ASH champion?

[csh2z]

Lee,
The rules DO allow for a warning in this case. It states in the rule book that the driver "may" be disqualified. Had it said "will" or "shall" be disqualified there would have been no basis for the appeal. That, and the sticker, is why the SORC voted to overturn the decision in the first place. As we hope in all controversial situations the commission gave the driver in question the benefit of the doubt.
Brent,
Margaret's disqualification was not do to a safety rule violation. It was dq'd for a boat technical rule violation. The spray rail had a piece of plywood on the side that went below the spray rail creating essentially an airtrap. That is not legal on a runabout.
Bill,
I feel bad for Tony also, I think we all do.

[Big Don]

Since I was not able to attend...

And I understand that it was an open Annual Meeting...

Anyone...Any memeber of APBA was allowed to vote that was there in the meeting?

Seems fair to me since this is a member driven association, everyone had a chance to be heard. Like I said I wish I would have been there.

[adamallen]

And on top of this I guess everyone got to vote on this that is in the outboard hydro division as stated by AA.. I really dont think everyone entitled to vote was at the meeting

You are correct sir!

[bill van steenwyk]

The real loser is the organization? Do you even know how an organization works? So what you're saying is the members which pay their hard earned money to be a part of the organization shouldn't have the final say. If so, That's the stupidest thing I've heard from you. By the way most of it is. Do you even know what happened?? Do you even know what the rule is? If you hate it when democracy rules you should check in your citizenship.


AA

I do not have a dog in this fight, BUT I can certainly understand the feelings on both sides.


What I find interesting from this poster is that they state that "those who pay their hard earned money should have a say"!

Based on that comment, who exactly voted on this result?? Those that paid to be at the meeting, OR was a ballot sent out to all APBA members? With less than one hundred votes (per a statement by an earlier poster) cast in making this decision that does not sound like a really democratic process, if only the members that had the money to attend the meeting had a vote.

Along those same lines, I would be interested in the posters position on "democracy in action" (and the members of the BOD) by hearing his opinion on publishing the particulars on the Crowne contract for those same members, or does the democratic process end when you do not have the resources or time to attend the meeting, if anything was divulged.

Just where does the memberships "right to know and participate" in this democratic organization end and do you only stand a chance on getting something done or finding our particulars of how things are done in it, if you can attend a meeting that requires hundreds of dollars and close to a week of your time.

[csh2z]

To clarify: All APBA members present got to vote, regardless of category. This is no different than a stockholders meeting for a corporation. We members are the stockholders. As in the business world, only stockholders present may vote.

[Big Don]

Lee,
The rules DO allow for a warning in this case. It states in the rule book that the driver "may" be disqualified. Had it said "will" or "shall" be disqualified there would have been no basis for the appeal. That, and the sticker, is why the SORC voted to overturn the decision in the first place. As we hope in all controversial situations the commission gave the driver in question the benefit of the doubt.
Brent,
Margaret's disqualification was not do to a safety rule violation. It was dq'd for a boat technical rule violation. The spray rail had a piece of plywood on the side that went below the spray rail creating essentially an airtrap. That is not legal on a runabout.
Bill,
I feel bad for Tony also, I think we all do.

John wrong boat. The B & H had the plywood that got second. Margaret's boat which was not a B & H had just a rail on it with no plywood. It was said to not meet the negative dead raise rule by 1/32 or something, which everyone agreed did not give a speed advantage.

[adamallen]

I do not have a dog in this fight, BUT I can certainly understand the feelings on both sides.


What I find interesting from this poster is that they state that "those who pay their hard earned money should have a say"!

Based on that comment, who exactly voted on this result?? Those that paid to be at the meeting, OR was a ballot sent out to all APBA members? With less than one hundred votes (per a statement by an earlier poster) cast in making this decision that does not sound like a really democratic process, if only the members that had the money to attend the meeting had a vote.

Along those same lines, I would be interested in the posters position on "democracy in action" (and the members of the BOD) by hearing his opinion on publishing the particulars on the Crowne contract for those same members, or does the democratic process end when you do not have the resources or time to attend the meeting, if anything was divulged.

Just where does the memberships "right to know and participate" in this democratic organization end and do you only stand a chance on getting something done if your name is Hearn, regardless if that something is right or wrong?

You should have attended the meeting. A line item budget was handed out at the open finance meeting. Even had the Crown line item on it. I would tell you what it was but I don't think you deserve to know.

[Big Don]

Oh and BTW…Since then, I have gotten rid of the representative that we used and have acquired a better one to fight for our rights.

[csh2z]

Thanks for the clarification, Don. I was disappointed you couldn't make the meeting.

[csh2z]

Adam.
Play nice!

[bill van steenwyk]

You should have attended the meeting. A line item budget was handed out at the open finance meeting. Even had the Crown line item on it. I would tell you what it was but I don't think you deserve to know.

I did not ask if you thought I deserved to know.

My question had to do with your opinion on "democracy in action" and whether the members that were not there should have a vote on something that has the potential to establish a precedent for future rulings regards disqualifications.

If democracy is OK for some, is it your opinion the others should be left out?

[adamallen]

I did not ask if you thought I deserved to know.

My question had to do with your opinion on "democracy in action" and whether the members that were not there should have a vote on something that has the potential to establish a precedent for future rulings regards disqualifications.

If democracy is OK for some, is it your opinion the others should be left out?

Look at my prior posts. It explains that this is not a new idea. Also, you could look up New York law on how associations operate.

AA

[Mrs blueskyracer]

From the APBA Rule Book (for those who were asking)

Section 6.3. Quorum.
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 thereat shall be present in person, or by proxy.6.3.2. Board of Directors Meetings and Committee Meetings. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum.
6.3.3. Special Meetings. In the event a Special Meeting of the Association or of the Board of Directors is called by the members thereof, two-thirds of those members requesting the meeting shall be present at said meeting in order for the meeting to be called to order.

Section 6.4. Voting.
6.4.1. Association Meetings. At any meeting of the Association each member in good standing and entitled to vote shall be entitled to one vote. Voting in any election for officers and Board of Directors, shall only be in accordance with the procedure established in these Bylaws.
6.4.2. Board of Directors Meetings. At all meetings of the Board of Directors, each member thereof in attendance shall be entitled to one vote. Proxy voting will not be permitted.
6.4.3. For the purpose of voting only, a previous year’s Association membership may be extended when so required by administrative considerations, but under no circumstances shall this period extend beyond the next Annual Meeting.

A notice was given stating where and when the annual meeting was so everyone was given an opportunity to attend.

A vote was taken on business brought before the association at that meeting. As long as there was a quorum (100+) members in attendance at the meeting then there was a legal vote on the issues voted on. And yes it is worded "members of the association" so it does not matter what "division" if that is the right word that you are associated with.

I think what some of you are asking is actually: why did this issue resurface for a vote to be needed.

Others are asking why the divisions other than stock outboard got to have a vote on the issue. (Well the rules say members of the association, not members of the association in the division of the issue in question.)

I think it was stated somewhere else in the thread that the details on how that came about will be published by someone in the know. If you disagree with that process when it comes to light then I suggest you review the rules used and perhaps at the next opportunity submit a change to the rules for a vote. See Section 12.7. RULE CHANGE PROCEDURE of your rule book I am sure it is in there somewhere.

[bill boyes]

I recall that Ed Hearn used this By-Law to defeat Michael Allwiss attempt to take over APBA.

[csh2z]

Thank you for looking that up. The means by which this came up.
Part of the procedure to close out old business is a vote by the membership to ratify the Actions of Officers, Board, Council, Category Chairs and Race Commissions for the prior season. After the Motion and the second, a discussion is allowed to take place. It was asked by a member of the audience to "divide the question", isolating this topic. The remainder of the actions were then voted on and ratified.
The next step was a resolution endorsed by the SORC (not unanimously but by majority) asking for the decision of the National Commissioner to be overturned. The basis for this request was that The SORC followed all rules, regulations and by-laws of the association and was fully within its rights to render the decision it made. There was no reason therefore to review the decision in spite of the appeal.
The bottom line is, without the right to ratify the decisions of the officers of the organization, we would essentially have a dictatorship. To my knowledge, this sort of action has only taken place in only two other instances since the mid fifties. Whether you agree with the results or not, we the lowly membership showed the BOD who is really in charge.
You should have seen the faces on the few "J" drivers that were there when they found out that they're vote, they're voice, was as loud and important as ANYBODY and EVERYBODY in that room.