MARC ballot and Constitution change

Gene F said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
MARC seems to be in this insurance predicament by itself. The other groups, AACA, VMCCA, don’t have this limitation.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Brian SATX said:
Again, I do not feel that I have to justify my vote to make it valid.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:confused::confused:
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top