MARC ballot and Constitution change

[Jeff/Illinois]

I had not belonged to MARC for a number of years.

When they were holding a National meet at Crown Point, Indiana a number of years ago I was close by so I attended. I really enjoyed seeing the cars. The ladies at the MARC desk were very friendly and helpful,that encouraged me to sign up immediately and re-join.

Now, if they take this new approach, and I had happened upon the Natl. Meet, I'm sure I would say 'no' to belonging again and I would simply turn and walk away.

That to me is getting too political, that's the reason I quit every other old car club I was in. You get tired of funding a good-ole-boy club that becomes a tool to stroke somebody else's ego.

[Dick Carne]

All of the above are interesting comments. For the most part, the proposed changes appear to me to be primarily oriented toward an update and revision of semantics rather than general policy modifications. As an example, a few of the comments above have suggested that the exclusionary language contained in Article V of the Constitution/Bylaws is the result of an arbitrary decision on the part of the Board that is intended to restrict/exclude access to scheduled MARC events, but from my perspective, a closer reading suggests that these "restrictions" are mandated more by the group insurance policy than by any action on the part of the Board (I suspect that the liability section of the national insurance policy is limiting only to define those that would be covered in the event of injury/damage, etc. Similarly, I suspect that in order to remove such restrictions would result in much higher insurance premiums, and perhaps make membership more expensive ... for those on a fixed income, this might prove to be more exclusionary than the limitation on members vs. non-members. From a legal perspective, a loose analogy might be the difference in the standard of care owed to an invitee (guest) vs. a non-member ("trespasser" -- think in terms of vacant land/property). Consequently, I am confident that the sole reason for adding the language in the proposed revision of this section is instead mandated by the terms of the group insurance policy rather than any exclusionary intent on the part of the Board.

While I am not one for "political correctness", I suspect that the reference to a "domestic partner" in Article IV, Section 2(a)(1) may have been offered to address those instances where someone in a "spousal" role/relationship with a member, might be attending a designated MARC event. Under this proposed revision, and in my case, my fiance' (female/girl friend) would also be provided coverage under this provision rather than be excluded from coverage (see above) as a "non-member".

Notwithstanding, the many references throughout the proposed revised document, I personally do not see anything overly objectionable that is being proposed, but as I stated initially, the primary objective sought through these proposed revisions is targeted instead at cleaning up the semantics of this instrument, and of bringing certain sections into line with corresponding language found in the MARC general insurance policy.

With all of this said, if I were to make any general observation and subsequent recommendation, it would be that there be a more consistent reference to either "Directors" or "Board Members". From my reading of this document, it would appear that these terms are used somewhat interchangeably rather than a more consistent reference to those who might serve in the various positions on the Board.

[Mike V. Florida]

With so many changes how can you just vote no without an explanation? Are you really against changing "National driving awards program" to "MARC Milage program"?

[30 Closed Cab PU]

A lot of this discussion could have been avoided if MARC had provided information on why each change was made. I think doing this is only fair if they expect no voters to explain why voting no.

[Gene F]

I thought of the insurance angle before I posted Dick. Yes, they might have to go shopping for another insurance policy. However, even If dues went up $5 per year, the vast majority of the people that are members in my local chapter, are not that strapped that they'd bail for $5, on any item of leisure that they want. Heck, our local chapter raised dues $5 a few years ago, and we all grumbled, but we all paid it.


Remember I said it appeared to be drafted by a lawyer type. Insurance companies try to reduce the risks, and throw the kitchen sink in, hoping no one will notice. I have a minor son, and one thing about insurance, they will try their best to get out of paying. Immediate family member, and/or household member would have been better wording. See what I mean...


Plus, there are tons of changes this time.


I tend to be moderate in such things, but I'm really not satisfied with the way this has been handled. To some extent, I feel as if they just didn't give a hoot. I wish they will set this aside, pay up, or go shopping for another insurance carrier, and then put something on the ballot that makes sense.

[2manycars]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The more I read this stuff, the happier I am that I am no longer a member of MARC.

[Brian SATX]

Well, this has gotten muddied somewhat. My original post was about the having to justify why I voted no. That is not the way it is supposed to be anywhere. It is not how it is in the constitution, new or old. It should not be a requirement that I have to justify to the Board or what ever why I feel a certain way. I have decided I probably will not renew after over 26 years of membership.. I know that one person not renewing means nothing to them. But it means something to me.

[2manycars]

Originally Posted by Brian SATX

Well, this has gotten muddied somewhat. My original post was about the having to justify why I voted no. That is not the way it is supposed to be anywhere. It is not how it is in the constitution, new or old. It should not be a requirement that I have to justify to the Board or what ever why I feel a certain way. I have decided I probably will not renew after over 26 years of membership.. I know that one person not renewing means nothing to them. But it means something to me.

Excellent answer, and that is how I felt when I stopped subscribing.

[noboD]

I don't have a nickle in this as I am not a member. But why would attendance be part of the constitution? If this is an insurance issue why don't they just explain that? I doubt they have insurance that covers every soul for injuries that is at a meet, probably just D&O like every other club. That only covers officers and directors/organizers against liability against being sued. Maybe they should be doing more 'splainin'.

[WTSHNN]

Just curious...

For those of you with concerns or questions about the process and/or proposed changes, what did the Board's Secretary and President say when you asked them about it like it said to do on the ballot?

-Tim

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by noboD

I don't have a nickle in this as I am not a member. But why would attendance be part of the constitution? If this is an insurance issue why don't they just explain that? I doubt they have insurance that covers every soul for injuries that is at a meet, probably just D&O like every other club. That only covers officers and directors/organizers against liability against being sued. Maybe they should be doing more 'splainin'.

They do explain it, The first three words are, "For insurance reasons...". And yes every member that partakes in an event has insurance.

[30 Closed Cab PU]

Mike - yep, you are correct, had to carefully look for it, is in new Article XII section 2, page 8 of the marked up proposal. Details what the liability insurance covers. I personally did not see this 1st time reading.


Have been unable to find "For Insurance reasons"

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by 30 Closed Cab PU

Mike - yep, you are correct, had to carefully look for it, is in new Article XII section 2, page 8 of the marked up proposal. Details what the liability insurance covers. I personally did not see this 1st time reading.


Have been unable to find "For Insurance reasons"

Same here I didn't see that.

Insurance is killing everything. Somebody has to pay for all those big lawsuits people seem to be winning. It comes down to, you have to protect and benefit yourself. The old days are gone.

Seems like I did read this past year that MARC membership dropped something like 1200 members from 2017?? I'll have to do some digging to see where I saw that.

[noboD]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

, "For insurance reasons...". And yes every member that partakes in an event has insurance.

But what kind of insurance do they. I doubt MARC is covering anyone injuries, just liability.

[Gene F]

Brian STX, you are right.

If I may, Where Mike V rites "for insurance reasons"...so I guess the insurance carrier is managing our orginazation now. That's the way I feel. I used to be a big certified mail letter writer, but I feel like this may be a useless letter to the board.

[redmodelt]

Remember the big blow up when the MAFCA was sued because they were covering that tour where someone was killed. You still have to have individual insurance on your car when travailing on the public highway, so this would be for events like non public National Meets. This does not sound like insurance for things like local car shows sponsored by club X or swap meets, etc again by club X which the public attends that are using MARC insurance to cover.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by noboD

But what kind of insurance do they. I doubt MARC is covering anyone injuries, just liability.

Originally Posted by Gene F

Brian STX, you are right.

If I may, Where Mike V rites "for insurance reasons"...so I guess the insurance carrier is managing our orginazation now. That's the way I feel. I used to be a big certified mail letter writer, but I feel like this may be a useless letter to the board.

You will also need to read the actual policy to see what is covered and what is not. The Constitution simply stated the minimum insurance that the club needs to find to be in compliance with the constitution. The last time I looked if you were a member and you were on a club (region) event you had additional liability coverage. This was in excess and secondary to your regular insurance.


But back to the original question, with all the changes, and there are dozens of them, I personally see the reason to be specific in what I don't like. To simply say no means nothing. If you have a problem with one specific part tell them why you have a problem with it or at least tell them specifically with which change you have a problem. I find it had to believe that someone would have a problem with every single change that is proposed.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by redmodelt

Remember the big blow up when the MAFCA was sued because they were covering that tour where someone was killed. You still have to have individual insurance on your car when travailing on the public highway, so this would be for events like non public National Meets. This does not sound like insurance for things like local car shows sponsored by club X or swap meets, etc again by club X which the public attends that are using MARC insurance to cover.

What a miscarriage of justice that was!


For those that don't know a member was driving to an event, the event had not yet started, he was in no tour he was just going to the host hotel when he was struck from behind and the A was pushed into on coming traffic and the driver was killed. The courts determined the fact that he was on the way was enough to have the club pay damages. So if you are ever on the way to a restaurant and get into an accident, remember to sue the restaurant because if they were not there the accident never would have happened.

[Tom Wesenberg]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

What a miscarriage of justice that was!


For those that don't know a member was driving to an event, the event had not yet started, he was in no tour he was just going to the host hotel when he was struck from behind and the A was pushed into on coming traffic and the driver was killed. The courts determined the fact that he was on the way was enough to have the club pay damages. So if you are ever on the way to a restaurant and get into an accident, remember to sue the restaurant because if they were not there the accident never would have happened.

That's exactly how nuts our justice system has become. If I had my way, insurance companies wouldn't even exist, and people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

[2manycars]

Originally Posted by Tom Wesenberg

That's exactly how nuts our justice system has become. If I had my way, insurance companies wouldn't even exist, and people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

I blame the ambulance chasing lawyers. They take a third of the money awarded to the plaintif.