+- Riesentöter Forums (https://rtr-pca.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: Porsche-Related Discussion (https://rtr-pca.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+--- Thread: Der Gasser- Letter to Editor (/showthread.php?tid=1868)
- Phokaioglaukos - 09-19-2009
Mike Andrews wrote:
Quote: I . . . left messages for Chris (who was running for Vice President). . . . I played phone tag with Chris for a few days and after he talked with Tom and stated he would stay on board if Allison was staying and we could change the duties of Vice President. When we finally did talk I informed him that Allison would not be running, although I think we have an incredible candidate for treasurer, and I couldn’t change the definition of Vice President and he suggested that perhaps it wasn’t a good fit for him.What I have quoted above from Mike's post is accurate as it relates to me. The slate that Graham had assembled would allow the VP to have a different set of duties than is currently the case, in particular the VP would not plan monthly member meetings which would become the preserve of the Social Chair. Mike did not think that could work with his slate, and I respect that.
What Mike does not say here (for lack of space if anything), is that he and I had severral long discussions about the Board and what we'd like to see happen with it this next year. I have also had similar discussions with Graham and I can say there is a LOT of common ground--much more than you might guess. It's not for me to go into the details of those plans, but when Graham's slate changed so that I was in line to return as Secretary instead of VP I called Mike and asked if Terry Minkin really wanted to return as Secretary. I said I did not much want to run in opposition to her candidacy but that I was willing to return as Secretary. Mike told me that he would ask Terry next time he sees her. Maybe that will happen at Pocono this weekend.
- emayer - 09-19-2009
+1 To Darren's comments on this issue. I'm not certain the forum is the best venue either, however since many of us cannot attend monthly meetings I'm not sure what other alternatives exist.
It seems we have an abundance of capable, well-intentioned candidates with agendas (per Chris' info) that apparently share much in common.
As a relative outsider to the inner club politics, the crux of the matter relates to the decision of the nominating committee not to recommend the incumbent slate as has been tradition. I am certain that they were aware of Graham's intent, clearly there is more behind this choice.
That said, because their actions are outside the norm and create suspicion, for the benefit of the club the nominating committee should share the rationale for their decision either here or at the next general meeting.
- larrybard - 09-19-2009
Mike Andrews wrote:
Quote:". . . Graham, months earlier, said in passing that he was not having fun and didn't want to do this anymore . . . ."
So this is the basis for concluding that Graham did not want to run for re-election -- the fact that "in passing" he said he was not having fun, etc.?
By any chance, just prior to, or at, the nominating committee's meeting, did anyone on the committee ask Graham the question directly?
- larrybard - 09-19-2009
emayer wrote:
Quote:larrybard wrote:Quote:Don't know if any of you have read the most recently distributed (today) President's Report, but as I read it, the newly adopted written policy now includes something on discounts received by DE instructors (as well as by the "Executive team") -- though it's not clear to me, from the report, whether these discounts were in place already ("historical practices") that are for the first time being documented in a policy, or if they're new changes.
Reading the section referred to above, I gather that existing practices have now been formalized and documented. I didn't get the sense that new changes were made, but pending publication of the policy, perhaps some of the Exec committee members can speak to it here.
Eric, this is what was specifically written in that connection, indicating that changes were made (emphasis added):
"Several members of the Board carefully documented for the first time the Club’s historical practices. Your Board discussed these practices thoroughly at its meeting on September 13, 2009, and made some changes."
Larry
- Wellardmac - 09-19-2009
I see nothing has changed in the asylum.
Three simple facts that most appear to have forgotten.
i) This is a car club - it's supposed to be about the cars.
ii) The club belongs to the members and not the exec.
iii) Honesty and integrity are good things to be encouraged, not repressed.
To quote a famous line from the McCarthy hearings in June 1954, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
I am astounded that uncovering unethical practices is something that some think should be repressed. Have you no shame?
Being a current or past member of the exec does not make you an owner of the club, much as in your mind you might think it does - see point #2
It's no wonder that the vast majority of this club does not participate in events.
Just to be sure, © Wellardmac, 2009. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without express permission of the author.
- Wellardmac - 09-19-2009
emayer wrote:
Quote:+1 To Darren's comments on this issue. I'm not certain the forum is the best venue either, however since many of us cannot attend monthly meetings I'm not sure what other alternatives exist.
It seems we have an abundance of capable, well-intentioned candidates with agendas (per Chris' info) that apparently share much in common.
As a relative outsider to the inner club politics, the crux of the matter relates to the decision of the nominating committee not to recommend the incumbent slate as has been tradition. I am certain that they were aware of Graham's intent, clearly there is more behind this choice.
That said, because their actions are outside the norm and create suspicion, for the benefit of the club the nominating committee should share the rationale for their decision either here or at the next general meeting.
As an outsider to this I have two reactions -
i) Anyone involved in unethical behavior (past and present) should be gone.
ii) Those involved in this coup d'etat should also be gone because their actions have the effect of rewarding those that behaved unethically - see point #2 in my post above.
As Nixon and Clinton would attest, it's not the action that brings you down, it's the lies and cover-up afterwards that get you.
- emayer - 09-19-2009
Knowing the parties involved are likely viewing this thread, it should be crystal clear to them from member responses herein that the nominating committee needs to come clean on the basis of their actions. I may be naive here
hock:, but I truly hope that once this has taken place, the hatchet can be buried and we will move forward constructively. Larry, your point on the discount policies is well taken. I would refer you to Allison and Chris' responses on the matter. It sounds as though good thought was put into delineating these privileges, perhaps it can be discussed further once they are posted on the site.
- TwentySix - 09-19-2009
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:I see nothing has changed in the asylum.Glad you're back Wellard
Three simple facts that most appear to have forgotten.
i) This is a car club - it's supposed to be about the cars.
ii) The club belongs to the members and not the exec.
iii) Honesty and integrity are good things to be encouraged, not repressed.
To quote a famous line from the McCarthy hearings in June 1954, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
I am astounded that uncovering unethical practices is something that some think should be repressed. Have you no shame?
Being a current or past member of the exec does not make you an owner of the club, much as in your mind you might think it does - see point #2
It's no wonder that the vast majority of this club does not participate in events.
Just to be sure, © Wellardmac, 2009. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without express permission of the author.
- Wellardmac - 09-19-2009
Oh, I'm just passing through, but I'm so disgusted by this whole episode that I had to comment.
- dmano - 09-19-2009
Wellardmac wrote:
Quote:Oh, I'm just passing through, but I'm so disgusted by this whole episode that I had to comment.Dude where have you been I miss batting the forum around with you.