APBA BOD proposal to gut members' rights

[Matt Dagostino]

Doa

President Wheeler issued an E -mail a few minutes ago and stated the membership is heard and the By-Law change has been removed from the BOD meeting agenda. Drama has ended!!!

Once again the voice of the members has prevailed and the RIGHT thing was done.........thanks for the update on Hydroracer Bill.

[csh12M]

Devils advocate

I really can see both sides of this coin....

While it has not happened often, bylaw 6 could be very powerful. Ed has laid the blueprint on how to effect serious change rather easily.

What if someone wants to remove the Sidewinder from the A class. Isn't this an acceptable process to try and achieve it?

Food for thought.

[joejohn44]

MY 2 cents

ED- you are just pissed off because... you cannot vote in a national champion on the last day of the national meeting

I think that was really uncalled for

[propnuts]

Dead on

You hit this on the head. Luckily for all of us attorneys in the crowd our right to manipulate the meeting and do stupid sh!+ like Ed pulled has been preserved, yea.

ED- you are just pissed off because... you cannot vote in a national champion on the last day of the national meeting

[ricochet112]

I think that was really uncalled for

the truth cuts deep and stings a little...

[Racerkyle20]

I really can see both sides of this coin....

While it has not happened often, bylaw 6 could be very powerful. Ed has laid the blueprint on how to effect serious change rather easily.

What if someone wants to remove the Sidewinder from the A class. Isn't this an acceptable process to try and achieve it?

Food for thought.

Ed's proposal this year set a dangerous precedent. Can we (the membership) vote in another national champion than was crowned in the summer? sure, just did. Can we eliminate Motors? Why not. Can we stop someone from getting in the hall of champions who's earned it? Yep. If a majority of the members want it that way then yes, they can use rule 6 for that purpose.

That can't be a loopole to be used in the future. A by law needs to change somewhere (not nesssesarly the one just propsed) to prevent those things listed from happening. The membership already has their elected leaders (commissions, etc) to approve or deny new motors, nat champs, HOC, etc.

[csh2z]

Wrong.
Your interpretation of what occurred at the National meeting is incorrect.
The sole purpose of the action that Ed took was because the National Commissioner overstepped his authority. There were no grounds for the National Commissioner to overturn the decision made by the SORC, AT THE NATIONALS. Remember, when we left Grass Lake Matt was the national champion. The SORC made their decision based on the rule book. Had the SORC in some way not followed the rules, the National Commissioner would have the authority to correct the SORC and reverse their decision.
This is not about A stock hydro, pickle forks, Matt, Tony, safety stickers, east coast, west coast, right or wrong. This was about following the rules. The SORC followed the rules and had every right to make the decision they made. Therefore, there was no basis for the National Commissioner to overturn the SORC.
Let's move on. Please.

[Racerkyle20]

Wrong.
Your interpretation of what occurred at the National meeting is incorrect.
The sole purpose of the action that Ed took was because the National Commissioner overstepped his authority. There were no grounds for the National Commissioner to overturn the decision made by the SORC, AT THE NATIONALS. Remember, when we left Grass Lake Matt was the national champion. The SORC made their decision based on the rule book. Had the SORC in some way not followed the rules, the National Commissioner would have the authority to correct the SORC and reverse their decision.
This is not about A stock hydro, pickle forks, Matt, Tony, safety stickers, east coast, west coast, right or wrong. This was about following the rules. The SORC followed the rules and had every right to make the decision they made. Therefore, there was no basis for the National Commissioner to overturn the SORC.
Let's move on. Please.

I know exactly what it was about. I was there. We talked about it face to face for long time. You also forgot that Jean M. made an appeal based on the by laws of APBA appeals. But let's not argue about that again, even though she followed the rules as a boat owner herself.

The whole point Ed was making by using roberts rules and rule 6 is that the membership has final say in anything any APBA committee, commission, referee, or national commissioner do. When Ed stood up and asked to seperate the ASH pickle fork decision, he sperated that decision from EVERY single other APBA decision made in 2012. We the membership are ratifying the entire year and all decisions made during that process at the meeting. That means in the future I could stand up at the 2014 national meeting, seperate an issue i have (let's say for arguments sake the tahatsu being a legal DMH motor), and have a vote with over a 100 members in the room to make the final decision on whether that motor should be a legal DMH motor.

This opened a giant can of worms, John. Members can start bringing any issue to the table they want at that meeting and having the membership vote to change something a commission or committee have done the previous year. That's how I interprete this situation. And that's most likely why Mark Wheeler wanted to change the process.

[csh12M]

Hit the nail on the head

I know exactly what it was about. I was there. We talked about it face to face for long time. You also forgot that Jean M. made an appeal based on the by laws of APBA appeals. But let's not argue about that again, even though she followed the rules as a boat owner herself.

The whole point Ed was making by using roberts rules and rule 6 is that the membership has final say in anything any APBA committee, commission, referee, or national commissioner do. When Ed stood up and asked to seperate the ASH pickle fork decision, he sperated that decision from EVERY single other APBA decision made in 2012. We the membership are ratifying the entire year and all decisions made during that process at the meeting. That means in the future I could stand up at the 2014 national meeting, seperate an issue i have (let's say for arguments sake the tahatsu being a legal DMH motor), and have a vote with over a 100 members in the room to make the final decision on whether that motor should be a legal DMH motor.

This opened a giant can of worms, John. Members can start bringing any issue to the table they want at that meeting and having the membership vote to change something a commission or committee have done the previous year. That's how I interprete this situation. And that's most likely why Mark Wheeler wanted to change the process.

Exactly!

[G Stillwill]

Just imagine the law suits that could come about if certain things were over turned just sayin the ship is not unsinkable

[csh2z]

Yes, Jean made an appeal to the BoD, as is her right. But the only way the National Commissioner/BoD could uphold the appeal would be if the SORC had broken a rule.

[pearson95m]

The good news is that if you get a majority vote, then I’m pretty sure the change was needed. Believe it or not, the committee’s do get it wrong sometimes.

I do understand what you’re saying. But how often will this come up? And of that, how often would something be overturned or changed (by a majority vote)? And if it does change, doesn’t it seem reasonable that the change was needed in the first place? Is it not reasonable to think that if the elected officials understood the views of the members they represent, this would never come up as an issue in the first place? These decisions would remain within the committees and the majority of members would agree with them.

It seems to me that this is a good way of keeping the officials in check.

[Jeff Brewster 59s]

"It seems to me that this is a good way of keeping the officials in check".

You are exactly correct Josh. I am one of the "officials" and if I or my fellow BOD members are wrong I want the members to be able to tell me so and do something about it!

Some on here remind me of Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". If it isn't broke folks, leave it alone.

Hang in there John, President Wheeler has listened to the members and pulled this item from his agenda. I very much appreciate any leader that will listen to the members and as we have seen in our world, that doesn't happen too often.

The issue we should be looking at is our appeal process. Do we really want the national commissioner position to continue? (This is nothing about Charlie who I have tons of respect for, this is only about the position)
It seems to me that if a commission's decision is not agreeable and a appeal is filed then the next step in the process should be the board of directors that was elected by the membership. Not one person that was appointed by the board and therefore allows actions that can be construed as a dictatorship.

Kyle, I was in the same room as you in Texas, (remember screaming at me?) My memory is not as good as it used to be but one statement you are making may be misleading. As I remember the sequence of events, Mr. Hearn did ask to seperate this issue from all of the rest as you state, but you do not mention that the majority of the room decided by a vote to listen to his motion. We then approved the rest of the years decisions before going back to his statements.
So, if this comes up again and if the room doesn't want to hear it, I believe we can stop it right in it's tracks by the memberships vote. If I am wrong, then I am sure I will be told so in 3.8 seconds.
Remember all, let's not make any of this so personal. When someone on here spews hatred towards another, they show their intelligence to the world and a possible future fellow competitor.
Have a great day!
Jeff

[csh2z]

Jeff, you are correct in stating that the membership voted first to separate that one decision from the rest. I also agree that the National Commissioner position should be dissolved (not the commissioner, just the position). Another option instead of appealing to the BoD could be appealing to the Council Members. By dividing the process into three branches( BoD, Council & Membership) we would ensure a stronger balance of power.

[Jeff Brewster 59s]

That is a very good idea John, thank you.