Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 360

Thread: A Proposal to Establish Member Control of the ESR

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    With his approval, I just added Paul Xifaris's name to the members supporting this proposal. Other members who wish to add their name and share their support publicly can message me and I'll be happy to add them as well.
    John

    In the "interest of transparency" can you list those that you have contacted via Email and PMs that have declined having their names associated with this "movement". There seems to be this idea that we have been wronged by the "powers that be". I don't think for a minute that this was your intent but it seems to be an "Unintended consequence". I find it very ironic that Chuck and his unpaid, hard working, dedicated, small band of workers/board members have been chided for doing just what was needed to be done to promote growth and a stop the "knowledge drain" by valuable contributors (Chris is at the top of that list). Frank has been hinted (rightly or wrongly) as the catalyst that drove some of these people away and now he is gone. Be careful what you wish for.

    Regards

    Jim
    Note to John P: I consider you as a friend and a valuable customer both past and present, and respect your intentions, even though I'm not in agreement.
    Not to Frank B: I felt like I was punched in the gut when you were booted and very much miss your contributions to this forum. We will always remain friends no matter how this plays out.
    Note to Chuck : I am positive that you acted in what you perceived as in the best interest of the membership in banning Frank. We go back a long way and I, for one, very much appreciate your time and effort and guidance and am very proud to call you my friend.

    I am solidly in the "Save Frank" and "save Chuck" camp

  2. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Breazeale View Post
    In the "interest of transparency" can you list those that you have contacted via Email and PMs that have declined having their names associated with this "movement".
    Thanks, Jim, and I hope you know that the respect goes both ways. Unfortunately, no, I can't list the names of people that have asked me not to list their names. But I will tell you that of the dozens of people I reached out to, exactly ZERO have voiced opposition to the proposal. I have had many who voiced approval but did not want to list their name for privacy reasons, perhaps 2 or 3 (like you) who have politely recognized both sides of the issue but declined to get involved, and one member who originally voiced his approval before changing his mind because "I really don’t care about any of this". Those against, are limited to the few posters in this thread.

    The support has been overwhelming.
    Last edited by LiveFromNY; 09-09-2019 at 02:41 PM.
    Member # 2530
    The early ones...
    1965 911 (301100), 1965 911 (301331), 1967 912/6, 1968 912 Soft Window Targa, 1969 911S Soft Window Targa, 1969 912 Coupe, 1969 912 Sunroof Coupe, 1970 911T Sunroof Coupe, 1972 911T Coupe, 1973 911S Targa

  3. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    As I posted several days ago, my concerns pre-date Frank's suspension by significant time. I first became aware of the fact that we were now a 501c7 non-profit, and most likely in violation of IRS regulations regarding member control, several month ago - a situation that I discussed with others and asked a professional to investigate back in June.
    John,

    From your post, a few questions:

    1) To the best of your knowledge, how long has ESR been a 501c7 non-profit?

    2) To the best of your knowledge, prior to being a 501c7 non-profit, what was ESR's business/tax structure?

    3) Regarding your concern about ESR being "most likely in violation of IRS regulations regarding member control", has your professional's investigation determined this to be true?

  4. #114
    1) To the best of your knowledge, how long has ESR been a 501c7 non-profit?

    The articles of incorporation were filed January 6th, 2014.

    2) To the best of your knowledge, prior to being a 501c7 non-profit, what was ESR's business/tax structure?

    I do not have this information. Other long-time members have suggested it may have been privately owned by Michael Hammond et al. I assume Chuck would be able to answer this.

    3) Regarding your concern about ESR being "most likely in violation of IRS regulations regarding member control", has your professional's investigation determined this to be true?

    Yes. My attorney has now advised me that the Early 911S Registry does not appear to be structured in compliance with the IRS rules for 501(c)(7) organizations.
    Member # 2530
    The early ones...
    1965 911 (301100), 1965 911 (301331), 1967 912/6, 1968 912 Soft Window Targa, 1969 911S Soft Window Targa, 1969 912 Coupe, 1969 912 Sunroof Coupe, 1970 911T Sunroof Coupe, 1972 911T Coupe, 1973 911S Targa

  5. #115
    Senior Member patrick911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, AUS
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    The support has been overwhelming.
    This statement is useless unless you also are able to state how many people have asked to not be involved or have indicated they disagree.
    It's an easy way out to say that you can't list the names, just because they don't fit the narrative. Afterall, wasn't the drive to be more democratic and transparent...?
    As Stalin famously said, it's not the people that vote that make the difference; it's the people that count the votes!
    Member #3058
    1973 911 2.4T
    1976 911S -> 2.8RSR rep

  6. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick911 View Post
    This statement is useless unless you also are able to state how many people have asked to not be involved or have indicated they disagree.
    As I stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    ... of the dozens of people I reached out to, exactly ZERO have voiced opposition to the proposal. I have had many who voiced approval but did not want to list their name for privacy reasons, perhaps 2 or 3 (like you) who have politely recognized both sides of the issue but declined to get involved, and one member who originally voiced his approval before changing his mind because "I really don’t care about any of this".
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick911 View Post
    It's an easy way out to say that you can't list the names, just because they don't fit the narrative.
    Of the people who requested that I do not list their names, 100% of them were in favor of the proposal. Each had privacy concerns about using their real names on a public forum and, because I am striving for 100% transparency, I decided to list only those who would allow the use of their real name.
    Member # 2530
    The early ones...
    1965 911 (301100), 1965 911 (301331), 1967 912/6, 1968 912 Soft Window Targa, 1969 911S Soft Window Targa, 1969 912 Coupe, 1969 912 Sunroof Coupe, 1970 911T Sunroof Coupe, 1972 911T Coupe, 1973 911S Targa

  7. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    My attorney has now advised me that the Early 911S Registry does not appear to be structured in compliance with the IRS rules for 501(c)(7) organizations.
    Since your attorney has now seen the bylaws, I would have expected a more definitive statement. The "does not appear to be" qualifier gives the appearance of uncertainty and/or subjectivity. Can you be more specific as to exactly how the current ESR structure does not comply with IRS rules?

  8. #118
    Just for the record, this is exactly how the 356 Registry problem started, simple questions, ego's got ruffled, and then people started talking to attorneys. Attorney's never de-escalate these kind of situations. I would advise everyone involved to start talking to each other quickly and resolve any concerns.

    ---Adam
    If you're reading this and you are not yet an Early 911S Registry member, Join Now!
    Early 911S Registry Member 1372
    Check out Unobtanium-Inc.com
    New blog posts all the time!

  9. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by swcarroll View Post
    Since your attorney has now seen the bylaws, I would have expected a more definitive statement. The "does not appear to be" qualifier gives the appearance of uncertainty and/or subjectivity. Can you be more specific as to exactly how the current ESR structure does not comply with IRS rules?
    That's how attorneys talk. Based on the information we have, including the articles of incorporation and the bylaws, the Early 911S Registry does not appear to be structured in compliance with the IRS rules for 501(c)(7) organizations. We're certainly open to being proven wrong as unlikely as that appears.

    As for the issues with the ESR structure, I've discussed them at length over the previous days. If you're truly interested in an answer to your question, as opposed to just baiting me, a simple click on my username will give you access to my latest posts.
    Member # 2530
    The early ones...
    1965 911 (301100), 1965 911 (301331), 1967 912/6, 1968 912 Soft Window Targa, 1969 911S Soft Window Targa, 1969 912 Coupe, 1969 912 Sunroof Coupe, 1970 911T Sunroof Coupe, 1972 911T Coupe, 1973 911S Targa

  10. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium-inc View Post
    Just for the record, this is exactly how the 356 Registry problem started, simple questions, ego's got ruffled, and then people started talking to attorneys. Attorney's never de-escalate these kind of situations. I would advise everyone involved to start talking to each other quickly and resolve any concerns.
    Thanks, Adam.

    While it's easy and convenient to compare the prior legal wrangling over at the 356 registry with the issues here, I think it's important that we recognize that the situations are very different. To my knowledge, the 356 registry has always been run as a proper 501c7 non-profit with voting rights for all dues-paying members - exactly what those of us who support the proposal are seeking.
    Member # 2530
    The early ones...
    1965 911 (301100), 1965 911 (301331), 1967 912/6, 1968 912 Soft Window Targa, 1969 911S Soft Window Targa, 1969 912 Coupe, 1969 912 Sunroof Coupe, 1970 911T Sunroof Coupe, 1972 911T Coupe, 1973 911S Targa

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.