I think that we should get a rope and find a tree and hang the worthless sucker.
This whole story needs to be investagate by a review board of common members, that is who I ran to repersent, pick a chair and get all the information.
My position is that I have followed the Consitutuion of the USCA, I have done what I promised in my election statement, and that I have acted for the good of the general membership.
The board was upset with my article in the sidecarist, last issue and Al Obe said that it would be war. I will stand before the general membership at the Bean Blossom rally.
Here is my suggestion, the USCA board meets on the 'racedis' site ask the board to post that whole file and the const of the USCA and read through
then you will have all the information not just snipets that suits someones agenda.
I will petition the board to post these files , come to the general meeting at Bean Blossom I will and you will have all the information needed to make an informed decision. Bring the rope anyway a lynching can be added to the activities.
Thanks Claude,
Once again the board is mudding the waters, this is the battle I have been fighting for the last year, the board is upset that I am not one of the seceret society, that I am for a grassroot movement of the general members. It is time that the board listens to the members and not work in the backroom. I am here for the good of the club, the board has fought me from day one. My statement of wanting a riding board that understands sidecaring has gotten me in lots of deep water. Call for the board to open the 'racedis' file (all of it, not just snipets) and let the chips fall where they may.
I don't have time to read the last year's worth of messages from the board site. Unfortunately it doesn't look like I'll be able to come to Indiana either. I'm sure there are a few other members who won't be there as well. How about answering the question about whether or not you told Mr. Roach to ignore the board and that he would continue to be paid. And are there any other people being paid a regular sum out of the treasury?
Does the constitution provide for the president to override the board's decision? Thanks again,
Bob
If the President has an issue of concern can he ask the board to vote on it. If so should the board do so?
No it does not.
It is pretty clear that all that is required is a majority vote. The only input the president has if a tie in voting needs to be broken. This was not the case. Every member who voted on it voted for it.
Jay Giese
And --Just who are the"Rascals"? I for one, have put in a lot of unpaid time as Treasurer of the USCA. I don't feel I am a Rascal! As some have indicated, this matter is simply a case of The Board (your representatives)have taken a majority vote on a matter (to preserve funds for the use of the general membership)and the President does not agree! He is one and we are six! Now who is the Rascal?
Mogo
Claude,
Let's get straight to the point. If Al Roach is not interested in doing the "job" unless we pay him, he is NOT a sidecarist who cares about the welfare of our association. Therefore, it does not belog ... to it. This is just my personal opinion and .... all in good faith!
Piero Bassi
#4219
Minneapolis, Minnesota
SidecarMike,
I know that you do not have time to read a years worth of post, but in just a few minutes I can send you through the year by giving you post #s then you can read the post before and after. If you do not have access to the whole file you will always wonder what was left out and who is not telling what. I ran for president on open board meeting, not a back room attack. The letter from the board posted on sidecar never went through the board meeting, it is not in the files anywhere. Our constitution is written to prevent this kind of thing from happening. I will be posting regarding the treatment of Al Roach and the action of the board.
Things are getting pretty heated here. I believe that we should get a couple of things straight before we go off at a tangent. I apologize for another long post but there are several items to address.
The first is that Al Roach has not said that he is unwilling to do the Secretary job if he is not paid for it. We informed him that after a 90 day notice (end of June) he would not be paid. When informed of this decision, he said that John Kennedy had assured him that he would be paid. Al Roach is not the bad guy here and I agree with Claude that he should not be characterized as such. STILL there is something wrong when the Secretary's duties are performed by a Registrar, who is paid, and the Secretary and the Registrar are the same person. Al Roach probably didn't arrange this. In all likelihood he was offered the money and like anyone else, he took it. We are retracting that offer because we can easily get the job done for free. How can we pay someone, using the club's money, for something that we can get for free? To do so would be a breach of the trust the membership placed in us to be fiscally responsible. And just for the record when John Kennedy was first told about Al Roach's pay, his reaction was that it should be stopped forthwith. 'Seems he's changed his mind.
John said,” The board was upset with my article in the sidecarist, last issue and Al Obe said that it would be war.” [sic] I think that John’s referring to his endorsement of candidates in the last issue of The Sidecarist. First, I think it’s a misquote but I could be wrong. It just doesn’t sound like me to say there would be a war. Second, John asked the Board if it was OK for him to endorse candidates for the USCA elections. The Board replied that it was fine but he shouldn’t do it as “The President of the USCA” because that might be viewed as an implication that the USCA also endorsed those candidates.
The Board was afraid that Kennedy’s endorsement, if it appeared to be “official” would scare off those who might run in opposition to John’s endorsed group. The Board feels very strongly that we should do our best to involve as many members as possible in making the club function. It builds camaraderie and gives more individuals a feeling of empowerment and fulfillment in being able to contribute to the good of the group as a whole. Sadly, John did just what we asked him not to do and who knows how many potential candidates decided not to run against the “President’s” endorsement? Oh yeah, and if John’s trying to belittle me by continually misspelling my name… well, it’s sort of an elementary school stunt and I don’t think it will have much effect.
What is this business John keeps bringing up about having a “riding Board”? Does he think that we don’t ride or does he think that folks who ride will just agree with him? I rode about 10,000 miles last year in our short Minnesota season. I rode from April to December and made two long trips and several short ones. So I guess I ride…but I still don’t JUST agree with whatever John says. In fairness, we do agree on a number of things. We agree that sidecaring should be fun. We agree that the USCA should be fun and that it should be run for the benefit of the members. We just don’t always agree on what that means. Right now, John is trying to say that paying for a service that we can get for free (and possibly done better) is beneficial to the members. That’s one of the places that we don’t agree. And, I guess we don’t agree about that riding thing because, I think that (so long as he isn’t paid) Al Roach would be a reasonable candidate for Secretary but since he isn’t much of a rider, he wouldn’t fit John’s criteria. Come on John, if you can’t make sense, at least be consistent.
Claude asked. “If the President has an issue of concern can he ask the board to vote on it. If so should the board do so?”. Yes, the President can ask for a vote on a question IF the question is in order. That is, if the question is something that the Board has the ability to decide
Al Olme..AKA Mole...AKA Al Obe wrote:
>>Should the President be able to ignore the Board and do as he pleases or does a majority vote of the Board count for something as is provided for in the USCA Constitution?<<
If this is what the consitution says why are we even talking about it here. If Al Roach is willing to do the job with no pay it is a done deal.
I do not see any good motive for this discussion. If the President does not agree with the present board that is his option. If the board doesn't agree with the president that is their option ...but...if the board's vote rules then the discussion is over and should have been over with no need to make a spectacle of it here.
Why not find out if Al Roach will do the job for free or not before getting everyone in a tizzy.
Claude
Thank You Claude well said...............
Claude wrote: "If this is what the consitution says why are we even talking about it here. If Al Roach is willing to do the job with no pay it is a done deal.
I do not see any good motive for this discussion. If the President does not agree with the present board that is his option. If the board doesn't agree with the president that is their option ...but...if the board's vote rules then the discussion is over and should have been over with no need to make a spectacle of it here."
Boy, I agree with you! The thing is while Al Roach never said he wouldn't do the job for free, he did say that John assured him that he would be paid. I've copied the p[aragraph from the original post below:
"The Board told John Kennedy about the vote and told him that it was his job as President to tell Al Roach that after June of this year, we would no longer be paying anyone to be Registrar and that we would not be paying any officer of the club or allow them to materially participate in providing any services to the USCA. John didn’t answer. In fact, he just didn’t respond at all for about two weeks. During that time, nominations closed and Al Roach is the only nominee for Secretary. Eventually, since John was stone walling the Board, Al Olme contacted Al Roach and gave him the news. During that call, Al Olme was told by Al Roach that he (Al Roach) would still run for Secretary and still be paid to be the Registrar because John Kennedy told him that was the way it would be. John Kennedy had decided to defy the Board’s decision and personally authorize the expenditure of $200 a month for some indefinite time into the future."
So we have a situation where Al Roach is running for Secretary thinking that he will be paid to be "Registrar", a position that isn't mentioned in the USCA Constitution BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, John Kennedy told him so. It isn't a matter of whether or not the Board agrees with John or if John agrees with the Board. Agreement or not, John has told Al Roach that he will be paid and to ignore the Board. John shold have done as the majority of the Board asked him to whether he agreed or not. We all have done things from time to time that we didn't agree with but we knew we had to do because it was our job or it was the decision of the majority. John ignored that and in doing so has misled Al Roach into thinking that he will be paid. That is irresponsible and in a way cruel.
Read Article IV if this is a constitution argurment and tell me the board followed the rules or went to the backroom. YIC John
It is beginning to sound like if the board had spent more time over the last couple of years reviewing the constitution and bylaws maybe this mess would not be with us today.
It is well known by many that there have been those who did not want John elected. But...John was elected in an election that had a decent number of votes from the membership. More than a third I beleve. The amazing thing is that the spread between John and Colby, who came in second was onl five votes. This tells me that the membership thinks a lot of these two people.
To me the USCA IS THE MEMBERSHIP. We talk about an elected board...well the curent board was elected ...but...it was not elected with too much of a vote. Running unopposed it not much of an election.
The USCA, never the less , has come a long way in the last couple of years. Prior to that it was dying a slow death with the reaper in sight.
From what John has posted and from Al has posted I cannot really see where the wrong is other than what appears to be an attempt to crucufy John Kennedy.Technically the wrong was a product of an ineffecient and contridictory constitution and bylaws.
