Edited on 2008-04-22 16:21:11

I am getting lost in the all the threads about the AGM Motion (yes that one!).

I don't own a copy of Robert's Rules of Order so I cannot add to those discussions about the Minutes and such.

But seriously, there WAS a vote ... and I may have missed something, somewhere ... BUT what was the actual vote count?

I don't actually know how the reps from my club voted but I will ask.

And so, I am looking for this:

X - Yay;

Y - Nay;

Z - Abstentions;

TOTAL: 74 (or thereabouts)

Submitted by NC43-62049 on Thu, 04/24/2008 - 14:24

Edited on 2008-04-24 14:34:37

Now that's service - thanks.

FYI: thread leads to ....

"1. Trailers -- JCRC proposal passed after BOD modified it to allow
Driven entrants to trailer their cars. BOD mod 95-40 ... JCRC 115-
20"

Submitted by cburk@kiva.net on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 21:27

Dan,
The vote count you seek has been on the AGM home page since that evening. Click here
http://www.jcna.com/agm/2008/index.php to get there. (I don't see a hyperlink on my screen so I'm not sure this link will work.) Those numbers are from my notes, not the official minutes, but they should be "close enough."

Yes, the minutes may "take months" (no pun intended). Our Secretary has personal issues to attend to first. I hope most will understand.
Best regards,
Cliff

Submitted by NC43-62049 on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 20:22

Edited on 2008-04-23 21:09:28

Edited on 2008-04-23 21:02:51

Just the vote count presently is all I request ...

I saw that Minutes may take months - Okay - But why would just posting the vote count be a problem?

I do not know our JCNA counsel and BoD but I will assume they are good eggs and on that basis I am certain that they will respond to you and/or any of us promptly in good faith.

AS JCNA Members, we are akin to customers and/or perferred (non-voting)shareholders.

The AGM attendees seem to act as our voting common shareholders.

Could any BoD ignore its shareholders/nominators?

IMHO getting your lawyer involved sounds alarmist and extreme. So I am sure that you would give your addressees a fair chance to answer before taking such a drastic step. I would also point out that getting a lawyer (really lawyers - as one is never enough) involved may mean that JCNA will end up picking up the $$$ Tab for both (many?) lawyers ... that's $$$ spent that will tacked onto our Members' fees.

My real big concern is the first shows will slide by which will entrench the new rule in order to keep an even playing field for the rest of 2008. Once the first show(s) happen with the new rule in place there is zero chance to revisit the new rule. Many, many Members (Club Presidents and Club CJs included) are clearly very unhappy (to say the least) and in favour of a revisit of the new rule (to say the least) but those Members will be out of luck after that very first show.

D Lokun

P.S. - I will send this thread's link to Mr. Weinstein FYI.

Submitted by NE08-35179J-J on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 18:41

Yowza Dan,
The BoD seems to be doing everything it can to separate itself from the damning paperwork.
Steve Weinstein our Counsel has yet to answer my complaint that was sent to him last Tuesday regarding the legitimacy of the rule. He might even be ducking my letter as it was sent certified and his address is not 300 miles from mine so I should have received receipt of my letter from the Post Office, UNLESS, he refused to sign for the letter.
Steve Kennedy has several of my messages on his answering machine and they were polite, but still no response.
Not expecting much at this time, maybe time to put a real attorney on retainer. Perhaps I can recover the attorney's fees since the BoD was so negligent in their actions regarding this issue AND the way they have responded to "fixing" the problem. Hard to call what they did just an oversight.
Later, Bob Lovell