Email from OGC - "Fate of the club"?

[CJB]

I received a rather ominous email from OGC last night. It seemed very one-sided and almost propaganda like. Now I'll be the first to admit I do not really participate in the club politics. I don't attend the meetings or any of that stuff and along with that I have no place to complain about anything that happens. I'm not really up to speed with the proposed bylaw changes either. I'm a very passive member who has a busy family life and I'm just going with the flow and minding my own.

That being said, the email came across to me as pretty dramatic. Is there something I'm missing or is it just the person with the email account is very against this and interjecting their opinion and emotion under the OGC name?

[photogpat]

That was a bizarre email.

I'm going with your last sentence.

[Seismic Sam]

No, this is a fairly real crisis. For whatever reason Tom Mader has put this bylaw change in front of the board and it HAS to be voted on tonight according to the bylaws.

What it will essentially do is to reduce the Board of Directors to number of people that were on Stand Durda's somewhat notorious Executive Committee, and for the most part it will be the SAME people that were on that committee. Among other actions, that committee was responsible for signing a contract with Black-Dew for a project whose true cost was $4.2 million dollars without either a membership vote or even general notification of the membership. In addition, it was that Executive Committee that was responsible for the firing of Tom Tousignant, and that matter is winding its way through the court system. At the April member meeting in 2013 held over at the Golf Course so we could handle enough people, we did approve the project that was completed in 2013 on the 100 yard and Short Ranges, and after that the membership voted overwhelmingly that they wanted controls placed on the Executive Committee as a result of the Tom T. matter, and that did happen.

IF this bylaw change by Tom Mader goes through, then ALL of the power of the Board will be vested in 5 individuals, and there will no general board like we have now which can over-ride any of their decisions. In April of 2013 the OGC membership said "Hell No!!" in a very loud voice to what was going on at the time, and the membership prevailed. It's time to stand up and be counted tonight, or the club will go back to the way it was in the 2010-2012 period.

[bstrawse]

The email was very poorly written and communicated, but I agree with Sam that this resolution should be voted down.

There is a far better explanation in last month's club newsletter with the Board's official statement along with Mr. Mader's explanation of why be believes this should be approved.
b

[Seismic Sam]

I should note that there is ALSO a vote on a by-law change by Tom Acheson (Match Director) that by-laws be approved only once a year at the annual meeting to elect club officers, and I would strongly recommend that this be approved. As it is right now, anybody can show up, make up any damn proposal to the by-laws they want, and then the board has to spend time working through this at multiple meetings, and there is no limit to the number of times that can be done. Up until now this has been an area that was not definitively covered by the by-laws, and it needs to be fixed.

The side effects are far-reaching, and it could mean that the club has to publish multiple membership handbooks during the year to cover the changes, as well as the fact that new member training could be affected and require re-training.

And since I'm already up on the soapbox, there is a vacancy for a Long Range Planning Director, so throw your hat in the ring if you want to make a difference and commitment to this club. In addition, I think this club needs a new President, in light of Jerry Marah's continuing bullying and profanity to other members of the club, and this is a behavior that predates his wife's passing by a LOOOONNNG time, and I got the E-mails to prove it, so don't challenge me unless you want the proof out in the open.

[Holland&Holland]

That was a bizarre email.

I'm going with your last sentence.

I also thought it looked this way as well, however as the Board is taking a position against it, I guess in a way OGC officially is against it.

I had an opportunity to speak with a few folks on it this last weekend while working range duty including Tom Mader himself. I am out of town otherwise I would be there to help vote it down. I understand a bit of why Tom feels this way and I could support the concept of revamping the type of positions that are on the board, but reducing the number... to me that is the wrong direction.

[Seismic Sam]

^^^^^THIS...... Well spoken!!!

[xd ED]

Amendment went down 2/1 .
100+ members voting.
Some criticizing and apologies re the 1st email.

[Seismic Sam]

Well, thank God for that. I got some s**t in my own personal fan, and figured the club could live or die without me.

The real bugaboo hiding behind the scenes was the fact that according to the by-laws, you need a quorum of members to vote that is at least 2/3rds of the average of the last two meetings plus the current one, which this time of year with hunting season gearing up could be a number in the high teens or low twenties at best. So you could potentially have a critical by-law change which could ruin the club with only 1% of the members voting. I suspect that's how Stan Durda got some of his "stealth" by-laws passed during his tenure. Ron Kohner looked into it as much as he could, and never could come up with a clear narrative of what had been done from 2010-2012 as far as bylaw changes were concerned.