Page 20 of 36 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 360

Thread: A Proposal to Establish Member Control of the ESR

  1. #191
    For the record...

    Quote Originally Posted by beh911 View Post
    I still don't get the lack of transparency as an MO.
    Quote Originally Posted by RSTarga View Post
    Not a single defense of the current structure from the current directors. Not even on why it was set up that way.

    Hello? Chuck, Mike?
    Quote Originally Posted by nvr2mny View Post
    I agree. It’s a bit disconcerting to me that they haven’t chimed in too.
    Quote Originally Posted by RSTarga View Post
    I think the membership is at least deserving of an explanation from the current board as to why the organization is structured to not give members voting powers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Simonjjb View Post
    ...no response from the 2 remaining Board members after many comments.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaudette3 View Post
    ...there are two reasons why this has gotten messy, contentious and overly complicated. Number one is the lack of communication from those who are in charge... Chuck and the mysterious Mr. Hammond have been silent.
    Quote Originally Posted by curtisaa View Post
    Why does it take two grown men that have 50 years of time with ESR this long to answer a few apolitical questions ??

    Why is it a 86 year participant( Mike Hammond) cannot "take the microphone" and act like someone responsible and just answer some questions. Just in case you forgot Mike, "we're your customers", and I for one want customer service and not silence.....
    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

  2. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium-inc View Post
    I'm not hostile towards you I just have a hard time watching a train wreck. You want change, great. But your delivery is really really bad, it leaves anyone in authority super defensive. Did you think that maybe the board is meeting this weekend to discuss this and come up with a plan? That assumption has just as much merit as assuming they hired a lawyer and we're paying for it. It would make sense that they might meet on a weekend, because this club isn't their full time job, I don't know what Chuck does but I'm pretty sure Jorge has a business to run on a Wed afternoon when you're demanding answers. Seriously, chill out, don't post ANYTHING for a week about this, you might be surprised how giving everyone some breathing room can have a positive effect. Turning a ship around doesn't happen overnight, nor does changing a club, but it can happen, but normally not when people are under pressure, and you're applying maximum pressure.
    It's like the Scout Master of my kid's Cub Scout troop, if I email him with a concern or question, it sometimes takes him a couple of days to get back to me, because no matter how committed he is to his volunteer job of scouting, he has a job, and a family, and a life outside of all of it.
    Again, Adam, I respectfully disagree. Jorge is no longer part of this equation. He has resigned. And Jorge told me directly that Michael Hammond is absolutely opposed to change of any kind and to any voting rights for the members. You act as if I'm acting out while people behind the scenes are doing their best to find a reasonable solution. Again, I have been told directly by our then-CEO that that is not the case. All of that considered, I'd say I'm pretty far off from "maximum pressure".

    I continue to seek only one thing, appropriate voting rights for this 501c7 for our dues-paying members. I respectfully await any contact at all from our leadership.
    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. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    My fellow members:

    I write this with only the best intentions to people, many of whom, I consider my friends.

    It dismays me to see my intent questioned or any of my actions referred to “strong armed”. Please know that was not my intent. Instead, I am only motivated by doing right for an organization I care about..

    Yes, I have hired an attorney who specializes in non-profit compliance. But I did so out of an abundance of concern shortly after I began to suspect that our organization was out of compliance with IRS guidelines. To date, my attorney has done nothing more than evaluate our state filings, articles of incorporation, and bylaws. She has not contacted the ESR or the IRS, made any demands, nor taken any action against anyone. Some may fear the involvement of attorneys, and I understand that, but I knew from the beginning that this was likely to be a complicated and contentious issue and I was not going to take any action until I knew for sure that there was a problem.

    Upon my attorney’s confirmation of our IRS compliance issues, I did my very best to build consensus by reaching out to many of our most active members for advice including John Audette, Ed Mayo, Eric Linden and others. Together we put forth a proposal that, in our opinion, resolves our IRS compliance issue by establishing voting rights for our members and brings other benefits by engaging our member base on behalf of the ESR. There was no intent to do harm to any of our board members and our proposal went so far as to ask Jorge, Michael and Chuck to remain on the new board without running for election. Clearly, we were hoping that all three of them would be part of the solution.

    Some of you would perhaps like to see this fade away. Unfortunately, and according to my attorney, it will not. Her opinion is not comforting. Our IRS compliance issues are real and a ticking time bomb. All it takes is a future disgruntled member turning whistleblower and the likely result would be tax penalties and legal fees that could end this organization that we all care about. That is a real issue and one we should all care about. There is one, and only one, way for us to become IRS compliant as a 501c7 organization, and that is to establish voting rights for our dues paying members.

    For those of you who have made up your mind, I don’t expect any of this to change anything. But for those of you with an open mind, I hope you’ll read this in the spirit in which it was intended. I apologize if I come across as a zealot – but that’s because I am. I’m a zealot about the ESR and making it better. If that has offended you, then please know that I sincerely apologize. It is only because I care.

    JP
    John, a few observations:

    1. As you admit that you first raised this in the Frank Beck thread, it seems very clear - and mid you say incorrectly - it was triggered by his ban and your lack of say in it. Are you suggesting that’s not the case now? Is your proposal to reinstate him a necessary part of this? In this case, it seems retaliatory. And not with the desire to avoid compliance issues.

    2. As a practical matter, I’m not bothered by the IRS issue of any exists. Further I am skeptical of the advice you are getting given how she and you conflated members with Members before. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. It appears up he an easy fix if so. No offense to lawyers here, but most lack business judgement. And answer questions asked but often the asker doesn’t know the right questions.

    3. What exactly would we vote for? The more interesting thing is how the proceeds can bear be used programmatically.

    4. Honestly, none of us paid dues thinking that we were owners or Members. It’s more like a subscription fee. If you had known before joining that you had no voice would you still have done it?

    I think we need to separate the issues here:

    1. Franks banning and who can determine that.

    2. Are we happy with the direction? Is there better use of proceeds? Is anything not being done that should be, etc?

    3. Is there taxation rush? Should that be fixed? How? Trade off worth it? Could just go for profit.

    4. Why should the real Members gave up control? Do they want to? Do you/others want to break it to get them too?
    The early Sís...

    1967 S Coupe
    1970 S Targa
    1973 RS Coupe (an honorary S?)

  4. #194
    Senior Member jloucks388's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Posts
    312
    When are we going to see some sophistication? Find a intermediary or liaison that knows the management and that can broker a friendly face to face meeting. Certainly, somebody in the elites knows somebody that can get that done. Sitting waiting for a response is another bad tactic. Why would they want to negotiate with you out in the open? They have all the power. Again, the threaten and wait approach has a low probability of success.
    -Jim

    '72 911T
    '02 RS4
    '12 997.2 Turbo Manual
    '13 A7

  5. #195
    Thanks Rower.

    1. As you admit that you first raised this in the Frank Beck thread, it seems very clear - and mid you say incorrectly - it was triggered by his ban and your lack of say in it. Are you suggesting that’s not the case now? Is your proposal to reinstate him a necessary part of this? In this case, it seems retaliatory. And not with the desire to avoid compliance issues.

    It is not my proposal. It is a proposal submitted on behalf of many members.

    And it has nothing to do with Frank. As I stated early in the Frank Beck thread, I'm not here to defend Frank. To me Frank is an asset who we lost due to forum moderation that many of the members disagree with. As a 501c7 organization, the control of the forums should go to the members via elected leadership. Over the years we have lost numerous valuable members due to disagreement with our leadership. I, and many others, would like to address that.

    As for Frank specifically, I'll answer because you asked.

    If a Board of Directors elected by the dues-paying members decided to ban Frank, or if Frank was banned due to policies adopted by that elected Board, then that's on Frank. My option as a voting member would be limited to not voting for a Director who did not represent my interests. That's how it works.

    2. As a practical matter, I’m not bothered by the IRS issue of any exists. Further I am skeptical of the advice you are getting given how she and you conflated members with Members before. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt though. It appears up he an easy fix if so.

    Yes, it is an easy fix and I agree. All we need to do is establish voting rights for our members.

    3. What exactly would we vote for? The more interesting thing is how the proceeds can bear be used programmatically.

    Many of us are members of the 356 Registry and the PCA, both properly run 501c7 non-profits. In each case, there are regular elections for board members. The same should be occurring here.

    4. Honestly, none of us paid dues thinking that we were owners or Members. It’s more like a subscription fee. If you had known before joining that you had no voice would you still have done it?

    That's untrue. Others here (who may also members of other 501c7 organizations) have commented that they always assumed they had voting rights at the ESR. The structure that has been adopted here, denying dues-paying members control of the organization, is extremely unusual. Unheard of, in fact, according to my attorney.

    As for me, I'm no hypocrite. I have previously defended Chuck et al and their right to run this place in any way they want as they were the owners:

    http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...l=1#post878365

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    You don't have to be around here for very long to realize that the owners/moderators run this place from a left-leaning point of view. And, as much as it may irk me from time to time, I fully support that decision and applaud them for running this place - their place - as they see fit. Anything less would make me a hypocrite.

    So I'm not going to demand they accommodate me and my point of view. I'm not going to accuse them of microaggressions or of hurting my feelings. I'm not going to start a protest, stage a sit-in, or incite a riot. I'll just remind myself that the owners here are doing what they wish with what is theirs and, if I ever decide to, I'll move along and exercise my right to spend my time and energy in a place more to my liking.
    Of course, that was when I was under the impression that they owned the site personally. When I discovered that they had become a non-profit 501c7, that changed everything. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that when you avail yourself of our governments tax-exempt generosity, you need to follow the rules.
    Last edited by LiveFromNY; 09-10-2019 at 09:35 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

  6. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    Jorge is no longer part of this equation. He has resigned.
    Ok, so my words are coming true, you've chased off one volunteer who apparently had recently put a lot of time and effort for the club.

    ---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!

  7. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium-inc View Post
    Ok, so my words are coming true, you've chased off one volunteer who apparently had recently put a lot of time and effort for the club.
    No, Adam. I defended Jorge. So much that another longtime member who disagreed with me publicly took me to task.

    http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...=1#post1028964
    Last edited by LiveFromNY; 09-10-2019 at 09:37 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

  8. #198
    Senior Member jloucks388's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Walnut Creek, CA
    Posts
    312
    Can we get a new quarterback? One, who isn't constantly defending his actions and can't admit some misgivings.

    There must be a more seasoned player.

    I know I've overstepped my time limit so I do appreciate the decorum.
    -Jim

    '72 911T
    '02 RS4
    '12 997.2 Turbo Manual
    '13 A7

  9. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by jloucks388 View Post
    Can we get a new quarterback? One, who isn't constantly defending his actions and can't admit some misgivings.
    I apologize but I will continue to defend my actions and words when warranted and when they have been mischaracterized.
    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. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by LiveFromNY View Post
    No, Adam. I defended Jorge. So much that another longtime member who disagreed with me took me to task.

    http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...=1#post1028964
    Sorry man, after re-reading the 14 pages on "Jorge is the CEO" I think it is beyond a stretch to say you had no part in his resigning. You attacked, he resigned, the club lost a volunteer, who had put a lot of work in recently to help the club.

    ---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!

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.