APBA BOD proposal to gut members' rights

[14-H]

Next Wednesday, April 24th, the APBA Board of Directors will have a conference call to consider a proposal to alter By Law 6 of the APBA By Laws. This By Law provides the minimum number of persons necessary to have a quorum at the APBA Annual Meeting. In order to have a valid meeting, it is required that a quorum be present. Currently, the By Laws require at least 100 members to be present in order to have a quorum and conduct any business. If a quorum is not present, no business can be conducted.

The proposal being considered by the APBA BOD is to increase the quorum requirement to 20% of the previous years' membership. This would essentially mean that approximately 1000 people would need to attend the annual meeting in order to have a legitimate meeting. I have been attending annual meetings since 1988 and I cannot ever remember having even half of that number attending the annual meeting of members. Thus, the effect of this would be that the APBA members could not ever conduct any business and never have a valid meeting.

This is essentially a power grab attempt by the APBA BOD. Right now, the APBA members have the final say on any matter. This means that the members can ratify, modify or reject any decision that the APBA Board of Directors makes. However, if this amendment passes, the APBA members would never be able to reverse any decision or action taken by the APBA Board of Directors.

Please contact your Board Members and urge them to vote against this proposal.

[daveracerdsh]

Board

Ed....could you list the APBA board members? Thank you.

[Dr. Thunder]

2013 Board of Directors

President, Mark Wheeler
Vice President, Kristi Ellison
National Commissioner, Charles D. Strang
Treasurer, Jose Mendana Jr.
Secretary, Jean Mckay-Schwartz
Legal Council, R. Steven Hearn
Imm. Past President, Mark Weber

J. David Augustine Sr.
Ernie Dawe
Fred Hauenstein Jr.
Dan Kanfoush
Dave Shaw
John F. Sharp
Peggy Wendt
Donny Lick
Adam Allen

[csh2z]

Will do! Thanks Ed.

[adamallen]

I am no longer the category Rep. It is currently Jeff Brewster. Also, Don Lick is not the Region Rep. I'm not sure who replaced him for the 2013 season.

[adamallen]

It's Dutch Squires as the Region Chair Rep to the BOD

[Matt Dagostino]

Hum.............

Wow..........another curve ball being tossed at the MEMBERS. Seems that the BOD should have less power and not MORE. That would be my vote!

[26V]

Next Wednesday, April 24th, the APBA Board of Directors will have a conference call to consider a proposal to alter By Law 6 of the APBA By Laws. This By Law provides the minimum number of persons necessary to have a quorum at the APBA Annual Meeting. In order to have a valid meeting, it is required that a quorum be present. Currently, the By Laws require at least 100 members to be present in order to have a quorum and conduct any business. If a quorum is not present, no business can be conducted.

The proposal being considered by the APBA BOD is to increase the quorum requirement to 20% of the previous years' membership. This would essentially mean that approximately 1000 people would need to attend the annual meeting in order to have a legitimate meeting. I have been attending annual meetings since 1988 and I cannot ever remember having even half of that number attending the annual meeting of members. Thus, the effect of this would be that the APBA members could not ever conduct any business and never have a valid meeting.

This is essentially a power grab attempt by the APBA BOD. Right now, the APBA members have the final say on any matter. This means that the members can ratify, modify or reject any decision that the APBA Board of Directors makes. However, if this amendment passes, the APBA members would never be able to reverse any decision or action taken by the APBA Board of Directors.

Please contact your Board Members and urge them to vote against this proposal.

Ed,
Does the BOD need the members to ratify their decisions for the year? or are all BOD decisions legal if no quorum of members is reached at the national meeting?

[26V]

or proxy

Here is the bylaw that the BOD wants to change according to Ed's post

6.3.1. Quorum at Meeting of Members. Except as provided in this subsection, in order for the transaction of any business at any meeting of the members, not less than one hundred (100) members entitled to cast votes there at shall be present in person, or by proxy.

So 20% of the members either present or by Proxy, just give your catigory commissioners your proxy and IF a decision by the BOD or any other APBA official needs to be questioned or reversed the legal quorum will be there.

[Blackhawkguy]

So wheres the.......

So where is all the outrage over this-APBA took away your helmet cams and you would of thought the world came to an end-APBA wants to take away your rights as members but only 600 veiws and a few post-seems we now know whats wrong-or maybe just a small minority get on here and gripe.

Kerry

[csh2z]

You are right, Kerry. This is the most important issue we APBA members have ever faced!
Everybody must let their voice be heard. Send e-mails and let the BoD know what you think!

[ajennings4p]

wouldnt it be 120 members

1000 member? 20% of 100 is 20 so that would mean that you would need 120 members need to be present? or does 120 members for each category need to be present?

[Jack Stotts]

Twenty percent of 1000 is 200. Hard to get that many folks together. Jack

[ricochet112]

The proposal being considered by the APBA BOD is to increase the quorum requirement to 20% of the previous years' membership.

This is essentially a power grab attempt by the APBA BOD.

What I read here is that 1/5th of the total APBA membership is required to have a quorum; is that correct? What's the total APBA membership numbers?

So a power grab is only OK if you're for it (or in charge of it) then huh? Pot meet kettle.

[53-W]

Maybe all kneel downs need to leave apba and follow the pro's. What does ABBA really do for us that we can't do better? We kneel down membership pay for most of the insurance so the unlimited's and tunnels can run people over and we then get to pay higher race fees for that?