TopThumbs

JC...

I've watched this thread as well as all the others and. frankly, was not really impresses with your position - untill now. Nice post.

Hoss...
If it matters at all to you I am extremely offended by your particular reference to 9/11. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself
Cheese and Rice, I cant believe the lengths some of you will go to stir the pot.
Not impressed whatsoever.

Bill

ps, I think this thread should stay if for any other reason to keep the true character of some people in the public view so thay may have some warning
as to whom they may be subjected to.

I would request that this thread be locked now before some people just get "stoopider" <--- this was the edit

JUGFLIER

Top thumbs, i am not speaking for Hoss, but i got his drift. If a club board can start throwing out members who disagree with the decisions and actions of the board, where does it end. When do we as a society of modelers stand up for one another. That was his point. you can't stand on the sidelines when it comes to 9/11 and you can't run from rogue boards either. At some time and at some point you have to stand for something.

TopThumbs

I get your drift Jug, and I understood Hoss's point, however...

bad form IMHO and was caught off guard with the offensiveness with the 9/11 post.
I'm sure some other more tactful "drift" could have beeen surmised.. but that's only my guess.
With a tag line including a MacArthur quote I would expect a more civil and less offensive tongue.

Bill

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

1) I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD OF ANY CLUB SHOULD BE ABLE TO TERMINATE A MEMBER, AND THAT THE REINSTATEMENT OF A TERMINATED MEMBER SHOULD REQUIRE A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP. I have been involved in many clubs in many different interests, and without exception found that the majority of the general membership wants something done to eliminate a bully, but lack the stomach to be counted in a public meeting. If the elected leaders of an organization go against the wishes of the majority of the members, the members can reverse the Board's decision. Such a Board will face a tough re-election.

2) The vast (half-vast?) majority of club members don't really give a rip what the BoD does as long as the grass is mowed, they can park close, and dues don't go up.

3) Anyone who would campaign to get themselves elected to a Board on a promise to make changes and then bail out before they can get a majority is short-sighted, impatient, or delusional. Possibly all three, and more....

4) Sometimes a person can be right, and suffer the consequences. John Casey may have been right, and may still be - but the Board took exception to his actions and terminated him. The majority of the membership chose to not support John Casey.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Hoss,
I have no idea what you are talking about in A WILL TO WIN, but I will repeat it in another way just in case you misunderstood. Which by the way don't ever insinuate that I am some conscientious objector who wants someone else to fight my battles for me.
I listened to JC's story and took it for what its worth. I then gave him my OPINION, which like yours, and lilcrankshaft's, and jugfliers and everyone else's on here, does not mean squat. If you think that letting him air out his greviances with the SAM club, and then letting the SAM club do the same to him in this media DOES ANYONE any good, you and the rest are sadly mistaken.
To this date, this has pretty much been going on for months. in different threads. Somehow or another it always come back to this club, so denying that it is aimed at them does not sit well with me. Shots are fired from this side, and then from the other. NOTHING has been solved. JC is still mad at the SAM club, he is still not allowed to fly there, they have not restored his membership, and they still have not answered the questions that some on this forum think they should. Quess what, they do not have to answer to anyone on this forum, they only have to answer to themselves, their current membership, and to God (not neccesarily in that order). The members of the SAM club know what they have, and if they chose to be a member, they can vote with their pocketbooks (walk or re-up). I simply pointed out in my POV that JC was ticked off at them (rightly or wrongly it is not for me to decide) and it comes across in his threads. A man can pick his battles. Most are smart enough to figure out the ones worth fighting. It is the ones who are not that try to take down everyone and everything around them just because they can...why wallow in self pity and defeat alone when you can have company???
You mentioned on here about you fight with a utilites company, and I support that 100%, it belongs to you, you paid for it, there is a reason there to fight for it. Of course the government has the "writ of imminent domain" which they will claim, and talk about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but there is something wrong with them taking something you paid for (and will continue to pay for in taxes) and limit your use of it.
However, this fight between JC and SAM is not the same issue. It is not about David standing up to Goliath. JC for some reason or another made himself unwanted in a "group" where people pay to be members. The majority of the members either failed to support him or were so apathetic that they ignored what was happening around them and they allowed him to be expelled. Supposedly he filed suit, filed complaints, and numerous other things that to this day has still failed to get him restored to what he wants. Has he gained anything yet??? Not in my eye, and from the looks of it he never will. My advice was to LET IT GO. Now you can call me a coward or whatever but I will continue to believe that even if he got his way HE STILL WOULD NOT BE HAPPY because now he would be in a situation whereby those surrounding him were forced to take him in and it would be worse than before. When people cannot get along they need to be separated, you should have learned that from childhood, until they can tolerate one another.
Your reference to 9/11 does not necessarily offend me, I see what you are trying to say, but comparing the slamming of airplanes into a building and killing thousands of people some how does not compare to futile arguments between a group of hobbyists.
Again, my $0.02 which appears to be worth less than some of the other $0.02 that is being dispensed here.
Tommy Yates
AMA #1469

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I believe you couldn’t be more wrong. This is another media of communication and may be the tool needed to shed a little light on the mushroom farm. Maybe the SAM members can put two and two and together now and get a real understanding of some of the events that has so negatively affected their club.


Here is part of what perpetuates this debate…I have not found anything that indicates John is mad at the SAM’s club…just the few (the board)that have caused the problem from his perspective have been identified.

Your assumptions are out of line IMO and you should refrain from fueling contention with your conjecture.

True but equally or more likely it is the board that needs to be removed…Who knows, in the not so distant future, the current board may be removed, John may very well be apart of the club again…heck, maybe even the club president.

In this entire BS it seems John had no problems with the club…only the club’s BOD…this important point has been confused all too often in these exchanges.

Tommy_Gun

Very well put Doc,

You have done a great job of hitting the main and important points.
My only reason for doing any posting I have is to try and neutralize the negative BS that has been put forth by a certain disgruntled persistent poster.

BTW lilcranshaf,
The BOD is elected by the CLUB if the club wanted the BOD changed it would change.
So since he had a problem with the BOD as you say, he did by default have a problem with the CLUB.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

You of course are entitled to your opinion. We will agree to disagree.


Nothing you or I have said in this forum has done anything to solve this problem. Where I see the right of a group to control itself and the right of the individual to decide to be a part of that that group, you see where the group should be forced to change their processes to fit the needs of the one. He obviously fits in better with his new group, they like him, they want him, and they welcome him. He should be happy and leave well enough alone.

Obviously you have not read everything I have read. I detect anger on both sides. You obviously see only fault on the part of the club. I simply pointed out that both of their hands are likely dirty and I objectively believe that the club did not single him out one day out of the blue to make his life miserable.


And the BOD apparently currently represents the club. He admits that at one time he even served on the BoD. Perhaps he contributed to the problem with decisions he made during his tenure, I do not know, but I would be willing to bet there were some in his constituency who did not find favor with all of his actions. that of course is only an assumption, and you know what happens when we assume... He may well be the leader of the new club after the revolt and take over, if that is the route he chooses to take. What gets me is the fact that in a hobby such as this where the true nature should be to go out and enjoy it while flying planes or building them, one needs to take it up himself to "take out" a BOD or take over the club. I obviously see this in an entirely different light as everyone else. The few who sent me PM's advising me not to even respond to this mess obviously knew what they were talking about.
If you believe that the AMA has the right or the power to tell private clubs how they should conduct their personal business then you will obviously believe that these threads have served a purpose. The day when the AMA begins to do something other than ADVISE the clubs you are likely to see more involvement from the currently apathetic. The bylaws which are required for club's charter are never returned to club's with the instruction of how to amend them or cease to exist. They are a requirement so that the AMA can say that the club had something in place when these silly little squabbles turn into lawsuits. The only thing these threads have done is to show self destructive behavior on both parts, and confirm the falacy that you believe any thing you say here will make a difference in the outcome.
Good day
Tommy

Hossfly

Obviously Doc, you're not reading all the the good things the beloved AMA EC is considering in these current times, are you?

edit: language

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Yes, I have read what they are considering. But what they are considering, and what they currently have in practice are two different things. They have advised the clubs on what they should have in the bylaws currently, but to my knowledge I have not heard of a single instance where these bylaws have been returned to the clubs for them to change them to meet specification.
Of course, this may all change in the future, and you are right, the EC is probably considering this. Some of us would argue that they are opening a Pandora's Box which will not fix the current problems, only open themselves up to more of this mess.
Tommy

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hmmm...so only what you post is making a difference?? Yes, I am the pot Mr. kettle

It is funny but the whole problem with this thread can be extrapolated from just the above excerpt of yours...will you have an epiphany...I doubt it.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

And I'm the little teapot,,,...like I said nothing you or I say will mean anyting in THEIR fight. We are just bystanders. Your $0.02 is not worth any more than mine.
Tommy

Hossfly

" .... is probably..." My rear!

AMA MINUTES Jan. '07 >>>. Hanson is suggesting that the affirmations signed by the club officers include statements that they will operate according to the provisions of their bylaws and that they will maintain a current copy of the bylaws at AMA Headquarters. Headquarters will refine its list of suggested items to include in club bylaws, into a list of items clubs must include in their bylaws.

Very well, may be so, however if those of us here that resist those that run over so many does, in some way, motivate the newer follow-ons to stand tall, then just maybe they can fire their bazooka BEFORE the tank runs THEM over, then IMO the time was well spent. [>:]

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

So Hossfly,
From everything you have read in these threads, how would JC's case have been handled differently with these new "mandates" from HQ in place and how would it have been made better? Is the AMA going to give explicit instructions to the clubs on how they can get rid of someone that they deem a detriment to the club and for what reason? Or are they going to continue to allow the clubs to come up with their own methods? Of everything I heard here I have only seen where a club dismissed one, possibly three people, from their roles. At least one of those who was denied membership has already publically stated that he was not happy with the direction the club was taking, did not support the actions of the elected BoD, and even tried to wrestle the field from the club by approaching the landowner. He also supposedly disrupted meetings by calling for the absolution of the Board, which evidently failed. Do you actually believe that these people should be forced to coexist together in a club? They have already said their have been threats against them, cars keyed and kicked in , and planes shot down. How far does it have to escalate before they need to be separated. You guys would like to condemn the actions of the elected and appointed BoD of a club and insist that they are wrong and should be removed. It is not our decision or the AMA's to make, but the club's membership. My guess is if this club had $83 in the bank, rather than $80000 this would be a mute point, and JC would be happy as a dead pig in the sunshine at his new club. The AMA is taking a reactionary step based upon these frivolous lawsuits and nothing more.
Horace, you yourself have been a voice of reason occasionally as to the actions of the EC, and how they tend to not only overstep their bounds but react too quickly to these types of things. I cannot see where you think any good will come of this. I will stand by what I thought when I saw yet another one of these threads pop up..."how long are we going to beat this dead horse". Is there a huge mass of the "oppressed" out there being manipulated by club leaders to do their bidding? If so what we need to do is to stimulate some of these people to get off their lazy hineys and get involved in the process, serve their clubs and the AMA. My guess is if they did they would have a whole lot less time to cry and moan about their situations. My observation is about 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, and that holds thru to almost any organization. It is a lot easier to cry than it is to serve.
Tommy

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

""In this entire BS it seems John had no problems with the club…only the club’s BOD…this important point has been confused all too often in these exchanges. ""

Thats accurate........... and thanks for pointing that out.

If The club's membership had voted against my proposals
and with the "elected" board I could see the board point claiming "disruption" ,
but that was not the case. And if even true its still not a terminationable offense.

If a proposal to extend the runway had been sent in to the county, then later denied by the county,
I could have lived with that. But it was never sent in on behalf of the membership.
I was lied to, over and over and I had to send it in.

If the racing boys had followed the long standing club rules and taken down the pylons
as had been done for over 15 years, myself and others would not have been "complaining".

If jeff weiss's Constitutional amendment to limit the boards power was VOTED ON, up or down
instead of attacking and terminating the person making the motion which destroyed
the democractic process there might have never been a war started.

When we americans vote its supposed to count.

Protecting freedom and liberty is a hard thing to do.

When the founding fathers of this country(leaders) went up against the tyranny of the british empire,
the empire went first after the Voices of those opposing them not the whole country,
The same happened here. Any opposing voice was terminated.

Our country as shown us time and time again..."we are not one mind with whom we elect."

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Could you or your fellow club members have not gone out and taken down the pylons? If this was a point of contention within the club and it was makiing life miserable then actions could have been taken surely, if not just removing them for the day and putting them back up at the end of the day. I am not sure I see much there worth arguing about.

You point at the Constitution John, and most of us agree that it affords us the right to voice our concerns, our arguments, and the right to speak our mind. It does not however offer resolve nor absolution for our actions.
One can say pretty much whatever they wish, but they should be prepared to face the results of their actions.
Yours is the not the only dysfunctional club in the country, and a mandate handed down by HQ is not going to make clubs politics any less "messy" nor do away with a bully.
What I heard from the previous thread was that it was going to be a costly move to do a field site inspection for the runway extension, and the BoD were told that "there was no way it was going to be approved". I know you take exception to that statement, you have said before. But if that was true, they did act in the best interest of the club. How would a club, with the type of resources which this one has, been hurt by a runway extension? What was the motive behind their sandbagging it? Perhaps that is where I do not understand the logic behind this. Obviously the racing circuit was proving quite profitable for the club (that is alot of money in a club treasury) so there must have been a big interest in keeping it going (pylons) and supporting it within the club. Perhaps that is why the pylons remained up. Like I said I don't know enough of the story to make assumptions of guilt on either party, thus I will refrain from doing so.
Tommy

Tommy_Gun

Hey Doc,
Here is some recent action from that 'dysfunctional club".
http://www.rcuvideos.com/view_video....522c46a72f1dfb

They sure look miserable out there , don't they.

Now understand, I do not take exception to you using that term. I am merely repeating the term you used.

BUTCHIEBOY

There sure seems to be some vague areas in these arguments that maybe someone could answer. This runway vote sounds like a carrot in front of a horse to make it run. If I went to my golf club and presented a proposal in the meeting that the club purchase a complete set of Ping golf clubs for every member, do you really think any of the members would vote against that proposal? And if this was voted on in the meeting would our club BOD have to supply each member with Ping's???? I DON'T THINK SO. The BOD would be negligent in there fiduciary duty to maintain a financially solvent golf club.

Which brings me to my next question. Is your club set up as a democracy, with each member or members at meetings voting on all aspects of the operation of the club, or is your club set up as a republic, with the members voting representatives who are elected to the BOD to vote on club's business.

John's quote was:"When we americans vote its supposed to count."

Your vote in the old US of A counts to electing representatives to conduct business for you in the Senate and House of Representatives. I have yet been able to vote there, and I think most if not all of us never have or will!!!

So what do we have, a club based on pure democracy or a representative form of direction? I would be curious to have one of the club members of this club PM me with the Bylaws in order to answer this question.

I am not really sure where this pylon thing fits in all of this? If the membership wanted them down and there is written club rules against leaving them up, THEN TAKE THE DAMN THINGS DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There just seems to be sooooo many statements of fact that have no actual proof, that ascertaining the truth is impossible in this forum. I believe as many have stated before, that we will never know the real answer, and I still say if the membership was so firmly entrenched behind this person's proposals that some change would have happened here. It did not and that makes me very SUSPICIOUS of these accusations. THE SOAP OPERA CONTINUES!

Someone from SAM please post the applicable sections of your Bylaws.


[][][][]

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

I will try to be polite and brief with my reponses here. First I would like to note that the SAM club is a not for profit corporation in California governed by the California Corporate Code which spells out very clearly how members can be terminated and has some very clear guidelines on how said terminations can be processed legally.

Liberator

Jimmy there is one point I notice here that bears some drill down. You state.

"Vote taken to look into runway extention. I have a personal friend who works for county planning that stated that it could never happen due to environmental issues! Then the run way was then destroyed by a fire tanker truck. Board moved on to handle the more pressing problem of getting it repaired, you decided to work against the board and be confrontational. "

I got the impression the vote was to extend the runway not simply look into it.
I also get the impression from the above statement that you decided to take your friends position of "it could never happen" as a statement of fact when in fact it was simply his opinion. Frankly in my opinion what should have occured is this. The vote to extend the runway is taken and passes. Then the membership is made aware that part of this being able to go through will require an environmental impact study to be completed. THis will cost the club X amount of dollars. Should the impact study deem that it can't be done, then we as a club will lose that money and not be able to extend the runway. We need to vote again on releasing some of our $83,000 funds towards this study...all in favor?...Opposed? and LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!!

It frankly sounds like you , the board or whomever took it into your hands to say we know best, we won't allow this to be voted on and ran from there. In my opinion regardless of your position you have no right to make that decision. The club should have been allowed to vote to make a stupid choice and then made to live with that choice if the majority decided to go that direction.

Had you done this, then the club has to live with the decision and even if the club coffers got whittled down my 20k, hey lesson learned. My club operates on about 4k bank account and we do this easily. You guys are far bigger, but you have vastly more funds available to you. THis would not have killed the club and in fact would have allowed you to take the high road.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

Liberator,

At the meeting where the vote was taken, the question was "all those in favor to the researching a longer runway". The county planning individual who I know and who I would consider a friend was one of very few individuals who approve said type of improvements done to county land. He stated that in his opinion with his professional back ground and the information he already had available that he could not let this project take place. He then also stated that we could go and spend the money, spend the time to submit the project to county parks who would then submit it to planning for review if we really felt that we must. I don't know much about vernal pools, but in California I guess they play an important role on land development changes.

I as an elected officer at the time did not feel that the expense would be justified. Add to that the destruction of the runway and a $30K estimate to fix it and the club was already spending a ton of money at the current time. I for one feel (just my opinion here) that the club needs to have enough money left to re-repair the runway in the event something else happens, and not just spend it because we have it.

I believe when I took the nomination to the board that I was entrusted with the care and running of the club for my two year term. I look back on the time and with out a doubt believe that I did the job to the best of my abilitiy. Most were happy with the job done, some were unhappy. The club still has it's site, the runway has been repaired, and many other improvements have been made over the past 5 years.

I hope that this information helps answer your question/statement. Please realize that I do respect your position even if we do not see eye to eye on the responsibility of the elected officers. This was a time where there were going to be individuals who were happy with the decissions made and those that were going to be unhappy. Please believe me, most members knew full well what was happening because the board had an open door policy with regards to discussing business with the membership. Some members just didn't want to openly discuss things.

Going forward if I were ever in this situation again I may just take your advice and spend it, it goes against what I think is right, but maybe things would of worked out for the better.

Thank you,
Jim Smith

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

Amazing what can happen when grown men have intelligent discussion.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

WOW! It is unfortunate that earlier on in this exchange you hadn't made a post more like this one. It isn't hard to understand your position as you laid it out here.

I really think you have learned something as well as many others tuned into this mess.

Maybe we could have arrived here a lot sooner if the mods would have let it run its course without tier subjective intervention.

John Casey

My Feedback: (4)

Jim Smith continues to "modify" what really transpired.
The motion which I made(AND I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE IT) was to extend the runway.

"his" people tried to modify it with me standing there,
the membership already made up thier minds to spend thier money

With over $80,000 in in kitty we could pave three runways.

The membership was not going to vote
for something we could'nt afford to do.

The boards supporters "created" the story afterward that the motion was
"to look into extending it".


As far as the representive vs democracy type club actions........
its true these people were voted into office(most of them appointed) by the members.
its is also true the members voted down raising fees,
so when the board raised fees anyway against the will of the members
they are supposed to "represent" are not either forms of governing violated???

If the governator puts in his iniative for the voters to vote on, and the voters vote it down,
he does NOT GET TO DO IT REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.

Pylons ?s The club event rules" item 21.
" the field must be put back into a presentable condition and all pylons etc taken down"
The racing guys keep putting them back up and heaven help anyone "caught"taking them down.

Runway.???..If your are trying to set up a Racing country club for yourself...........would you want a
runway capable of supporting heavy large scale aircraft............. or would you do
things to make sure it did not get extended ,that would use up some of what you think is "your" money.

MR smith(racing guy)..........If the runway is crushed, and you have to repave it anyway,
would that not be the correct time to extend it? Repair and extend all at once.

Motive..........making sure the runway never got extended was the reason the
proposal was never sent in, and the nearby homeowners contacted right after the members voted for it.
Cover stories were created time and again to cover things up.

Teachu2

My Feedback: (133)

And here I was thinking you might declare victory, gracefully.....