.......and some more IMPBA gray matter

[piper_chuck]

I also would like to remind everyone that Dom's proposal was not voted on or approved by the IMPBA board of directors, it was tabled! This information was given to me by 2 different district directors. It back-doored it's way out to the general membership due to a loophole in our by laws. <_<

Would that be similar to the alleged loophole that to allows the MINORITY to decide a constitutional change?

 

[John Knight]

I also would like to remind everyone that Dom's proposal was not voted on or approved by the IMPBA board of directors, it was tabled! This information was given to me by 2 different district directors. It back-doored it's way out to the general membership due to a loophole in our by laws. <_<

Would that be similar to the alleged loophole that to allows the MINORITY to decide a constitutional change?

With this tidbit of information now revealed, I guess I am baffled even more. Maybe I am just plain dumb, even with a college degree in business with concentration in management and pre-law. Why is it that the general IMPBA membership is voting on a constitutional admendment that has NOT been voted on by our elected district directors????? I consider it to be immaterial if there is a loophole in the bylaws and procedures. What about the inherent right to due process and the proper way that things should be handled for the best interest and welfare of the entire membership?

Again I ask for the senior management of IMPBA to step up and withdraw this admendment. How can each of you, in good conscience, look at each the members in the eye and tell us that you have served the best interest of the IMPBA by allowing this? If you can tell me you can, I will respond with you need to resign. PERIOD! This is irresponsible. Do it the right way or do not do it at all.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Easy John, this is not the fault of anyone sitting on the board but rather some seriously outdated sections of our rules & by laws. Because of said rules & by laws their hands are tied ........ for the moment. Good news is now that these flaws have been brought to the forefront they can be addressed. BUT let's fix one thing at a time so we can be sure each "fix" is the correct one & not a band aid.

 

[Tony Jacuzzi]

I also would like to remind everyone that Dom's proposal was not voted on or approved by the IMPBA board of directors, it was tabled! This information was given to me by 2 different district directors. It back-doored it's way out to the general membership due to a loophole in our by laws. <_<

Would that be similar to the alleged loophole that to allows the MINORITY to decide a constitutional change?

Don - its not a loophole at all. It was tabled in error, then when it was pointed out to the BOD they reversed their decision. You do not need the Boards approval for a constitutional ammendment, and you shouldnt otherwise a board could block changes as long as they desired.

Chuck - Does it take 51% of all of the eligible voters in the US to elect a president ? or is it a majority of the actual votes cast. (given the electoral college etc. (Didnt Gore actually win the popular vote but lose to G W?). To think that 500 plus votes would be registered on any IMPBA issue is a really optimistic view.

I am much more troubled by the fact that the National FE and Gas directors, and past presidents have equivalent voting power to all of the Districts yet have no constituency. I didnt like that District 2 ended up with 200 plus members but was allocated a single vote in 2005, because we did not have good membership numbers in 2004. I dont like the idea that the FE director (no offense intended RT) is also the D1 Director currently has (2) votes, and excercised those votes, but since its legal within the IMPBA's current rules I accept and deal with it.

I encourage everyone to VOTE, and when its over we accept the result and move on. There will be more rules changes and ammendments coming in the next few months. I think thats a good thing and a sign that the organization and its members is trying to be progressive... Tony j

 

[Brian Schymik]

John, you have been slightly misinformed.

As I have relayed to Don already,

the Board did indeed vote on this amendment. This is not reflected in the IMPBA minutes, from where Don got his information.

It was not in the minutes, because we voted by email after the meeting, once the amendment was made.

In the interest of "Getting it done" we did not convene a formal Board meeting. The only oversight was that this vote should be mentioned in the minutes as an addendum. It will be in the future.

I would be willing to let you serve on this Board with us anytime.

Brian Schymik

Treasurer

D14 Director

I also would like to remind everyone that Dom's proposal was not voted on or approved by the IMPBA board of directors, it was tabled! This information was given to me by 2 different district directors. It back-doored it's way out to the general membership due to a loophole in our by laws. <_<

Would that be similar to the alleged loophole that to allows the MINORITY to decide a constitutional change?

With this tidbit of information now revealed, I guess I am baffled even more. Maybe I am just plain dumb, even with a college degree in business with concentration in management and pre-law. Why is it that the general IMPBA membership is voting on a constitutional admendment that has NOT been voted on by our elected district directors????? I consider it to be immaterial if there is a loophole in the bylaws and procedures. What about the inherent right to due process and the proper way that things should be handled for the best interest and welfare of the entire membership?

Again I ask for the senior management of IMPBA to step up and withdraw this admendment. How can each of you, in good conscience, look at each the members in the eye and tell us that you have served the best interest of the IMPBA by allowing this? If you can tell me you can, I will respond with you need to resign. PERIOD! This is irresponsible. Do it the right way or do not do it at all.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don - its not a loophole at all. It was tabled in error, then when it was pointed out to the BOD they reversed their decision. You do not need the Boards approval for a constitutional ammendment, and you shouldnt otherwise a board could block changes as long as they desired.

On this I strongly disagree. The board members are ELECTED officials that WE the members put in place so they should review & vote on any proposals before they go to general membership. So to me the idea of indefinite blocking is not valid. If said directors do not live up to the members expectations they get voted out & replaced. We place them there in the first place as our trusted representatives.

I am much more troubled by the fact that the National FE and Gas directors, and past presidents have equivalent voting power to all of the Districts yet have no constituency. I didnt like that District 2 ended up with 200 plus members but was allocated a single vote in 2005, because we did not have good membership numbers in 2004. I dont like the idea that the FE director (no offense intended RT) is also the D1 Director currently has (2) votes, and excercised those votes, but since its legal within the IMPBA's current rules I accept and deal with it.

This is not right either but 2 wrongs doesn't fix anything. I've always wondered why a past president has full voting privledges. Also why the FE & gas directors do but others like scale & o/b directors do not. Personally, I'd like to see all the directors like the o/b & scale directors have a vote...when the rule directly applies to the group they oversee. Otherwise it's district directors & current president & that's it. No offense meant to any of the "specialty" directors intended.

I encourage everyone to VOTE, and when its over we accept the result and move on. There will be more rules changes and ammendments coming in the next few months. I think thats a good thing and a sign that the organization and its members is trying to be progressive... Tony j

Yes, please vote. And Tony is correct, you will see alot of new stuff coming across the tables in '06, you can take that to the bank!

 

[Brian Schymik]

This is not right either but 2 wrongs doesn't fix anything. I've always wondered why a past president has full voting privledges. Also why the FE & gas directors do but others like scale & o/b directors do not. Personally, I'd like to see all the directors like the o/b & scale directors have a vote...when the rule directly applies to the group they oversee. Otherwise it's district directors & current president & that's it. No offense meant to any of the "specialty" directors intended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortunately we have some upstanding Board members in the gas and FE roles. When an issue that does not pertain to them comes up, they will frequently abstain.

Brian

 

[piper_chuck]

Chuck - Does it take 51% of all of the eligible voters in the US to elect a president ? or is it a majority of the actual votes cast. (given the electoral college etc. (Didnt Gore actually win the popular vote but lose to G W?). To think that 500 plus votes would be registered on any IMPBA issue is a really optimistic view.

I didn't say eligible voters. I don't get why people confuse the discussion about majority by somehow tying it to eligible voters. It seems I have to keep repeating myself until people catch on. Parlimentary procedure defines a majority as more than 1/2 of the votes cast. In a 3 way election, if there's a 40/30/30 split, there is NO MAJORITY, and no decision.

The presidential election is not a valid example. Our presidents are not elected by the popular vote, they are elected by the electoral college. And, yes they do need a majority of the electoral college votes to be elected.

A more appropriate example would be local elections. Ever hear of runoff elections? Why do those happen? Because none of the candidates got the MAJORITY of the votes cast. Realizing that it's not good to give significant victories to a MINORITY, a runoff is held.

Same thing here. It's ridiculous to even think about awarding something as important as a constitutional change to a minority of the votes cast.

I am much more troubled by the fact that the National FE and Gas directors, and past presidents have equivalent voting power to all of the Districts yet have no constituency. I didnt like that District 2 ended up with 200 plus members but was allocated a single vote in 2005, because we did not have good membership numbers in 2004. I dont like the idea that the FE director (no offense intended RT) is also the D1 Director currently has (2) votes, and excercised those votes, but since its legal within the IMPBA's current rules I accept and deal with it.

I agree with your concerns. I've already stated my idea on what should be changed, but that's not the proposal that's on the table now.

I encourage everyone to VOTE, and when its over we accept the result and move on. There will be more rules changes and ammendments coming in the next few months. I think thats a good thing and a sign that the organization and its members is trying to be progressive... Tony j

If the rules are changed to suit a minority of voters, it's just about certain that people will not move on. The MAJORITY will be pissed off and it's just going to cause division. This is part of the reason you see things like 2/3 of the votes being required for certain types of changes, to ensure there's more of a consensus.

 

[John Knight]

Brian,

Then for the sake of full and open disclosure to the IMPBA membership on an item that we are asked to vote on now, that is not contained in the minutes from the IMPBA BOD minutes, summarize for us all, now:

1. What was the final recommendation for the vote

2. Who voted for it - really looking for the DD's

3. Date of the vote

Since there are no minutes official documenting the above. Just the straight facts please without the mish-mash and political mumbo jumbo.

I'll be the first to admit that this could be on the up and up, but from many of us sitting on the outside looking in, it appears to be somewhat dubious. I hope that if anything comes out from this, that the senior leadership does not step on this landmine again. Nothing good has been served other than the vetting of the democratic process and that even has taken a big hit. We MUST do better.

If I have been misinformed, I am not alone in that I can assure you.

John

John, you have been slightly misinformed.

As I have relayed to Don already,

the Board did indeed vote on this amendment. This is not reflected in the IMPBA minutes, from where Don got his information.

It was not in the minutes, because we voted by email after the meeting, once the amendment was made.

In the interest of "Getting it done" we did not convene a formal Board meeting. The only oversight was that this vote should be mentioned in the minutes as an addendum. It will be in the future.

I would be willing to let you serve on this Board with us anytime.

Brian Schymik

Treasurer

D14 Director

I also would like to remind everyone that Dom's proposal was not voted on or approved by the IMPBA board of directors, it was tabled! This information was given to me by 2 different district directors. It back-doored it's way out to the general membership due to a loophole in our by laws. <_<

Would that be similar to the alleged loophole that to allows the MINORITY to decide a constitutional change?

With this tidbit of information now revealed, I guess I am baffled even more. Maybe I am just plain dumb, even with a college degree in business with concentration in management and pre-law. Why is it that the general IMPBA membership is voting on a constitutional admendment that has NOT been voted on by our elected district directors????? I consider it to be immaterial if there is a loophole in the bylaws and procedures. What about the inherent right to due process and the proper way that things should be handled for the best interest and welfare of the entire membership?

Again I ask for the senior management of IMPBA to step up and withdraw this admendment. How can each of you, in good conscience, look at each the members in the eye and tell us that you have served the best interest of the IMPBA by allowing this? If you can tell me you can, I will respond with you need to resign. PERIOD! This is irresponsible. Do it the right way or do not do it at all.

 

[Ron Olson]

Now some have seen some more light!

Let's use a hypothetic position and we'll call this person the Steam Director. Hey, the IMPBA still does have a Steam class. Anyway, this person should have a percentage of the voting rights also. Any person on the BOD should have voting rights if this system is going to be used and that person SHOULD vote, not abstain as they might decide years down the road to switch over and try to run nitro, gas or electric. The rules change would then affect them! Any BOD member should have knowledge of every class whether they give a rats wazoo about it or not.

i wholeheartedly agree that any BOD member should have equal voting rights. Those in postition aren't saying a word so far that currently have none but must feel left out. If we have a Gas Director that has voting privileges, why shouldn't the OB Director, Scale Director, etc.?

What about the Safety Director? Shouldn't he have a (for instance) 2.93% of the voting power especially if a big safety issue arises that needs a membership vote? Yes, I realize that safety issues can be put into the rulebook a lot faster but right now I'm using an "If".