What Happened at the 108th Annual Meeting???

[csh2z]

I'm not exactly Ed's best friend, but the man knows and follows the rules.

[ricochet112]

Ed, you are wildcat's racing biggest promoter...

[tomatoface]

so next year we will just vote in our national champs.
its not legal intill i say its legal EDGARE

Don D

[raceright]

You ask why APBA membership is in bad shape--THIS is the most important thing having to be done,put this much effort into membership expansion and woooowwwwwww

[propnuts]

This is awesome, you must be so proud

Only an attorney could take a really bad situation and make it so much worse.

[Team 12R]

huh?

=declare no champion for 2012 and LET IT GO!!!!

Tony Lombardo was and is still the first legal finisher. Why do we declare no champion?

[dwilderacer]

put plainly

Matt was DQ'd by the inspector. Game over, right. BUT the SORC reinstated him by some sort of "Spirit of the Rules" type of thing. then Strang and the BOG's got ahold of it and sided with the inspector. Then more sh** goes on and the ex-commish comes up with a back door plan to force every present (at the final national meeting assembly) to vote on a ruling, made on a safety rule, that most of those assembled had NO knowledge of.

Races are decided on the course and in inspection. My solution would be to:

1) Fix the safety inspection rules
and
2) declare no champion for 2012 and LET IT GO!!!!

[MGallagher]

I don't think he hates loosing an argument, just admitting it...

[sponsonhead]

Whatever, Eddie. We all know how you hate to lose an argument.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing: all I do is get dirty and annoy the pig.

R-19

[14-H]

I believe President Wheeler would beg to differ with you on that, although he's probably not going to admit it on HR. At least that was the consensus of a number of people who I spoke to that were in the room with me and witnessed this.

R-19

My statement was a statement of fact: he was given proper advice and he followed it correctly. Your statement is one of opinion referencing how President Wheeler might characterize what happened afterward.

One is fact, one is opinion. Those, dear Patrick, are not the same things.

[sponsonhead]

But Patrick is not correct that the Chairman was left "out to dry".

I believe President Wheeler would beg to differ with you on that, although he's probably not going to admit it on HR. At least that was the consensus of a number of people who I spoke to that were in the room with me and witnessed this.

R-19

[14-H]

The question of order

Patrick is correct that I left out the part about being ruled out of order. I left it out because it had no effect on the outcome. But here is what happened in that regard.

At some point after the motion to divide the question was made (and I cannot remember if it was before or after the vote on the motion to divide the question was taken), Chairman Wheeler ruled me out of order. I then stated that I appealed the ruling of the Chairman. Wheeler advised me that I could not do this. I then advised him that, under Robert's Rules, when a member appeals the decision of the Chairman of the meeting, the assembly (ie: the members) gets to vote on whether the Chairman's ruling is correct.

This is when Wheeler sought the advice of Steve Hearn. Hearn did state that he had a conflict and didn't want to be involved in the dispute but did advise Chairman Wheeler that Robert's Rules should govern the matter. Wheeler then asked me if I had a copy of Robert's Rules when I advised him that I could look it up if I had a computer. Two were given to me. From the first computer, I read "Robert's Rules for Dummies" and quoted it with regard to how to resolve an appeal of a ruling of the Chairman. It stated exactly as I had already told Wheeler: that, once an appeal of a ruling of the Chairman is made, the members get to vote on whether the Chairman is correct. Later, I read from the second computer and referenced the actual Chapter and Section of Robert's Rules where appeals are addressed. I provided Wheeler with the computer so he could read the section for himself, which he did.

Wheeler then put the matter of whether I was out of order to the members. The members, interestingly, upheld the Chairman. However, later, Wheeler called for a vote on the motion to approve the decision of the National Commissioner. He had to do this because the motion to divide the question ultimately passed and there had to be a motion on whether to approve the question which was separated, that being the approval of the NC's decision on the ASH matter.

Thus, in the end, the ruling on whether there was proper order didn't make any difference because the members voted to divide the question and there had to be a motion on whether to approve the decision of the National Commissioner on the ASH appeal.

But Patrick is not correct that the Chairman was left "out to dry". He was given proper advice: follow Robert's Rules. Which he did and did correctly.

[csh2z]

And to conclude Pat's statement: It was then pointed out that the rules of the association are to be carried out using Robert's Rules of Order and was in fact the legal means to move forward.

[sponsonhead]

Yep, Kinda Sorta........

Ed's account is pretty much how it came down.....

....Except he forgot to mention the part where when the APBA President ruled Ed's motion out of order, Ed asked for an opinion from ABPA Chief Legal Counsel.

Chief Legal Counsel recused himself from an opinion due to a conflict of interest. And in so doing, left the APBA President and the Board of the Directors hung out to dry, with no legal opinion going forward on the legality of the motion or actions subsequently taken.

R-19

[14J]

I remember the days when Ed would post the full agenda and keep us abreast of each and ever call to action.

Where do I find such a document coming out of the 2013 meeting?