MARC ballot and Constitution change

[Brian SATX]

Got my ballot in the mail with the new issue of Model A News. I looked the ballot over and looked at all the proposed changes tot he Constitution. It is all or nothing. Just happened to read the instructions on page 9. If you disagree with any of the proposed changes, then you have to write a reason why you do not agree and the board will decide if you have any good reason and they will consider your objection. IF you mark no and do not submit a written explanation, they will consider your vote invalid. I have never heard of anything like this before that you have to explain why you do not agree or your vote is invalid. I have read the Constitution and in new Artice XIII no where does it say you have to explain to the board why you are voting no. I think this is an attempt to stifle No votes. Might be time for me to reconsider my membership.

[daveymc29]

Why would it ever be the boards job to evaluate whether you have a good reason for your vote? Are they sorting out the folks with a lesser IQ of of some other challenged type? this has to be the sickest attempt at voter control I have ever heard of. Maybe they should call the Russians and sell this idea to them. We certainly don't need it. An opinion poll is okay, but to disqualify your vote because your opinion doesn't meet the standards of the board? Wow, is that a stretch.

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Maybe I am wrong but I do not see this necessarily as a bad thing to state your views.


Think of it this way, the BoD is going to vote in whatever manner they see/feel is best for the club. That is their privilege as an elected official by the membership. They are asking for your input in this situation to assist in forming an opinion. If someone writes 'No', the BoD probably realizes this person could be voting Ney just because they do not want change, ...no matter if it is actually good for the club. Remember, most people do not like change. Therefore, if this matters to you, call one of the Board Members and ask their opinion on the change. Then you are educated on the topic and if you want to vote No, then you can write an explanation.

Secondly, if you write an explanation why you feel it should not be changed, then it shows the BoD that you understand what they are trying to achieve however you re stating a reason why you feel their proposed change is not for the betterment of the club.

[Brian SATX]

As usual Brent, you are a clear thinker. But to force me to write something or they will disregard my vote is what I think is wrong. Also, I have read the proposed changes several times. Some I agree with and some I do not. I doubt that if I write why I disagree that they will change their mind on what they want done.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Brian SATX

As usual Brent, you are a clear thinker. But to force me to write something or they will disregard my vote is what I think is wrong. Also, I have read the proposed changes several times. Some I agree with and some I do not. I doubt that if I write why I disagree that they will change their mind on what they want done.

Are you actually voting, that is do they add up the votes and make no changes or is it like Brent says a request for opinion before they make their decision. Sort of like writing your congressman, they vote like they want but would like your opinion.

[daveymc29]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I would really doubt most board members want any opinion that is not a mirror of their thoughts. Been there, done that. Sat on too many boards.

[Brian SATX]

If you vote no and submit something in writing, they will consider your objection at a later meeting and adjudicated promptly. Again, if people vote no, they should not have to justify their vote. IF they really wanted our opinion, they should have proposed the changes, set a date for recommendations to be submitted and then held a straight yes or no vote.

[MAG]

I have a conflict with Article IV. If the Changes are approved I probably will not renew my membership. Not against change just to be against.

[redmodelt]

Have any of you voiced your concerns over this on the MARC's forum? Seems to me your concerns would have more impact there then here and would give someone from the board a chance to respond.

[Chuck Sea/Tac]

Originally Posted by redmodelt

Have any of you voiced your concerns over this on the MARC's forum?

Where’s that? Didn’t see a link on MARC website. Can you post a link?

[Ronnie Lawson]

There should be a yes or no vote for each change. Then your vote will count.

[redmodelt]

I see that they don't have a forum per say but they do have a contact page and facebook;
http://model-a-ford.org/contact-us/
But you have to join the facebook page to use it;
Sorry, this content isn't available right now

The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in.




https://www.facebook.com/groups/MARC.group/

[John in SATX]

I too pondered over this method and real lack of input from the membership. However if your elected representative is trusted to speak for you, then so be it, no vote is needed. I do not see any real choice here other than to go along or have your vote thrown out. Over the last many decades I have been involved with numerous professional, motorsports and scientific societies and have never seen constitutional items being lumped together like this. Obviously many governing items have come up but individual selections were offered. A yes or no final vote but after membership consideration of each item. I'm old and not the sharpest pin in the box anymore but I am glad to see my thinking was not that far off from some others. Have not decided about renewal but the emphasis is on bringing younger members on board anyway so likely little loss.

[CarlG]

I belong to MARC just so that I can get the magazine. I really don't give a rip one way or the other what the BoD does.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by CarlG

I belong to MARC just so that I can get the magazine. I really don't give a rip one way or the other what the BoD does.

Like Carl said, and besides the great majority never return ballots and vote anyway at least that was what was said about this a couple years ago over at MAFCA. Jim Cannon was edged out one year as Tech. Director mainly because of the lack of voters voting

[Gene F]

Brian, I did not see that, and mailed my ballot just this morning. Guess what, I voted no, and put my member number below it.

Here is the deal, they put in there "no one but members will be allowed at any event". Now how many of us have been introduced to a guest at an event, that later bought an A and joined. Talk about driving a nail through your own foot. The more I looked over the changes, the more I thought an attorney drafted them. You get the idea. They / we may be killing the orginazation. I like the person posting above mainly just join for the magazine. However I do go to about one quarter of the national meets.


Yep, sounds like a monopoly. Wonder if we can protest to the federal govt, and get their non-profit status revoked.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Gene F

Here is the deal, they put in there "no one but members will be allowed at any event". Now how many of us have been introduced to a guest at an event, that later bought an A and joined. Talk about driving a nail through your own foot. The more I looked over the changes, the more I thought an attorney drafted them. You get the idea. They / we may be killing the orginazation. I like the person posting above mainly just join for the magazine. However I do go to about one quarter of the national meets.

.

The events are club events and only open to club members. It's like a family reunion, most would not want someone from outside the family to come to the event.


The compromise would be to charge more for non members and eliminate anything free. Otherwise why become a member if you get all the perks of membership without the actual membership?

[redmodelt]

RE "no one but members will be allowed at any event" better leave your girl or boy friend at home!

[TerryO]

RE "no one but members will be allowed at any event" better leave your girl or boy friend at home!

Unless they are your "Domestic Partner"...Article 4...


TerryO

[2manycars]

Sure glad I dropped membership in both national clubs. There is enough political crap on the radio, tv, and signs at every corner. I dont need more of it in a club. I just enjoy driving my cars, and even enjoy just going to the shop and looking at them. I joined the Connecticut Model A Restorers club about 1960 with my father, and it became the national MARC, but I have dropped both.

[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.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by 2manycars

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

............and every year they keep graduating more and more of them and they are all hungry.

[msmaron]

Originally Posted by Gene F

Here is the deal, they put in there "no one but members will be allowed at any event". Now how many of us have been introduced to a guest at an event, that later bought an A and joined. Talk about driving a nail through your own foot. The more I looked over the changes, the more I thought an attorney drafted them. You get the idea. They / we may be killing the orginazation. I like the person posting above mainly just join for the magazine. However I do go to about one quarter of the national meets.
.

Did you not see that it also states very clearly for "Insurance purposes" NON Marc members cannot attend Marc Events. Where is the issue?

[30 Closed Cab PU]

Originally Posted by msmaron

Did you not see that it also states very clearly for "Insurance purposes" NON Marc members cannot attend Marc Events. Where is the issue?

Hi Mark, as I posted before I cannot find in; the Proposed Changes, the Ballot, or the page 8 insert where "For Insurance Purposes" is stated /written.


Have re-read the above multiple times over multiple days - is driving me nuts. I believe you, but somehow I must be missing it.


Please let me know which document, and exactly where it is.


My comments/suggestions;
Is this just a proposal (hence document labeled Proposal)?
Is the document's purpose/vote a vehicle to get member feedback, with a final vote forthcoming?
If yes to both, perhaps a mission/purpose summary on page 8 and the document should have included this info clearly. Perhaps in large type/red/bold so it can not be missed/misinterpreted. Evidently some of us do not have this understanding.
If yes then for me the requirement to submit a member's reasons for their no vote with their ballot make sense. If it is a member's final vote, then I disagree with having to submit their reasons for a no vote.
If you vote no without a reason, are choices for BOD also discarded?


Perhaps you did this, but a suggestion is to have some members not associated with the Board, or the National MARC, proof the info before submitting it to the rest of us.


Just suggestions, I know when you have large #s of people, lots of room for misunderstanding.


Thanks

[redmodelt]

That could also mean even if you were a member of MARC but not signed up for the event you might not be attend because you are not on the list of attendees.

[divcoone]

MARC seems to be in this insurance predicament by itself. The other groups, AACA, VMCCA, don’t have this limitation.

[redmodelt]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

As a member of Rose City Model T Club (we formed an LLC so don't come under the umbrella of the national clubs) we have volunteered to do guard duty for the VCCA and HCCA regional meets in the Portland Or area. At nether did we turn people away that wanted to look at the cars, just kept and eye on them. Of course the difference might be, these were tours not a judged event.

[Old182]

Gentlemen - calm down! My name is Joe valentine and I'm the former secretary who is responsible for the text in the Constitution changes. They were handed to me in draft form in 2014 and our Board worked on them for the years following to arrive at this proposal. Thanks to Mr. Terry and Mr. Carne for the explanations regarding insurance, "significant other" and the reasoning for a rationale for negative votes. Liability insurance does drive much of the operation of clubs these days and a club the size of MARC (~7,200 members) requires strict adherence to the rules set forth by the carrier. Recall our dues increases a few years ago - all for an excellent ($4,000,000!) liability policy. It's not cheap to run MARC but we made it our business to provide the best for our members. And yes, you need to be a member for the coverage. "Significant other" is a term the insurance carrier will ACCEPT as "spousal" and so it was added to the text of the document. For negative votes to be discussed and adjudicated by the Board, the reasoning behind the negative must be known. I don't see how this can be difficult to grasp. A "No" vote without a rationale is meaningless; how can the Board make decisions with little or no information? The American Society for Testing and Materials - ASTM, has used this technique to handle and adjudicate negative votes for decades and for the reason stated. BTW: ASTM writes all the specifications and test methods for gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, concrete, steel, PVC pipe, pool covers and just about anything else you can name. Your Board does, in fact, want to hear from you because it's only with your feedback that they can make this a better club. Please don't read anything into these proposed changes than what's there. Thanks.

[2manycars]

Many thanks to the lawyers for ruining what was once a fun club. I quit.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by 2manycars

Many thanks to the lawyers for ruining what was once a fun club. I quit.

We need to be like Japan. 11 lawyers per 100,000 people vs. over 300 per 100,000 people in the good ole USA. Hope I don't get sued for saying this

[Dick Steinkamp]

What do you have when there are 5 lawyers up to their necks in sand?







Not enough sand.

[Pickupman]

Originally Posted by 2manycars

Many thanks to the lawyers for ruining what was once a fun club. I quit.

How can you quit when you are not a member.

[Brian SATX]

To OLD182- IF the Board really wanted input about the changes, I feel that they should have sent the proposed changes out for comment. I also feel that it is a little under handed the way it is told to the members. No where on the ballot or in constitution with the the proposed changes does it say you need to justify your vote, only one little statement inside the magazine. According to Article XIII members may get a proposed change on a ballot and if the Board recommended against it, could the Board then require members to justify a yes vote? The way this is being handled, I believe they could. Again, I do not feel that I have to justify my vote to make it valid.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Brian SATX

Again, I do not feel that I have to justify my vote to make it valid.

There are dozens of changes in the paperwork I received, dozens. They even added a section. When you give just a no, what part are you against? How can you be against changing the name of driving award to the mileage award, but that is exactly what you are saying when all you say is no.

[Tom Wesenberg]

Originally Posted by Pickupman

How can you quit when you are not a member.

Oh CRAP........busted!

[Brian SATX]

Mike from Florida- When they only give you option to vote all or none, then so be it. IF I disagree with the change that you mentioned, then that is my right. I did not mention that one, so do not make it sound like that is the one I am against changing. Again, I should not have to justify it to you or anyone. If I feel that strongly, then I will have to vote against all the others also. By their rules they established, not according to the Constitution, all I have to do is vote no, put down I do not like that section because I like the old one. They must accept that as a no vote, or change the policy mid-stream and not accept it because they do not like my reason. If you vote no and detail your reason about a certain change, will that change be affected? No, they made it this way

[dean from bozeman]

Sounds like the ballot was more of a survey. I didn't notice because I unwrap the magazine, look through it, read some, throw the other stuff away and put the magazine on a pile. I enjoy the magazine. I enjoy the meets. I choose not to get involved with the rest. Unless the clubs make unacceptable demands of me and/or my family I will be a member.

If you leave food outside, it will attract flies. As long as we give out settlements for absurd amounts of money, there will be folks trying to get that money, folks that help them get that money and folks like you and me who have to pay that money. I'm for justice and correcting wrongs but I find it hard to justify the sums that some people receive from a law suit. Limit the sums of money and it may limit the number of lawyers...I mean flies. ;-)

My wife and I run a vacation venue that is also used for events. A few years back our insurance company would not renew our policy until we put wording in the contract that folks needed to get event insurance (usually $60 - 100 per event). If I understand it right, the event folks are responsible for their attendees to and from an event and behavior of attendees during an event. If you have a son or daughter getting married make sure that they have event insurance. (Also, find a way to limit the alcohol consumption. We have 10:00 pm quiet hours. It helps the relationship with our neighbors and helps somewhat limit the "party in your honor" mentality.)

For the most part, people who run clubs try to do their best. In this case it looks like they have to deal with crap from the insurance companies and crap from people they ask for ideas on how to deal with the insurance companies. As this post developed you could see that folks just wanted an explanation. They just want to understand. Some wanted to voice an opinion. Others decided to take their ball and go home. It's good we can choose how we want to deal with such situations.

[2manycars]

Originally Posted by Pickupman

How can you quit when you are not a member.

I quit last year for similar reasons mentioned in this conversation.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Brian I voted 'no' on several parts and even went to the effort to explain 'why'. Kinda weird never had to do that before anywhere.

Somehow I get the feeling my ballot will be shredded anyway with the 'no' box checked.

Does voting 'no' kill your entire proxy card, does it kill your votes for Directors also

[Brian SATX]

It is all explained on page 9, far right column. But to answer your questions as I read it
They say they will look at it "at a future meeting and adjudicate it promptly. I think the adjudication is that if they agree with you, they will have more balloting to make the change they way you suggested at some future date.


My interpretation is that if you vote no and do not put any justification, your No vote will be invalid. IT does not mention anything about the Board members votes.

[frank55a]

I have been a MARC member for over 40 years. I do not recall at any time in the past when it was required for the membership to justify a no vote. I suspect it is a way to jam the changes through with little or no opposition. For the most part I wrote the constitution changes in 2006 and 2010. I suspect even if you justify your no vote and there is not a majority opposed to the exact same change it will pass and the BOD will not review any of the opposing views. I do not recall in the past any club or organization that I belonged to requiring justification for a no vote! Since this voting is done on a post card that does not get mailed to the BOD, how is the BOD going to track the no votes and link a no vote to the explanation? I suspect the BOD is not interested in the justification for the no votes and it is a way to suppress the voting.

[30 Closed Cab PU]

Originally Posted by Brian SATX

It is all explained on page 9, far right column. But to answer your questions as I read it
They say they will look at it "at a future meeting and adjudicate it promptly. I think the adjudication is that if they agree with you, they will have more balloting to make the change they way you suggested at some future date.


My interpretation is that if you vote no and do not put any justification, your No vote will be invalid. IT does not mention anything about the Board members votes.

I see some of the issue is that much is left up to interpretation. Clarification needed.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by frank55a

Since this voting is done on a post card that does not get mailed to the BOD, how is the BOD going to track the no votes and link a no vote to the explanation? I suspect the BOD is not interested in the justification for the no votes and it is a way to suppress the voting.

That's kinda what I thought, it's how I read into the thing too. The changes will pass, there will be a miraculous and majority 'Yes' posted anyway regardless of what the members say.

[2manycars]

This reminds me of the MG club. Several members with modified cars asked for a class at the annual show for modified cars, but the one guy who is the "chairman" of the non existing show committe decided no.
Perhaps clubs are going the way of the dinosaur, like many of our cars. I wonder if any of these cars will be on the road in 20 years, or be voted off. All the manufacturers are going electric. Car museams are closing due to lack of interest, we are all getting older and many are dieing every year.

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by 2manycars

Perhaps clubs are going the way of the dinosaur, like many of our cars. I wonder if any of these cars will be on the road in 20 years, or be voted off. All the manufacturers are going electric. Car museams are closing due to lack of interest, we are all getting older and many are dieing every year.

Good points Bill I've been pondering that exact same feeling the past year or so.

At least I'm not up to my eyeballs, monetarily, in this thing called Old Cars. Seems to me like an 'investment' of many tens of thousands of dollars in gasoline powered cars may soon be an unwise decision. I hope not as I still enjoy them but look at what is being pushed at us as fast as they can get it done. And the driverless car thing.

I wonder if NASCAR will go to driverless cars too

[2manycars]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

Good points Bill I've been pondering that exact same feeling the past year or so.

At least I'm not up to my eyeballs, monetarily, in this thing called Old Cars. Seems to me like an 'investment' of many tens of thousands of dollars in gasoline powered cars may soon be an unwise decision. I hope not as I still enjoy them but look at what is being pushed at us as fast as they can get it done. And the driverless car thing.

I wonder if NASCAR will go to driverless cars too

I am not a fan of driverless cars, but I think the would be amusing in nascar.

[mhsprecher]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Getting feedback is good. Maybe they should have had a two-step process: draft the changes and put them to the membership for comment. I don't see how the board can invalidate a no vote.

I read all the changes and I don't see anything to object to or comment on, so I voted for them.

For me the difficult decision was on the members of the board. They all seem very qualified and interested in serving. I wish I could vote for all of them. Of course, without knowing any of them personally, it is hard to really know who is best unless you really like what they said or their experience. It is a good club and we are lucky that there are people who are willing to serve.

[Old182]

For clarification: A "No" vote for the changes to the Constitution will NOT invalidate your vote for Board members.
One more time: A "No" vote for the changes to the Constitution without the reason behind it is useless. Voter suppression would be if the Board changed the Constitution and handed it to the membership WITHOUT a vote. This method is the opposite: it allows the membership to participate in the writing of its own Constitution and therefore the governance of its club. There is no hidden agenda here (what in the world would it be?) and the Board is asking that you state any problems you have with its proposal so they can discuss and rewrite or explain why it was done the way it was - simple as that. BTW: The printing and mailing of these changes was upwards of $4,000. A survey, as useful as it may have been, would have cost another $4,000. These costs are over the normal printing and mailing of the magazine. Several members have already reported typos and they are being fixed as I write. If you find a typo, section or paragraph you disagree with, please contact the office or a Board member and let them know; but please also be prepared to tell them what it is you disagree with and why. It's the only way it can be fixed.

[Brian SATX]

Sorry OLD182, I disagree. If there was a section that I did not like in the proposed changes, I still have to vote no for the entire proposal. It is right there on the postcard. No one is saying voter suppression, just one strange way to vote- making you say why you do not like it. And I am sorry, but I really doubt that the Board will take into consideration one or a few more that object to a certain passage. First, making it all or nothing is a bad idea. That is pushing to make it pass. Second having to explain is just wrong for a lot of reasons, the first being that nowhere in the constitution is this established. The opposite is true.

[noboD]

Just wondering, how do you convince someone to join your club if they can't attend an event first? Does MARC actually insure ALL the members for liability or just the organizers.? Most clubs I belong to only have D&O insurance which only covers officers and organizers. Like if someone has a tour through a dangerous intersection and the club is sued for an accident. It does not cover the driver or passengers or even the other driver's injuries, just the person that organized the tour. SO what benefit would it be to limit attendees?

[Jeff/Illinois]

Originally Posted by noboD

Just wondering, how do you convince someone to join your club if they can't attend an event first?

I've wondered the same. As I said I hadn't belonged to MARC for some time, I was in Crown Point, Indiana back in what, 2009, and the National Meet was in progress. I wandered in to see the A's, the ladies from MARC at the front desk were super friendly and I happily and quickly re-upped and I've been a Club member ever since. I had a great time loved seeing the cars and talking to club members, who were all very nice.

If they hadn't let me in to see the event, would I have joined? Probably not.

[2manycars]

Originally Posted by Jeff/Illinois

I've wondered the same. As I said I hadn't belonged to MARC for some time, I was in Crown Point, Indiana back in what, 2009, and the National Meet was in progress. I wandered in to see the A's, the ladies from MARC at the front desk were super friendly and I happily and quickly re-upped and I've been a Club member ever since. I had a great time loved seeing the cars and talking to club members, who were all very nice.

If they hadn't let me in to see the event, would I have joined? Probably not.

The national and regional meets are more of a convention than a car show. that may explain why visitors are not welcome. When I was involved in putting on meets, we would let visitors in to see the cars in the day, but had securtiy guards at night.

[Old182]

Brian, I hear ya and this could have been presented better - sorry it wasn't. Next time around your No vote might count without an explanation - but it will likely go into the "No" vote bin and die there because there will be no way to address your concerns without your input. I just don't see any benefit in that to MARC or the membership.
nobody & 2manycars: Visitors are ALWAYS welcome to come and see the cars, chat with the owners and interact with whomever they wish; stop by for an hour or book a room - outside of the MARC activities. MARC, just like any other club, caters to its members, not the general public. We attract members by putting on great seminars (Dearborn next year will blow you away), welcome parties, fashion shows, youth programs, swap meets, publishing a world-class magazine and many other activities. These are available for folks who find it worthwhile to join the club and enjoy the members-only events. And at the reduced price of just $22.50 for the first year, we think it's a bargain.

Regarding insurance: MARC members put on (and are covered for) around 3,300 events each year! That's a lot of picnics, BBQs, Holiday Parties, swap meets and other activities. This policy covers ALL MARC MEMBERS - not just D&O. But remember: it's a LIABILITY policy - not automobile insurance. That's on the driver.