Since my name has been mentioned in a current discussion I would
like to take the time to make a few comments...........
Tom McHugh wrote,
........I AM CERTAIN THAT JIM DOES NOT REMEMBER ME. I WAS JUST AN
OWNER/COLLECTOR THAT MET HIM IN TOBYHANNA & ASKED A MILLION QUESTIONS
THAT TO ME WERE A PROBLEM. TO JIM THEY WERE EASILY EXPLAINED & MOST WERE
SHOWN TO ME FROM HIS PERSONAL LIBRARY.
Humm.....let's see......If I remember correctly, you have a M-38-A1,
bought a RT-68 radio set from me , drove off in a full size conversion van
and.... did I ever get back to you about that carb repair manual you
wanted? Do I remember the right guy?
Tom, no one is "just" a owner/collector. It's the average member that
makes the MVPA a great organization. We are a group of like minded
individuals who share a common interest......Military Vehicles. I enjoyed
meeting you and answering your questions. I think that knowledge is useless
unless shared and I do enjoy helping other collectors with information when
I can.
D Doyle wrote:
> (Quoting Cougarjack.....)
>
><< I don't recall that age and national origin were issues last time Jim
>attempted to run.>>
>
>Actually I referring to MVPA bylaws that do not limit the vehicles to WWII US
>origin, however there are some MEMBERS (not necessarily candidates) who think
>it should be a WWII US origin only group.
Dave is correct.......the " the only good MV's are US ones made before
June of 1945" bias is a real one.
To some......M-series owners are second class citizens and foreign
vehicle owners are even below them. As a owner of foreign MV's (British,
German, Czech, Canadian) along with both WWII and M series US stuff, I have
seen this myself. Some of my best friends think along these lines. This
type of thinking could fragment the Association. Dave's quote "regardless
of age or national origin" is exactly the same as the last line in my Bio
in Supply Line and I feel the same way. This should be a club for ALL
military vehicles.
Now, as for Dave's statement, "If being helpful and a good ol' boy is
the foremost issue in a members mind, that is the criteria they should use
in selecting a candidate"........
While I am sometimes helpful, I sure hope you're not referring to
me as a "good o'l boy!! I can assure you that I am NOT in the "good o'l
boy" club! In fact, to some "good o'l boys, I am the
Antichrist......... Anyone who wants to know where I stand on any issues
has just to ask.
><<You don't wait til your office is challenged to start calling rules
>committee meetings and changing bylaws.>>
>
>........PLEASE SPECIFICALLY site what bylaws were changed at any time to
>specifically
>inhibit the candidacy of any MVPA member. If this specific information can
>be provided I will continue a dialog. IF it cannot, I need not respond to
>rumor and ruckmaking.........................
Dave, MVPA bylaws have indeed changed and do inhibit the possible
candidacy of members who might choose to run for office. I am NOT stating
this was aimed at any one person......but the fact remains that the board
has added restrictions to the election process and deleted other bylaws
that limited their power in this matter.
You have asked for specifics..........
In the old bylaws (pre-Jan 1, 2001) the Nominating committee was
bound and limited by section 7.7 (c) which set down a protocol for the
timing and duties of the committee and the election. As this protocol was
part of the bylaws, it required a member vote to modify it or to eliminate
it. Compare this with the current bylaws. This entire section has been
eliminated. It is now a policy. This allows it to be changed without the
members voting on the changes.
Now look at section 3.3 (Election or Appointment) in the new bylaws. It
states that "....no more than two elected directors shall be from the same
state in the United States". This section further limits the amount of
members that may run for the board.
If two current elected board members are from one state then no other
members from that state may run for election.
If two elected board members from the same state are running for
re-election, then no other members from that state may run against them.
If only one elected board member is on the board, then only one member
from that state can run for office.
Now where the section gets a bit sticky is when this section could ( I
stress the word COULD as I am not make any accusations here, just stating
facts....) be used to limit a member from running for election.
If three members from one state want to run, or two from one state (if
there is a current elected board member from that state) want to run, then
the Nominating Committee will make the decision who shall be allowed to be
in the election. This section could be used to keep a member from being
allowed to run by simply finding two other members from the same state to
run as well. The decision of who of the three would be allowed to run would
be the Nominating Committee's. I brought this possibility up at the Board
meeting when the bylaws were under discussion.
And one small further limitation...Under section Section 4.3 (i) and
(ii) in the old bylaws (Qualifications), a Director elected by the members
must " have been a member of the Association in good standing for two (2)
years preceding their nomination" and "must have attended no less that one
National Convention, and one major rally......" In the new bylaws Section
3.4 (a) and (b) (Qualifications) states that they "shall be as follows"
"Member in good standing of the Association for a period of five (5) years;
Must have registered for and attended no less than two (2) national
conventions within the previous five (5) years"
Now, let's make one thing clear here. I'm not accusing anyone of
anything or rabble rousing here.....You asked for facts and I am presenting
them. If there's one thing I am, is a fact person. And before anyone gets
upset about any changes in the bylaws (like it only takes 50 members out of
9,000 at the annual meetings to vote on bylaw changes or Association policy
changes) remember this........ All the changes in the bylaws were done on
the up and up, out in the open and then presented to the membership in the
Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Army Motors for you all to read and vote on. You all
DID read and vote on these didn't you?
Maybe its time more members paid attention to what's going on in the
Association. Voting in this election is a good place to start........
Jim
NOTE NEW ADDRESS----NOTE NEW ADDRESS---NOTE NEW ADDRESS------AS OF
JANUARY 4, 2001---------
Jim Gilmore
13 Broadway 3rd floor
Jim Thorpe, PA. 18229
570-325-5216 phone
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 05 2001 - 00:40:39 PDT