Zekert Excluded from CRB Town Hall by SCCA Pres. New Topic Reply to Topic

[JamesB]

Bill your absolutely right that oversight is always needed. But the problem is that this clubs members like to spotlight every single issue no matter how big or small the problem is its called out in public. After a while members like me get tired of all the nit-picking on the little stuff as well as the big stuff and we get close to tuning it out. And that is the point I see Raymond making is that by continuing to gripe and overspotlight the little things members will ignore the noise when its a big item being publicly protested.

Believe me, I work nearly one of DC's favorite protest locations and I can read the news about a protest that had 10k people and I walked right by that park at the same time for lunch and never noticed it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

One thing to understand about the reation to this topic here on IT.com is simple. Our culture. This issue has a TON more traction on the Prod board and the GT board. I believe it's inherent to the constant bombardment of comp adjustments and political manuevering to improve ones advantages and reduce others competitive advantages. While the constant ebb and flow is very prominant in other organizations like SCCA Pro, Grand Am Cup, NASCAR - there is a big difference - changes are made by a central dictatorship where the appearance of politics is minimized (albiet still there). I have full faith in our CRB to do what they think is right, but there are so many different cars and platforms that changes affect so many people in so many different ways that everyone can never be on the same page.

These guys feel like they are 'oppressed' almost daily...and as Chris Howard said, they are tired of burying their heads in the sand...and I am glad they are standing up and being counted...BUT to some of us, the means by which they are standing up is counterproductive and discrediting...hence some of our reaction. Good luck to all.

[jjjanos]

"I respect the host region and SCCA's costs. I NEVER attend lunches, dinners or use any of the services provided by the hotel for the convention. I simply come to bring ideas and questions from the small bore community to the BoD and CRB." stated Zekert. [/b]

Good gawd, what a load of crap.


Fabrication. Is he sitting in the room? Then he is using the services of the hotel. The hotel doesn't just give it away.

The conflict has shed light on the fact that SCCA Annual Conventions are designed for administrators, stewards, & officials but are not designed to encourage driver (customer) participation.[/b]

Fabrication.

First, seems to me that by making those who are not paying for attend wait until the end to ask questions, the SCCA is directly serving the paying customers of this event.

Second, you've drawn a conclusion without any supporting evidence. The Convention is open to ANYONE who pays the registration fee.

"ALL I want to do is to be able to ask MY Directors and MY CRB members questions."
[/b]

Then pay the damn registration fee. In addition, I think the statement is a lie by ommission. I believe that speaking to the CRB and BoD were not the only reasons this was done the way it was done.

Why in the hell should we be charged to attend a require meeting?[/b]

Cause there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.

GRegAmy
No one should have to spend one thin dime to pay for the privilege to attend their club's board meeting.[/b]

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.

GRegAmy
Dude.... .....The Board meeting should be open and free to all SCCA members.
[/b]

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.

[p.keane]

Guys, I would like to try to clear some of this up. I was at the convention and talked to Peter and also got to hear the other side. I was not present when it all went down, but I did get the story first hand from the people envolved. The following are a few points that I would like submit into the discussion.

1. I like Peter, I had drinks with him Friday night and talked to him Saturday night. I also agree with Joe that you will not find a more passionate person than Peter. He is smart and likes to stir the bucket.

2. Peter was allowed to attend the BOD town hall (I think that was Friday afternoon). He stepped to the microphone several times, spoke freely and nobody said a word to him. All of his questions were answered. I must say Peter was pretty mild mannered this year.

3. Mr. Julow did not get envolved until he was told that Peter had attended other meetings. Mr. Julow quietly talked to Peter before the CRB town hall and told him that he did not believe it was right to attend the convention with out registering. Peter told him he would go register. Peter went to the registration desk and they were going to charge him a fee less that what he paid. The way I heard it from the SCCA staff person is Peter wanted to pay the full fee, but they finally agreed to the $100. Again, she was going to charge him way less and he wanted pay full price.

4. The money the SCCA will charge members to attend the meeting in the future is for the conference room rentals and we had a lot of rooms.

5. The safety siminar was not at this years convention because of funding. We all agree that it was something that was missed. The SCCA staff is trying to figure out a way to continue the program. Maybe do it every other year. Members can help by sending donations to the SCCA Foundation.

Hopefully, this clears some of this up. I think it was handled like adults and wish it would not get whipped up on the web. I know that Peter was trying to make a point and did. I also think that if Peter had not told the world that he was going to attend the convention for free, no one would have ever said anything to him. He left Mr. Julow no choice but to speak to him. I also believe that it was very respectable for Mr. Julow to handle it himself. PK

[Joe Harlan]

Good gawd, what a load of crap.
Fabrication. Is he sitting in the room? Then he is using the services of the hotel. The hotel doesn't just give it away.
Fabrication.

First, seems to me that by making those who are not paying for attend wait until the end to ask questions, the SCCA is directly serving the paying customers of this event.

Second, you've drawn a conclusion without any supporting evidence. The Convention is open to ANYONE who pays the registration fee.
Then pay the damn registration fee. In addition, I think the statement is a lie by ommission. I believe that speaking to the CRB and BoD were not the only reasons this was done the way it was done.
Cause there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.
Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.
Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill.
[/b]

So Your probably OK with the BOD making loans to Pro Racing at below market rate and Settling a lawsuit behind closed doors for antitrust violations, Or that Roadracing carries the largest share of all expenses in this club. If you have no issue with any of that then you should just go right past threads like this cause there are some in this club that won't be feed a shit sandwich and be forced to like it. A 501C4 corp is a public corporation and I believe there could be legal issues with blocking anyone from attending a required business meeting.

[Mattberg]

Just curious...

How many of the officials at the convention got sponsored by their regions? How many of the BoD members and CRB members paid a registration fee of $295 and all of their own travel and lodging expenses? How much of the $75,000 for "meetings and director's expenses" assigned to club racing was for this event?

[JeffYoung]

Does anyone have a problem with Peter's explanation of this, since he was THERE?

Or are we going to debate this endlessly?

I remember my organization hating days..down with the rules man! The man is out to get me!

What I've learned is that ALL organizations are simply groups of people, and groups of people often make poor decisions or try to do things in the self interest of the majority at the expense of the minority. So the trick is to have rules to limit this stuff, and then use them to change things you don't like.

So see, rules ain't so bad...

If you don't like what the BoD is doing in charging a fee to attend an event that costs the club money, vote and try to change it.

[jjjanos]

So Your probably OK with the BOD making loans to Pro Racing at below market rate and Settling a lawsuit behind closed doors for antitrust violations, Or that Roadracing carries the largest share of all expenses in this club. If you have no issue with any of that then you should just go right past threads like this cause there are some in this club that won't be feed a shit sandwich and be forced to like it. A 501C4 corp is a public corporation and I believe there could be legal issues with blocking anyone from attending a required business meeting.
[/b]

Obfuscate, ad hominem and attempt to change objection when original cause for panty in a wad is shot down.

Look, we all understand you get a hard one over certain stupid things the BoD has done. The two issues you raise, however, have NOTHING to do with whether a trespasser should be allowed at a meeting.

As for the claims relating to requirements of a 501C4 corp.. how about doing some research to verify whether you are correct, cause until you provide the article and section of the U.S. Code, all you are trying to do is "feed us a shit sandwhich."

[Greg Amy]

Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either those attending pay the or the entire general membership foots the bill. [/b]

I wasn't going to reply to this topic again, but I really detest arrogance.

Dude, it's outlined in the by-laws as a REQUIREMENT to have this meeting, thus its existence is ALREADY being paid for by the membership via annual dues. Regardless if it's happening in a conference room at the main offices in Topeka on a Wednesday night in July, or at a hotel banquet facility in January that's already being used for something else, the Board meeting and its facilities are already being paid for by the membership as called for in the charter. It's a cost of doing business as a club under the existing by-laws. My annual dues to the Sports Car Club of America gives me the RIGHT to attend the annual Board of Directors meeting if I so choose, regardless of where or when it's being held.

If the Board decides it wants to save the membership some money by holding this meeting coincidental with already-rented facilities at an event where all Board members are already going to be, what a SUPER great idea! But don't ask me to pay for that entry again, 'cause I already done paid for it via dues.

And that, Sir, is a fact, not an arrogant opinion.

[lateapex911]

Peter Keane, thanks for the input. Hearing what REALLY happened, from someone who was there is good stuff.

In the future, I am sure there will be a two tiered system that allows members into the meetings as required by the bylaws and the charter but charges for other "value added" aspects.

Gregs point seems valid.

Just curious...

How many of the officials at the convention got sponsored by their regions? How many of the BoD members and CRB members paid a registration fee of $295 and all of their own travel and lodging expenses? [/b]

Just so we have this straight....in your deciding who the "majority" is (From your signiture) that will rule, count my vote as "Not sure if I care" in regards to the above quote...............

[88YB1]

Right on Greg. The rules governing the meeting already exist in the by-laws, and must be followed by the elected, appointed, and hired officials as well as the general membership.

Chuck

[jjjanos]

I wasn't going to reply to this topic again, but I really detest arrogance.

Dude, it's outlined in the by-laws as a REQUIREMENT to have this meeting, thus its existence is ALREADY being paid for by the membership via annual dues.[/b]

DUDE not one penny of your dues is specifically set aside to pay for this meeting. If the meeting costs $55,000 to host and we have 55,000 members, then dropping the registration fee raises your dues cetaris paribus.

the Board meeting and its facilities are already being paid for by the membership as called for in the charter. It's a cost of doing business as a club under the existing by-laws. My annual dues to the Sports Car Club of America gives me the RIGHT to attend the annual Board of Directors meeting if I so choose, regardless of where or when it's being held.[/b]

1. According to the By-laws posted on the website , you have no right to attend such a meeting nor do you have no right to attend such a meeting at no cost to you. You are, however, required to be notified of such a meeting, but the by-laws to not require that members be allowed to attend the meeting. In fact, your presence at ANY club meetings is by the specific grace of the BoD. (See:Article III and in particular Section 4 of the 1July2000 SCCA By-laws)

2. Please cite the section of the by-laws or articles of incorporation that specify the funding mechanism for this meeting shall be from dues.

3. Given that the by-laws also require SCCA to "...promote interest in sports cars and other fine automobiles and to encourage their safe and skillful operation, by developing, arranging, and regulating closed circuit road racing, rallying, and other forms of automotive competition, by dissemination of information through news releases and Club publications, and through related social and recreation activities for the instruction and enjoyment of its members." Please provide a logically consistent explaination reconciling why it is proper for the Club to charge entry fees for by-law mandated recreation activities (aka a RACE) and the impropriety of charging an entry fee a by-law annual meeting.

Using your logic, there should be no entry fee for any activity required under the by-laws and racing, or should I say organizing a recreational event, is required.

And that, Sir, is a fact, not an arrogant opinion.
[/b]

No, it is an opinion based on a lack of knowledge of the fungibility of money and the by-laws.

[Greg Amy]

You're a lawyer, aren't you? It's starting to make sense now...

I'm already starting to feel pretty embarrased having allowed myself to jump into the mud pit with you. Do NOT interpret any silence on my part as ANYTHING approaching agreement with you on any of this. - GA

[JeffYoung]

Let's back up a minute and put aside the issue of whether the SCCA should or should not require someone to pay to attend to this meeting.

Let's ask this question: does it look like anything untoward happened at the meeting, or that Mr. Julow acted in any way inappropriately? Because that is what the gist of this thread is -- that the SCCA is trying to silence its members. It certainly doesn't look that way to me at all.

Now, back to the cost issue. The SCCA is a 501© non profit organization. Take a look at the salaries it pays its officers. Other than the President, I believe no one is over (or much over) $100,000. There are only 5-6 officers with significant salaries, and by significant I mean more than $50k.

We are not talking about Exxon here. I am sure the SCCA is just as cost conscious as any corporation, and charging to attend the meeting is not unreasonable per se.

If you think it is wrong, write, vote, etc. I probably agree with you on this on some level. But this whole idea of the SCCA is out to screw its membership, and in particular regional club racing -- which is the REAL point of this thread -- just seems wrongheaded to me.

[jjjanos]

You're a lawyer, aren't you? It's starting to make sense now...[/b]

Worse... any economist who works with lawyers who quote actuarial law.

Fact is, I think the annual meeting should be open to all members and a fee far less than the $100 they charged this guy. Won't be that many folks taking advantage of it anyway. Somewhat shocking that the rules/procedures for attendance at the annual meeting being set by the BoD. Kind of like Congress deciding who gets to vote.

What I object to is the implication that this was an attempt to Roswell someone.

[CDS]

[quote]
"1. According to the By-laws posted on the website , you have no right to attend such a meeting nor do you have no right to attend such a meeting at no cost to you. You are, however, required to be notified of such a meeting, but the by-laws to not require that members be allowed to attend the meeting. In fact, your presence at ANY club meetings is by the specific grace of the BoD. (See:Article III and in particular Section 4 of the 1July2000 SCCA By-laws)"

Wrong. SCCA is a Conecticut non-stock corporation. Section 33-1061 of the Connecticut Code requires that an annual meeting of members be held. Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws establishes what constitutes a quorum at the meetings and addresses voting by proxy. The board does not have the authority to prevent any member who is otherwise entitled to vote at a meeting from attending that meeting. Please identify what section of the bylaws authorizes the board to establish a charge for attending the annual meeting.


[quote]
"Given that the by-laws also require SCCA to "...promote interest in sports cars and other fine automobiles and to encourage their safe and skillful operation, by developing, arranging, and regulating closed circuit road racing, rallying, and other forms of automotive competition, by dissemination of information through news releases and Club publications, and through related social and recreation activities for the instruction and enjoyment of its members." Please provide a logically consistent explaination reconciling why it is proper for the Club to charge entry fees for by-law mandated recreation activities (aka a RACE) and the impropriety of charging an entry fee a by-law annual meeting."

Because annual meeting are specifically required by law. The club is free to impose dues, fees, etc. for any other activities it wishes to conduct.

[jjjanos]

Craig:

Government authority granting BoD to set rules for Annual Meeting:

Sec. 33-1061.A of the Connecticut Revised Nonstock Corporation Act.

"A corporation that has members entitled to vote for the election of directors shall hold a meeting of such members annually at a time stated in or fixed in accordance with the bylaws."

How SCCA sets the rules of the Annual Meeting:

Article III, Section 4 SCCA By-laws as posted on the website.

"Presence and voting by proxy may be allowed at the discretion of and in accordance with rules prescribed by the Board of Directors."

When and where Annual Meeting Must Be Held

Article III. Section 1 SCCA By-laws as posted on the website.

"The time and place of the annual meeting, which may be held either within or outside the state of Connecticut, shall be established by the Board of Directors which shall also arrange for an annual convention for the Members to be held in conjunction therewith."

Conclusion: The Annual Meeting must be held in conjunction with the National Convention. The rules of the Annual Meeting are prescribed by the BoD.

In accordance with the by-laws, the BoD has prescribed rules. Those rules require paying an registration fee.

Because annual meeting are specifically required by law. The club is free to impose dues, fees, etc. for any other activities it wishes to conduct.[/b]

What the law does not prohibit is legal. Neither the CT code nor the SCCA Bylaws prohibit a registration fee. In fact, the CT code requires that the meeting be held in accordance with the SCCA Bylaws; The Bylaws require that the Annual Meeting be part of the National Convention. The Bylaws say that the BoD prescribe the rules for the Annual Meeting.

[JeffYoung]

I guess another point is -- what is so atypical about this?

Most corporations don't pay for their shareholders to come to meetings. They shareholder foots the bill.

I'm just perplexed by the "uproar" here. If the guy wants to talk, he can talk. He just has to register. And that still doesn't stop him from:

a. Writing to the CRB or SCCA management; or

b. Calling writing to every other SCCA member.

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, The uproar is this. I am willing to fly myself out to where ever the BOD chooses to hold the meeting, I am willing to take care of my own lodging and food. I have no interest in any of the social functions that are being offered. I was told that it would cost me 295 dollars for the pleasure of sitting in 2 meetings that directly effect my racing. None of us are asking to attend the social function at no charge. There should be no charge for a required business meeting as pointed out above. Now before you go there, I did call and ask about a reduced registration fee for the 2 meetings I planned on going to and I was flat told there was nothing that could be done. None of which has anything to do with why I was not there. I would have paid and then raised it as an issue in the Q&A session. Once again this seams like a stupid little issue but if you start to add up all the stupid little issues you will find a reason for some folks to be upset.

[CDS]

jjjanos, you are confusing the annual convention with the annual meeting required by statute. The club is free to establish a charge and any other rules for the annual convention. The bylaws also state that the annual meeting of members is to be held at the same time as the annual convention. All well and good. What the bylaws do NOT state, nor could they under law unless voted on and approved by the affected members, is that the club may impose a fee for attending the annual meeting. As a member I have a right, enforceable in court, to attend the meeting and to demand inspection of certain club records. To the extent the bylaws purport to give the directors discretion to restrict attendance at the annual meeting then such provision is unenforceable.