BCA since the beginning.  Why is any club information such as a treasurer's report or minutes of BOD  available to any person who is not a paid member?  Maybe I didn't understand what I thought I was reading.  But, if I read it correctly I don't think any non-member (behind in or  unpaid in dues) should see any internal club business.  If I read the discussion incorrectly I apologize for my butting in.  Earl Beauchamp BCA #55

[Terry Wiegand]

Al,

 

Where can a person get one of those caps?

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

[BUICK RACER]

Just to clear the air, there never was a BCA member only page until Cornerstone took over the office last year. The minutes have been posted on the web since way back when I was the webmaster. We don't think anyone really reads them anyway, LOL!

[old-tank]

Roberta I read the minutes so I can keep tabs on you 😉.  And at least one non-member does.

[Y-JobFan]

On 1/27/2020 at 10:32 PM, old-tank said:

Roberta I read the minutes so I can keep tabs on you 😉.  And at least one non-member does.

One of the problems of the BCA, there are as many former members known as non-members as there are members anymore.  

Edited January 29, 2020 by Y-JobFan (see edit history)

[B Jake Moran]

Al

The bottom line is that that group won a fair election and they don’t want to surround themselves with members who are not friends and loyalists.  They are not going to appoint members who do not share their philosophy about club direction and administration.  
 

Most don’t read or have forum sign in’s. It may be time to move on to groups and activities that make you happy. I can only take so much negativity.   The BCA may not be for everybody and even if you remain a member you can get out of it what you want.  
 

Don’t want to judge at a National?  Don’t. 
 

That group and direction won fair and square so they get to run the club the way they see fit. I don’t know of too many organizations that appoint people they aren’t familiar with.  They coordinated their support very well in the last election and have loyal blocks of votes in Minnesota, Chicago and New York.  It would be extremely difficult for different philosophies to gain majority on the BOD. I’m tired of the negativity. I’m worn out. So I’ve moved on.  
 

Just move on and enjoy your family, friends, cars and life!  

[Y-JobFan]

Your last statement just hit the nail on the head at why membership is struggling as I mentioned prior to you, members have gotten sick of the politics and games and have just moved on, the bleeding isn't going to stop anytime soon. 

 

[Dynaflash8]

On 1/29/2020 at 2:28 AM, Y-JobFan said:

One of the problems of the BCA, there are as many former members known as non-members as there are members anymore.  

Somebody who doesn't pay their dues and becomes a non-member has none of the rights that the paid member has.  And, that's the way it should be.

[avgwarhawk]

On 1/27/2020 at 8:41 PM, BUICK RACER said:

Just to clear the air, there never was a BCA member only page until Cornerstone took over the office last year. The minutes have been posted on the web since way back when I was the webmaster. We don't think anyone really reads them anyway, LOL!

 

You are correct.  I don't read the minutes nor really care honestly.  I read the monthly magazine and enjoy community here on the forums.  Certainly the articles concerning Buicks that are featured, tech tips and what's for sale is what interests me.  Much beyond that is wasted paper for me.  But besides all of that, I agree with Al, the general facts are great for those interested.    

[B Jake Moran]

3 hours ago, JBP said:

Out of interest, where does the "health" of the BCA membership stand in relation to other national/international clubs? Each issue of the Bugle carries a listing of newly joined members, but how has that been translating into active/sustaining membership numbers over the years, and how many memberships lapse and are not renewed each year? I'd be curious to know if current count is at a high or low, or maintaining, and what the count has been over the last number of years. 

 

JBP

I always found the topic you bring up quite interesting. Each issue of the Bugle you see usually a full page or so of new members.  Let's just say 75. 75 x 12 = 900 new members per year.   So, we lose more than this number each year, and have for the last several years.  I think when I joined in 1993 or so, we had 9500 members, and I believe that is the high water mark.  My numbers may be off, that is why I say "believe".   I believe the current membership is around 5800-6000.

 

The President's message is usually upbeat and informs the membership of positive changes, which is OK.  But we seldom see statistical analysis.  All BOD candidate profiles state that membership growth and retention is job 1.  If you have a net loss every year when 750 - 1000 new members are added, I would want to know what is going on.  We are left to speculate.  Age is certainly the number 1 reason.  Members pass away, and if the BCA could (not sure it's legal) take a demographics survey it would inform stakeholders like the BOD what is going on.  

 

Are the newer members younger?  What defines young?  The hobby is expensive, typically, so it's usually empty nesters who want a car they could not justify earlier. There are fewer and fewer grease monkeys out there, most collectors buy nice cars.  Still, I believe newer members drop the average age of the club by at least 10 years, as a statistical average (mean).  

 

So, for me, the deduction from the fact that the club ADDS 750-1000 members annually YET drops in over all membership numbers, as has been the case for at least 20 years - is that the club is losing hundreds of these new members each year because they do not see the value in signing up for year 2.  They pay $50, or $45, and then in my opinion - they wait for an aha moment when the club makes owning their Buick more fun.  The Bugle is NOT enough for these new members!

 

When I joined in 1993 in Houston, Texas, Cecil Miles was my BCA mentor.  We had picnics, we met at his house and I went from being a member with no contacts to meeting with local BCA members with their cool old Buicks.   That was the exception, not the rule.   These new members need almost immediate hand holding (for lack of a better metaphor) from the closest chapters and regions. 

 

I am in the chapter area for the Hawkeye Chapter but they have never reached out to me.   2 years ago I simultaneously joined the BCA and the Cadillac LaSalle Club (CLC)   The CLC sent me a newsletter and reached out to me without me asking.  I joined in on several of their chapter events, including one joint meet with the BCA chapter!  They weren't interested in my chapter membership. 

 

One of my primary BOD running reasons was that for years the BCA had no Regions and Chapter Coordinator.  I even volunteered for this position when I was "just a member" and got interviewed by Brian Clark on behalf of Alan Oldfield, and Brian said "you know, if we think you would be good at this position, you have to get the blessing of Mike Book."  After that, crickets. 

 

And here we are - committees looking into membership retention and "growing" the club when it is all so simple - we lost thousands of members in the last 10 years because we had no Chapter and Regional Membership Coordinator.  Now, magically, we do, but I am not sure what is happening.   There should be a huge sense of urgency regarding a National, Regional and Chapter reach out to all of these new members in any particular year.  Then compare that to the number of members that pass away, do not renew due to advanced age, or simply lose interest in the club and drop out.   What is the retention percentage?  Anybody in the BOD know?

 

We are to understand that many members only are members because of the Bugle.  "Don't touch the Bugle!" we often hear.  But the Bugle is obviously NOT the reason NEW members join.

 

As for the "Don't Touch the Bugle" crowd - many of these members are non active - older who no longer own cars.  The club needs their revenue to maintain solvency, but they lack the enthusiasm that new members provide - new members who could fill judge's roles at meets, new members that could take on volunteer roles with no knowledge of the recent politics.  

 

But the old guard which manages many of the chapters does not appear - based on the attrition of these new members - to embrace new members.   You can say I don't know what I am talking about - but without leadership insight - we only have the numbers you inquired about.  No one apparently has done a deep dive into what these numbers and the decline in membership numbers - is telling club management. 

 

Using modern computer tools, a person could do a query and put in all of the membership numbers.  You could see, of the 6000 members how many have a membership number in the last 5000 numbers issued?   Are there gaps?  Of the last 5000 membership numbers issued, how many are still active members?   Cornerstone could do this and provide a report with meaning in about a month.

 

If the report showed that of the last 5000 membership numbers, only 1500 remain active, then that is 3500 lost opportunities or $175,000 in lost club revenue (national).   3500 Buick owners that look elsewhere for comradery.   AACA?  Local clubs that cater to informal get togethers.  You need to ASK these members why they left and LEARN from the answers.

 

Since the membership continues to decline, despite adding 750 - 1000 new members annually, to a hobby club - the only possibility is that the new member does not feel the cost of membership adds to their hobby interest and enjoyment experience.  Examination of the root cause behind this fact - will provide your answer. 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by B Jake Moran (see edit history)

[Pete Phillips]

I dont' have access to all of the information that the BCA Office or the BCA Board have, but having been the Bugle Editor for 14 years and having been a BCA member for 43 years, I can give you a pretty well-educated guess as to what is happening with BCA membership numbers. Yes, our membership numbers are in decline, like just about every other antique car club and similar organizations. Sure, we get dozens of new members every month, but the numbers who cancel or do not renew are greater than the monthly or annual number of new members. It's due to old age, people! Period! 

Look around at a BCA national meet. The vast majority of the attendees are over 65, many of them way over 65. Old people get sick; they become disabled; they go to nursing homes; they die. When I became the Editor in December 2005, there were rarely any death notices in the Bugle, and membership was close to 10,000. Now, I get phone calls from widows almost every month saying they want to stop the subscription due to their husband's passing (I take the information, but I don't maintain the mailing list--the BCA Office does that). 

Several years ago, I noticed that someone I knew in the BCA seemed to die nearly every month. Now, it's almost every week that I know someone in the club who died (four already this month of January). So, it's not primarily members cancelling their memberships due to lack of interest or not getting enough out of the club, or something like that. Some of them cancel because they sold their Buick. I know I'm a member of seven different antique car clubs, but when I sell my Rambler or my Hudson, I will probably cancel those subscriptions because I'm not as heavily involved in those clubs as I am in the BCA, and I rarely have time to read seven different magazines each month. But the vast majority cancel because they die or become disabled. And that's going to continue and it's going to increase, but there will always be a core group of members to keep the club going--that's my opinion for what it's worth.

Pete Phillips

Edited January 31, 2020 by Pete Phillips (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

For a data reference.

 

The BCA has been in existence for just over 50 years. 

 

If you join the BCA today, your BCA number would be over 50,000.

 

We currently have just over 6,000 members.

[8E45E]

10 hours ago, Pete Phillips said:

I dont' have access to all of the information that the BCA Office or the BCA Board have, but having been the Bugle Editor for 14 years and having been a BCA member for 43 years, I can give you a pretty well-educated guess as to what is happening with BCA membership numbers. Yes, our membership numbers are in decline, like just about every other antique car club and similar organizations. Sure, we get dozens of new members every month, but the numbers who cancel or do not renew are greater than the monthly or annual number of new members. It's due to old age, people! Period! 

Look around at a BCA national meet. The vast majority of the attendees are over 65, many of them way over 65. Old people get sick; they become disabled; they go to nursing homes; they die. When I became the Editor in December 2005, there were rarely any death notices in the Bugle, and membership was close to 10,000. Now, I get phone calls from widows almost every month saying they want to stop the subscription due to their husband's passing (I take the information, but I don't maintain the mailing list--the BCA Office does that). 

Several years ago, I noticed that someone I knew in the BCA seemed to die nearly every month. Now, it's almost every week that I know someone in the club who died (four already this month of January). So, it's not primarily members cancelling their memberships due to lack of interest or not getting enough out of the club, or something like that. Some of them cancel because they sold their Buick. I know I'm a member of seven different antique car clubs, but when I sell my Rambler or my Hudson, I will probably cancel those subscriptions because I'm not as heavily involved in those clubs as I am in the BCA, and I rarely have time to read seven different magazines each month. But the vast majority cancel because they die or become disabled. And that's going to continue and it's going to increase, but there will always be a core group of members to keep the club going--that's my opinion for what it's worth.

Pete Phillips

From what I read here, the BCA is going the way of some of the Independent marque clubs which have not made a vehicle in over 50 years.  This should NOT be the case as Buick is one of the few surviving marques into the second decade of the 21st Century.  If Buick made anything that had the ability to draw a younger person to their products and become enthusiastic over them as Subaru has, the BCA would start attracting younger members.  I have to admit, Buick hasn't really made anything exciting to me for over 20 years or more.

 

Craig 

[Smartin]

The Regal GS was a pretty hot car.  My wife had one for 2 years until we moved to the sticks...and then we traded it for a small SUV.  There is a very large following of those cars.

[Brian_Heil]

Appointing 'Associate' BOD help is one thing.  All for it.

 

Giving these 'Appointees' a BOD vote such that those giving these 'Associates' a position and vote to further their cause and create a majority that can't be overturned is a significant issue in my mind.

 

It's a slap in the face to those of us who do vote.  Democracy?  Ha!  Help membership?  I think not.  You lead from the top.

 

It's a personal slap in the face to me, as I know first hand, the caliber and character of the men and women who made up the Buick Motor Division where I hired in and worked 39+ years.

 

It would have never have been tolerated.

 

'Good manners and character never take a day off.'  To quote my Mother.

 

Shame on the BODrs who have been doing this.  And thank you to those who have not and continue to sit through meetings and discussions where the outcome was determined before the meeting even started.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by Brian_Heil (see edit history)

[Jack Welch]

18 hours ago, Brian_Heil said:

Appointing 'Associate' BOD help is one thing.  All for it.

 

Giving these 'Appointees' a BOD vote such that those giving these 'Associates' a position and vote to further their cause and create a majority that can't be overturned is a significant issue in my mind.

 

It's a slap in the face to those of us who do vote.  Democracy?  Ha!  Help membership?  I think not.  You lead from the top.

 

It's a personal slap in the face to me, as I know first hand, the caliber and character of the men and women who made up the Buick Motor Division where I hired in and worked 39+ years.

 

It would have never have been tolerated.

 

'Good manners and character never take a day off.'  To quote my Mother.

 

Shame on the BODrs who have been doing this.  And thank you to those who have not and continue to sit through meetings and discussions where the outcome was determined before the meeting even started.

 

 

 

 

Brian : Beating up on management with out ascertaining all the facts would also never have been tolerated, No one outside of the BOD voles on any issue. 

 

[Brian_Heil]

1 hour ago, Jack Welch said:

Brian : Beating up on management with out ascertaining all the facts would also never have been tolerated, No one outside of the BOD voles on any issue. 

 

Jack

 

Please check your facts as well. Non elected individuals have been given BOD voting rights.  Call these associates what ever you wish but they were not elected to the BOD. 

[Jack Welch]

3 hours ago, Brian_Heil said:

Jack

 

Please check your facts as well. Non elected individuals have been given BOD voting rights.  Call these associates what ever you wish but they were not elected to the BOD. 

Brian: Since  I am the guy that writes the minutes, I can say that no non elected BOD members are voting on BOD business. The list of motions and voting record as shown in the minutes , since the BOD was elected clearly shows who has voted and what their vote was. I am totally confused as to how anyone could say different. An Assistant  treasures was appointed, but that individual does not participate in voting and has not participated in BOD business. President Steed has felt that a back up position should be in place as an insurance policy, for key positions . The key BOD members are President. (automatically backed up by a Vice President)  & Treasurer  (now backed up by an Assistant Treasurer) . The Assistant Treasurer is a non voting position. not sure where the confusion comes from. 

[Brian_Heil]

Jack

 

There was a CFO and Chief Judge voting.  It’s in the minutes.  Matter of record. Perhaps not the Minutes you wrote or the Meetings you attended.  But there it is.  
 

These positions disappeared when the IRS and Audit came around.  Funny how that happens isn’t it?  Poof.  Gone.  A good thing in my opinion.  Makes you wonder doesn’t it?   Makes me wonder.  

 

My reason for my bringing this issue up is discussion was heard of entering into these type of positions again and I want the membership to be aware of that and decide for themselves if they think that is wise for the good of the BCA.  If the actions taken by those who ‘voted by appointment’ & unelected  and those who voted with them were in the best interest of the club. 
 

You know my opinion on the matter.  Now those thinking about doing this again know we’re all not asleep but paying attention. 
 

Before MLK made it famous, my Mother had another saying. ‘It’s always the right time to do the right thing.’

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Brian_Heil (see edit history)

[38Buick 80C]

 

The office manager never had a vote (though great influence). The CFO did have a vote, but only on financial matters and the chief judge only on judging matters. Both of their rights to vote were passed by the BOD after correct posting in the Budge of the potential change in SOP and only after NO significant feedback received from the membership on either.

 

So technically your BOTH wrong... regardless this is going nowhere AGAIN... How 'bout we quit bitching at each other and go enjoy some Buick...life's too short. This dead horse is quite beaten already... time to move on...

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

1 hour ago, 38Buick 80C said:

 

The office manager never had a vote (though great influence). The CFO did have a vote, but only on financial matters and the chief judge only on judging matters. Both of their rights to vote were passed by the BOD after correct posting in the Budge of the potential change in SOP and only after NO significant feedback received from the membership on either.

 

So technically your BOTH wrong... regardless this is going nowhere AGAIN... How 'bout we quit bitching at each other and go enjoy some Buick...life's too short. This dead horse is quite beaten already... time to move on...

 

 Good on you, Brian.  Thanks.

 

  Ben

[Brian_Heil]

I have corrected my error of the office manager having a vote.  Him being on the voting ballot but not voting caused my error. 

[1953mack]

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 10:18 AM, Pete Phillips said:

Mr. Malachowski,  (Thanks, but you can call me Al)

Your letter will not be in the March issue of the Bugle because I just now saw this (Jan. 26th), and the deadline was two days ago. The March issue is already full and laid out. If you want to send me a letter to the Editor, you can use my contact information in the magazine and send it to me directly, not through a public website that I might happen to look at every 2-3 days. And, yes, since you asked, I disagree with one or two of your "facts".

Pete Phillips, BCA #7338

 

 

To all readers:

Some things are worth repeating . . . this is one of them. I have a short fuse when it comes to self-anointed experts, liars, B.S. artists, those who want to bend the rules in their favor and those who have a hard time admitting that they made a mistake. I don't have a problem acknowledging that I made a mistake or two once I know what they are. I learn from my own mistakes but I can't learn from them if I don't know what they are. I don't apologize for stating the facts or telling the truth. 

 

To Pete,

 I’m asking you to confirm herein . . .  

(1) What is your intention on publishing my two-part “letter to the BUGLE editor” (Board Candidate Questions and DISINFORMATION / JANUARY-2020 BUGLE) in a BUGLE, and

(2) What are and why do you "disagree with one or two of my facts?" 

 

Be specific with your answers so everyone has a clear understanding. I will respond to your answers along with commenting on your second post on this Thread . . . reasons for not renewing a BCA membership . . . at the same time.

Thanks.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

“500 Miles West of Flint”

Edited February 2, 2020 by 1953mack (see edit history)

[B Jake Moran]

6 hours ago, 1953mack said:

 

To all readers:

Some things are worth repeating . . . this is one of them. I have a short fuse when it comes to self-anointed experts, liars, B.S. artists, those who want to bend the rules in their favor and those who have a hard time admitting that they made a mistake. I don't have a problem acknowledging that I made a mistake or two once I know what they are. I learn from my own mistakes but I can't learn from them if I don't know what they are. I don't apologize for stating the facts or telling the truth. 

 

To Pete,

 I’m asking you to confirm herein . . .  

(1) What is your intention on publishing my two-part “letter to the BUGLE editor” (Board Candidate Questions and DISINFORMATION / JANUARY-2020 BUGLE) in a BUGLE, and

(2) What are and why do you "disagree with one or two of my facts?" 

 

Be specific with your answers so everyone has a clear understanding. I will respond to your answers along with commenting on your second post on this Thread . . . reasons for not renewing a BCA membership . . . at the same time.

Thanks.

 

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

“500 Miles West of Flint”

 

Why Al?

 

Pete does not have to respond to you on this forum. It serves no point.  He should respond to you privately after consultation with his bosses, the BOD.  I don't believe we need any politically divisive editorials in the Bugle. Bill Stoneberg, Mike Book and Syd Meyer won.  As far as I can see - most votes are 8-1 or 9-0 on the BOD.   They are all working on the business of club management the best they can.  

 

Enjoy your Buick(s), enjoy your chapter events and get togethers with other Buick owners.