Ratification of Expense Reimbursement and Discount Policy

[Phokaioglaukos]

Myles is not a problem and I like him and respect the work he does. Speed Council is not really a problem either. It's taken the Board a while to work effectively together, a process that is continuing. It is taking more time to build trust that I had anticipated, and the nomination of Mike to be President has not helped that any! I'm not commenting at all on what sort of President Mike would be, just that I disagree strongly with the actions of the past-presidents in not nominating an incumbent President for reasons that are mysterious at best, without talking with the Board in advance and doing so without the current President who should have been included.

[dmano]

So what Pub are we all meeting at to plan the Revolution    

[JoeP]

There's a little spot in Milleville proper with a respectable selection. 

[Mike Andrews]

Phokaioglaukos wrote:

Myles is not a problem and I like him and respect the work he does. Speed Council is not really a problem either.

Chris,

Ok, you like the chair and respect his work, and the team (speed council) that help him run the events aren't a problem. Yet in the middle of a thread about ratification of a policy you come up with:

[indent]
"To that end, I would like Speed Council to be regularized--that is appointed as a body by the Board, responsible to the Board (and thereby to the members) and with their actions publicized to the Board and members."

[/indent]
Part of that statement, and we had to remind you that you were the one that made the motion to appoint the people on the team to the positions, has already been accomplished. Yeah, I read the post where you later said.... had you only known....





Phokaioglaukos wrote:

It's taken the Board a while to work effectively together, a process that is continuing.

No, it hasn't. The board has worked effectively together for many years. As far back as 1995 and probably even further but I can't attest to anything earlier as that's when I started.

Now if what you meant to write was, The board, under Graham, has taken a while to work effectively, well, that's different.



Phokaioglaukos wrote:

It is taking more time to build trust that I had anticipated, and the nomination of Mike to be President has not helped that any!

I guess there's the difference. And I'm not saying which one is correct, but I like to think I trust people and take stock in them when I meet them. Their actions after that are what takes that trust away.





Phokaioglaukos wrote:

I'm not commenting at all on what sort of President Mike would be, just that I disagree strongly with the actions of the past-presidents in not nominating an incumbent President for reasons that are mysterious at best, without talking with the Board in advance and doing so without the current President who should have been included.

Brian wrote, and Tom read at the meeting, their reasons for not nominating the incumbent President. You can accept them or you can call them mysterious, your choice. You can disagree, that's your right. Graham can stand up and make innuendos about cover-ups …. But the fact of the matter is the nominating committee is designed the way that it is for a reason. Whether they feel I’m the better candidate or they didn’t approve of the way Graham handled issues, their responsibility to the club is to put forth the best person for the job. They respect the club and the rules by which it is governed.

By design, the nominating committee does not consult the board other than to see what positions need to be filled, in other words, who is returning. It is my understanding that one of the vacancies was the position of President and part of the committee started working toward replacing the vacancies. When Graham introduced his slate to the board at the exec meeting it became apparent that he did indeed want to return as President and when told by Tom and Brian that they would be submitting my name, a number of Graham’s slate decided not to run. At least for the time being.

Should the committee have included Graham in the further discussions? Perhaps, and perhaps Graham would have participated.

I applaud your loyalty toward Graham. It’s nice to have friends as close and devoted to each other as you guys are. But, and this is a big but, the loyalty needs to be to the club. Not the guy at the top. We on the exec serve the members, not our friends. We tried to get you and Allison and Joe and Steve to understand that. Yet you would not continue in the positions Graham had you slated for on his ballet. We, the current slate, see the difference and I suspect the membership sees the distinction as well.

[ccm911]

You know guys, when everything was running well back in the day, it seemed like nobody ever brought up all this discussion on how the club is run.  But then when I go back over this thread, aside from the folks on/or running for the Exec board, it seems like there are only about three or four folks continuously posting on this subject.  And by posting, I really mean grousing.

Come on already.  Did the very way the club is run change along with the current economic downturn?  I think not.  Some of these newer members that are on this forum constantly harping on a G*d D*mn, miniscule 50% discount for those who donate a ton of their time to the club are really getting tiresome.

So let's get this microscope out of the bugs ass, and give things a chance to stabilize.  As in the economy and our upcoming RTR election.

How about sticking with the club for five or ten years to see how cycles run.  Then if you have a bitch, I am sure that everyone would be much more inclined to listen.

Ooopps.  Does this rant make me "cliquish", or "Old Boy"?

[JIMK]

ccm911 wrote:

So let's get this microscope out of the bugs ass, . . .

Ooopps. Does this rant make me "cliquish", or "Old Boy"?

There are just SO MANY REASONS why I want to drink with this guy.

Chris, this has been a bad season for me, not at the track enough, I hope to see you trashing a P-Car soon 'cause I wanna drink with you!

[dmano]

JIMK wrote:

ccm911 wrote:

So let's get this microscope out of the bugs ass, . . .

Ooopps. Does this rant make me "cliquish", or "Old Boy"?

There are just SO MANY REASONS why I want to drink with this guy.

Chris, this has been a bad season for me, not at the track enough, I hope to see you trashing a P-Car soon 'cause I wanna drink with you!

Maybe the 3 of us should run for the RTR House of Representatives position we could have our own meetings at the fav watering hole.

[emayer]

I'm sure there's an old age home in the area serving ice cream for you guys! 

Just kidding dudes!  I'd buy a round for all if it meant we could put all the infighting to rest.  This old vs. new member dichotomy is a load of B.S. as there are plenty of great ideas coming from all sides. The treasurer situation and economy only brought some of the flaws within the system to the surface.  Some may want to bury their heads in the sand and wait for things to pass, others see these as an opportunity to improve things and avoid such mishaps in the future.

As we say in the old country:  Prosst!

[ccm911]

dmano wrote:

JIMK wrote:

ccm911 wrote:

So let's get this microscope out of the bugs ass, . . .

Ooopps. Does this rant make me "cliquish", or "Old Boy"?

There are just SO MANY REASONS why I want to drink with this guy.

Chris, this has been a bad season for me, not at the track enough, I hope to see you trashing a P-Car soon 'cause I wanna drink with you!

Maybe the 3 of us should run for the RTR House of Representatives position we could have our own meetings at the fav watering hole.

As long as all decisions are made while we are under the influence.

[APXD 30]

Apathy is setting in and I really can't bring myself to read the posts anymore so I am officially hijacking this thread.  Is it me or is this getting tawdry and should these threads be closed, not for indecency, but for the betterment and unity of our club?  


Inspired by the movie "Brewster's Millions", I might rethink my original position of Knight '10 and Andrews '11.  My new choices for write ins  could be 1) "none of the above," 2) Pedro, 3) Blagojevich, or 3) Mankowski.

Comments please, does anyone know how to start a poll to an existing thread?