Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The Ballot

Recommended Posts

Guest

THE FOLLOWING WAS COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD. THAT THREAD WAS ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT AND THESE TWO POSTS WERE UNRELATED TO THAT THREAD

tugboatannie

Unregistered

Re: THANK YOU [re: HVS JR]

11/25/02 01:20 PM Edit Reply

HVS Jr.

How wonderful to have you back on the forum to point out errors and significant problems that we all (including you and I) have. Indeed, your input has been missed! Now what I would like to know is: How can a handful of the "good old boys" NOT pass a resolution on AACA voting procedure that several hundred members of AACA felt was needed? Needless to say, my votes this year will in the garbage - the only time the "good old boys" want general member's ideas and help is when it benefits THEM!!

Welcome back - keep us all honest!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The following was my response to the post from tugboatannie.

Thank you Annie ~ That several hundred members who petitioned the board for ballot reform actually was somewhat in excess of 900. And like you I cannot understand how they could ignore the wishes of so many concerned members. AACA is the only MAJOR automotive hobby club that requires that its members vote for an exact number of names, no more and no fewer. Like you say, they have put something else _________ [you can all fill in that blank] above the best interests and wishes of the membership. Why don't they just give us a seven [7] name ballot with the requirement that we vote for exactly seven [7]. It's getting close to that. They used to give us eleven [11] names to select from, but now it is down to nine [9]. Can seven [7] be far behind?

It is too bad that the names of the Directors who voted both for and against the change cannot be made public. That way we could begin to vote for those who supported the change and withhold our votes from those who opposed the wishes of the membership.

Like you, I have already consigned my ballots to the trash, as are all of the ballots of the members of my extended family. This was a difficult decision to make, since in my 40 years in the AACA I have always voted. Over the years I voted for a few people I did not want to vote for just to have my ballot counted. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN

This year there are five [5] Directors names on the ballot who are a credit to AACA and have, over their terms of office, consistently worked for the good of the membership. Then there are the other four [4] from which I must choose two [2], in order to make my ballot valid. I studied the entire slate and after careful consideration and soul searching, selected the only viable option. THE TRASH CAN!

Sorry, you five [5] good people, but as much as I wanted to vote for you I could not bring myself to vote for two others for whom I have no respect.

hvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for moving this part of the old thread back to the general forum - perhaps we can see how others feel regarding "the ballot" and its consequences. It is a shame that I for one had to previously select directors by 1)did I know the individual (most likely NOT), 2) location, 3) gender, 4)what type cars do they own - at best, hit and miss?? Question: is the number of returned and counted ballots ever made known to the general membership? I do believe CHANGE is needed in some of AACA's OLD ways - I know the saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it" but one day AACA will see the light and have trouble finding people interested in old cars! That in itself is another subject for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, the number of ballots returned is announced at the annual Meeting in Philadelphia, at least it was when I was serving on the Board. I stopped going to Philly in 1998, so I cannot say for sure that it is still done. The report went something like this. 8100 ballots received, 100 spoiled ballots, net valid ballots 8000. The term spoiled ballots referred to those with either more or fewer than seven [7] names checked. I do not feel the membership was ever kept in the dark about those numbers.

What bothers me and many others is not the number of ballots determined to be valid, but the fact that we must vote for exactly seven [7] names to have our ballots counted as valid.

I think that the majority of AACA members use the same criteria as you do to select their seven [7] names. The problem arises when through years of activity in the AACA one comes to know more about the candidates and their performance as directors.

It probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans who gets elected so long as the nominations committees do their job and select the best possible candidates, and refuse to renominate unworthy incumbents. Unfortunately, it doesn't always seem to work out that way. frown.gif

hvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Howard about marking 7 blocks, or the ballot isn't counted. I'm like steamboat or most people I would imagine, in not knowing very many of the people on the ballot. I guess that's one reason I want to go to Philly next year, to meet these people. I'm like you, Howard, in wondering what difference it would make whether the ballot is completely filled out on not. Of course, I don't know a thing about politics or the AACA operation for that matter. Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks, Howard, for the info re: reporting of AACA voting. I guess I had never asked that question - I'm glad to hear that it is reported at the Annual Meeting in Philly. Still feel that the "ballot" petition would have benefited AACA - hope you and others who feel the same way will continue to pursue the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

annie ~ Pursuing something that the Board does not want to see happen, no matter how many members want it, can be an exercise in futility.

Remember, these are the same folks who created Class 37 to bring the Hot Rods into the AACA. There was no 900+ member clamor for a class for Hot Rods, rather a desire on the part of some members of the Board and some of their friends to bring in the Rods.

Right now there seems to be a ground swell of resentment against this action, with a few Regions even threatening to leave the AACA because of it. I have an e-mail in my file attesting to that fact. There are a number of judges, including one AACA Past President [not me] who have publicly stated that they will withdraw from judging when the first Hot Rod shows up on the field.

Some members of our Board do not seem to recognize that they should serve the members before they serve themselves, but isn't politics always like that?

I regret that this thread necessarily paints the entire Board with a single brush, but so long as we are kept in the dark that is how it will be. There are good, selfless men and women on the Board, but unfortunately they are tainted by the self serving.

hvs frown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard, re."kept in the dark". Such a true statement. Not wanting to start the "hot rod" thing again, if more was known about and discussed about this class before it was pushed through, there wouldn't be so much bitterness over this class. That's a shame, because I think the class will be a historical addition to the AACA, right beside the race car class. You should have seen the interest in that class (race cars) at Hershey this year. Very interesting cars, very interesting people. Example; the Bounty Hunter dragster sitting in line with the original driver leaning against the fence. Both driver and car aging very nicely, Thank you very much! Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wayne ~ As I said repeatedly last summer, it isn't so much the Hot Rods that concern me, it is the manner in which this entire issue was railroaded through.

I'm not a Rod person, but certainly many are. So where are the petitions from 900+ AACA members asking that Hot Rods be given a judging class in the AACA system?

We ballot reformers spent two[2] years in an effort to reform the ballot procedures and the Board went so far as to appoint a committee to study the issue. The committee worked for five [5] months and made a recommendation to the Board to reform the ballot. What happened? In the face of this difinitive study a group of special interests defeated it. A majority of the Board voted for the reform, bit since it was a by-law ammendment it required a 2/3 majority vote to pass. So a minority of the Board defied the wishes of the members and the majority of the Board.

Now my question is this. Did the Board appoint a study committee on the Hot Rod issue. NO! A group of Directors railroaded this thing through without even telling all Board members in advance that they planned to introduce the motion. I also believe that a lot of facts were omitted or distorted at the time the Board was asked to vote on the issue.

So we are back to, rush through what <span style="font-weight: bold">WE</span> want but ignore what the members want. Wouldn't you just love to know who voted how on these issues.

What does it matter, with the current ballot system we could never get rid of the special interests even if we knew who they were.

hvs frown.gif

Gee. I hope they don't put out a contract on me. shocked.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to take exception with some of the above comments.

First - the "Good old boys" are not the same "Good old boys" when Howard and I were the "Good old boys" and complained at that time about the "Good old boys"! The current average time of service on the board by National Directors is somewhere around five years - so much for "Good old boys".

Second - There was a committee appointed to review the so-called Hot Rod issue. They worked on the issue for over two years before it was presented to the board. Yes I have heard the claim that there was supposed to be secrecy so they could "spring" the issue on the board and catch them by surprise. Sally (Mrs. Ronbarn) was on the Judging Committee at that time and swears that no such statements were made. That committee reviewed the results of the Hot Rod Committee, decided to recommend approval and the Board subsequently approved addition of the class - ON A PROBATIONARY BASIS FOR TWO YEARS.

I emphatically deny any potential accusation that the above statements imply that I favor the decision of the Board on either the Hot Rod or Voting issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ron ~ Just a couple of points. I do not believe I ever used the term "Good old boys" anywhere on this thread. I cannot tell whether that statement was directed at me or not. We were old and certainly boys, but good; I don't know.

As for the committee appointed to study the Hot Rods. Was this a separate committee especially appointed by the AACA President to study only that one issue as was done with the ballot reform issue? Or was it assigned to the existing judging committee for study. To me there is a big difference. The ballot study committee was composed of five people, three Board members and two past presidents no longer on the board. At the outset, if the committee had a predisposition to anything it was not to favor the change. Five months of study convinced the committee that the change would be a positive step and that was their recommendation.

In the case of the Judging Committee, it is my understanding that the move to accept Hot Rods was put forth by the leadership of that committee at the behest of a relatively few number of AACA members.

Last summer when the committee voted to accept the Hot Rods I was informed by a member of the committee that they had been told to keep this within the committee. I'm sure different members of the committee interpreted that instruction in different ways, or never heard that suggestion. I know for a fact, as do you, that certain Directors were kept in the dark and would have known nothing of the plan had it not surfaced here on the forun the weekend before the board meeting where the motion was introduced. Another committee member overheard a committee leader say that there was no need to discuss it with anyone else because they already had the votes to pass it. That is why I refer to it as a railroad job. When you go in with sufficient votes already committed to vote for the issue, and you do not give any advance notice to Directors who might oppose the idea, you are hiding something you do not want discovered. "Never let the opposition have time to prepare a counter arguement."

This is what I am concerned about, not the admission of Hot Rods. I brought up this issue to throw light on the workings within the Board, and not to discuss Hot Rods pro or con.

Contrary to what some of you might think, my sole desire is to make the Board more accountable to the membership. I have no personal stake in this thing, whatsoever. If you doubt that, go back to the beginning of this thread. Take note of the fact that I did not bring up this issue. I answered a question directed specifically to me.

hvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard. There are other members wondering about the voting processes of the AACA. While checking a local region's AACA net site, I came across the Eastern Shore Region's net site listed on our AACA home page. In going through their site, a gentleman posted that he was very upset over the new "hot rod" class being "pushed" through the club. He said he'd like to know the viewpoints of all candidates for office before, he voted for anybody! Seems like a lot of members want the national officer candidates of the AACA to follow guidelines similar to our country's election process. Just something for thought. Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

HVS, correct once again. I asked the question re: voting and brought up the "good old boys". I did not mean to insult or degrade any former or present AACA officer - they give willingly of a lot of time and effort. By" good old boys" I meant the group of AACA officers (sometimes they make good decisions - other times not so good)that run the SHOW. I have always wondered how a handful of people (officers - board of directors) make these changes so easily without considering the feelings of many of their members.

Good to hear your ideas and thoughts, Ron. I feel Replica cars and/or Hot rods have no business in AACA or any activities - but then again, how else do we interest the "younger" generation? I think these forums are good to disseminate information to the general membership. I have learned a lot re: voting just by asking my initial question of Howard. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tugboatannie, I don't think the Documented Historical Hot Rod class will attract any "younger" members. Not unless you think peopel that have hit 50 years of age are the kids of AACA. The Historical Hot Rod class is no threat to AACA, I'm more than willing to bet money you don't see more that 12 cars TOTAL in this class in all of the 2003 National Meets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Point taken - any guesses on the average age of AACA members - I bet most of us remember the 50"s well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard, I did not say that you ever used the GOB phrase. I did say that there was a post on this thread that used the GOB phrase. I make a comment to the effect that the GOB phrase is meaningless.

I do have a problem with the logic expressed on this thread. The club is run by the GOB. The Directors are quick to make decisions without consideration of the desires of the members. There are some members who think that the Hot Rods, and who knows what else will come down the line, therefore any favorable consideration of a motion to allow this class means that the needs of all of the AACA membership was not considered. A committee was appointed to consider the Hot Rod issue, but since it was not appointed by the President, it is not a valid committee. They (the AACA Board) capriciously ignored the desires of the membership with the ballot decision. Thus since the Board does not seem to be doing anything right, then it is most appropriate to trash the ballot instead of voting for the few that are trusted, even if only five are known and trusted, the ballot is trashed. The last time I checked my math books, five to two is still a majority.

I did not agree with everything the AACA Board did when I was on the AACA Board. I do not agree with everthing they have done since, But I do agree with most of what they did and are doing and will not trash my responsibility as a member to vote even if I would prefer to have voted for less than seven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ron ~ You are free to vote your ballot as you see fit. I claim the same freedom, which includes NOT voting at all. I just refuse to vote for two people I don't want in order to have my votes for the five I do want counted. I feel it is better to withhold my ballot even if it costs five good people my vote [the good ones really can get along without my vote] than to vote for someone I do not want to be elected. Of course we never know by how many votes a person was elected, but I would hate like the devil to think my vote elected one of the people I don't want to be elected. And the ten or more votes in my extended family, COULD elect someone.

If criticizing the leadership is some kind of a disloyal act, then we are in a sad state. My criticism is meant to get people to think and possibly to even make the leadership aware of a need to communicate more effectively with the membership.

And as far as the ballot reform issue is concerned, I, and many others, do not appreciate a minority of the Board members thwarting the hopes and desires of so many Club members. Over 900 that we know of.

The Hot Rods themselves are not the issue here. It is the way it has been handled.

A final point. You previously mentioned a TWO YEAR TRIAL PERIOD. That is the first time I can recall that arguement being put forward by anybody. In all of my discussions with various Directors and Judging Committee members, no one has ever said it's only for a TWO YEAR TRIAL PERIOD to me. They have said they will be for exhibition only in 2003 and judged in 2004. They have also said they are for exhibition only now and we will consider judging later. They have also said they are for exhibition only and will NEVER be judged. One wonders if they know what they voted for.

Since when do we assign a sequential judging class number to a group of vehicles that will not be judged? [exhibition only] or [trial period] HPOF vehicles are in the HPOF class. DPC vehicles are in the Driver Participation Class. Why are the Hot Rods in Class 37 and not Historic Hot Rod Exhibition class? Inquiring minds want to know.

hvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all seem to be taking this new "hot rod" class so lightly. Don't you see that by adding this class you now have condemned yet thousands more surviving antique autos to meet their end and become hot rods? Up till now, just about the only arguement that any of us had who have been trying to slow down this horrendous carnage was that the major clubs, who were dedicated to PRESERVATION did not condone this practice. Now that last arguement is taken away from us. Exactly how do you folks recommend any of us approach our pleas to preserve these cars. The fact is, any "hot rod" constructed today is not and never will be an historic artifact. It is a facsimilie of a unique practice dating from the 1940s and 50s. Hot rodders today are simply removing precious American antiques forever from the surviving pool. I understand that the antique grammophone club, encouraged by the AACA action, now sanctions the removal of the original wind-up motors and installation of CD players inside. They will get more younger members that way, and the music sounds oh-so much better. Also antique dealers across the country are chopping up Chippendale hutches to make them into entertainment centers.

-----Editor, Dodge Brothers Club News

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB-Ed,

I think you misunderstand the class. If I remember correctly (always a challenge) this is for "Historic Hot Rods". These would be ones that were built in the 50's and 60's not new ones. They also must be documented old ones, not just any old Hot rod.

In cases like this the AACA is trying to preserve these old ones not make new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but doesn't this class have a sliding "25 years and older" provision as well? Meaning today's lost antiques will be tomorrow's 25-year old "antique hot rods?" Actually I must confess ignorance of first-hand knowledge of this class as all Ihave heard are frantic and hysterical cries from our own club members and others I know. Also, by the way, is anyone aware of VMCCA's attempt at this about five years ago and (so I am told) the near destruction of that club as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB-ed, Before you get this all blown out of proportion we need to step back and explain how class 24 (Race Vehicles)works. To show a restored race vehicle in AACA National Meets you must have it certified long before you start the restoration. A commetiee of VERY knowledgeable people trace the lineage of the vehicle back to the year of competition. You have to prove the car looked the way you restore it the day it raced in the year of competition. The Historic Hot Rod Class is the same thing. If you are lucky enough to have a car that graced the pages of Hot Rod Magazine in let's say 1955 them it better look just like that, right down to the last acorn nut. If you deside to build a clone of that car this year, that is exactly what you have, A COPY, A FAKE. The fellow with the AACA Certified car has the real deal. With the yearly flood of new 25 year old "Antiques", I can't see a handfull of Certified Hot Rods being any problem at all. If nobody likes them why is the croud 3-4 deep around them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 1937hd45, how do we explain all that to the knuckle dragger in mid-life crisis who sees these hot rods sanctioned at Hershey or local AACA shows and decides he wants to build one of them for himself.

And how about the sliding 25 year scale? Will it apply for hot rods or not? In which case we will be sanctioning cars that appeared on the 2003 cover in 25 years? One of which could be the 1928 Dodge Hershey First Senior coupe from the 1970s that was most recently hacked into a hot rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your political party affiliation is showing. Once you start name calling the discussion ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone kindly forwarded a copy of the actual AACA classification definition. In this we read

"Documentation will be required to establish that the vehicle was originally modified at least 25 years prior to the date of application to participate in Class. The vehicle must appear as it did during the time period"

Hence, as I said yesterday, the hot rod you see on the magazine covers today, the FAKE, etc that 1937hd45 clearly and accurately described in his post, will be judged and acceptable in 25 years on an AACA show field. Also, any car that appeared in original condition on an AACA show field today will be eligible to appear again in all its glory as a hot rod in 25 years. What a deal, a car can show and win twice. Thanks AACA.

What names would you like me to use for a guy who presents a FAKE to be judged at the venerable AACA Hershey meet. You should see the names used in our club publication. I was gentle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

JB ~ You are not alone in your denunciation of this new AACA venture. AACA members are expressing themselves with not just a simple no, but with HELL NO. And those are some of the milder forms of objection.

hvs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this