 |
 |
 |
.The discussion forum is open to NCNCA members, promoters, officials, club representatives, and other cyclists.
Wed, 08/03/2011 - 1:57pm
This is a descriptor of the purpose of the forum. One could assume that meeting one criteria entitles a person to post to the forum, and discuss questions relating to cycling in Northern California and beyond. And, as it has been suggested by a few BOD members in the past, the forum is the place for discussion to take place. I ask questions and instead of addressing the concerns, I am told my the president (and moderator) that I am owed nothing. Maybe I didn't read it right.
Re: [NCNCA] Re: NCNCA Board of Directors
Some of your comments were enlightening, especially. . .the NCNCA president could appoint any number of VPs to the BOD with equal voting rights "and it didn't end until 2010, when Bill Nicely, myself, and some other people developed the Amendments to the NCNCA Constitution that were approved by the Members." You, Warren, were not a BOD member at the time. Bill was not President, rather a VP like several others.
When you approached the BOD in 2010 and the election process changed, Bill Nicely was an appointed VP. Two elected VPs resigned that year.
And the 2010 BOD failed to interview me, as they were legally asked to do regarding my knowledge of previous BOD years. The interviewee kept cancelling our meeting. I'd be happy to comply now.
Eric Peterson's club was treated like one all year long until its delegate nominates four people who's view's don't align with our current president.
That's odd. Perhaps our discussions will prompt more people to attend the meetings and learn more. I know I will.
George
From: Warren Geissert
To: "NCNCA@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [NCNCA] Re: NCNCA Board of Directors Candidates
George Meihlan wrote:
"Warren,
Was it not your suggestion that the BOD follow the pattern of NCVA, in that the vote is for a set number of BOD and then that BOD selects the officers?:"
WG: Yes, it was my suggestion. Many (most?) Board of Directors function the same as I suggested. I was not a Board member when I made a suggestion to the Board-the same as anyone can. The Board approved it unanimously, and then the club delegates approved it, virtually unanimously. Apparently, a lot of people think it was a good idea.
GM: "NCVA--any NCVA member may run for the BOD; NCNCA--only those nominated by dues paying clubs may nominate."
WG: Actually, one doesn't have to be a member of NCVA to run for the NCVA Board, nor does a NCNCA Board member need to be a "member" of a Member (dues-paying) club, e.g. Eric Petersen's club was not a NCNCA Member thus far in 2011. In both organizations it is the Members that nominate, and the Members that vote.
GM: "For nearly 10 years NCNCA allowed and encouraged non BOD members to attend meetings, and if a delegate to vote on BOD matters."
WG: Since early 2010 some of us have spent a lot of time cleaning up the mess left behind by the previous Board, of which you were a member. After you resigned from the Board in 2010, we received extensive guidance from NCNCA's (new since 2010) attorneys about applicable corporate law and the governance of non-profits, and this accounts for some of the changes we've needed to make. Also, we are now far more strict about financial disclosure and transparency than was the case when you (GM) were on the Board.
A NCNCA Board Member must follow applicable laws, and each Board Member has a fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of ALL of the NCNCA's Members, which are almost entirely made up of USAC clubs. If a club/Member delegate or other person wants to come to a meeting to present an idea, suggestion, or opinion they are welcome to do so. In some cases that person represents their own club's best, or self interest, and that's fine. Or they may represent an opinion held by a minority of the NCNCA's Members. That's fine too, but those people will not vote, because they don't (need to) represent the entire Association and its Members, nor have they been given the authority to do so by vote/election of the Members.
One possibility under your (GM) way of doing things, if enough delegates came to a meeting they could out-vote the Board for something that is not in the best interest of the NCNCA. My belief is that California law intends to protect ALL of a non-profit's members against something like that happening.
Also, when you (GM) were on the Board the President could personally appoint a number of "Vice Presidents" who got the same vote as everyone else, but those vice presidents were never elected by anyone. That is very bad practice that you (GM) were a part of for several years, and it didn't end until 2010, when Bill Nicely, myself, and some other people developed the Amendments to the NCNCA Constitution that were approved by the Members.
As a side note, if a Board Member brings an idea to the Board that is perhaps a self-interest (for their club or other group, financial interest, etc.), that Board Member does not vote on the matter.
Finally, if anyone wants to learn more about the NCNCA Board, or help on one of the committees, please contact one of the Board members, or come to some meetings (last Monday of each month).
-Warren Geissert
Ever notice how a post will vanish overnight? There was one posted by SD1984 that had some harsh words in it about Mr. Nicely. It is suddenly gone. But the ones that speak unkindly about Ron or George remain. Puzzling. . . or not, if you consider who's the system moderator. Hopefully, in 2012 folks will be allowed to speak their mind without censorship!
Members may have one account here. Also, members will soon be required to identify themselves by first and last name. Our new Moderator, Jonathan Racine, is putting together a set of rules and guidelines. In the mean time, stop posting under multiple names George.
For others playing from home, the names that George Meilahn has used on this forum so far:
GFMEILAHN
GFM
DELILAH
SD1984
So, when he posts under GFM and there is a reply from SD1984, these are both George under different log-ins. Somewhat dishonest and misleading and needed to be pointed out. Notice that George does not deny this fact? Oops!
When the system moderator stopped my account from logging in for weeks, I decided to have posts under a different name. Had GFMeilahn remained active and allowed to post without censorship, I wouldn't felt compelled to change names. BTW, you missed one of the name changes. Why should I deny what's truth? Perhaps I was the only one being picked on by having my posts either denied, deleted, or not even allowed to log on. THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED!! Now that Jonathan is moderator I trust less censorship will take place.
Is it really censorship? NO, NO, NO
To give an example of George Meilahn's misleading posts note that in a one week period George posted the following three posts:
On 7/29/2011 , GFM posted:
The Montezuma Hills ITT was the same day in 2011. We'll try to coordinate better next year.
On 7/31/2011, SD1984 posted:
There was a time trial on May 7th? How come it wasn't on the calendar? How long was it, and where was it?
On 8/3/2011, GFM posted:
"This is a descriptor of the purpose of the forum. One could assume that meeting one criteria entitles a person to post to the forum, and discuss questions relating to cycling in Northern California and beyond . . . "
One may logically conclude that since George posted on both 7/29/2011 and 8/3/2011 under GFM, that this account was active during that timeframe. So George's claim of inability to post for weeks, thereby requiring an alternate log-in, is proven FALSE. Also note that George's post under SD1984 asks questions about the TT he had promoted many weeks prior. He knew the answers to these questions but still asked them. George did not identify himself. This could lead some to conclude that George was attempting to appear as a different individual concerned about the schedule. It is more logical to conclude that George was supporting his own cause rather than his FALSE claim of censorship.
This is simple dishonesty in posting. This type of system abuse will be addressed in our expanded rules. Why expanded rules? Because common sense is apparently the least common of the senses.
When there are only nine nominations for nine seats, one may conclude their vote doesn't matter.
The president's candidate statement wasn't on the original list. How are the delegates to know why he's running for the BOD?
(My first attempt to post this didn't go through, as is often the case. Nicely should step down as forum moderator.)
From: Bill
To: NCNCA@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:43 PM
Subject: [NCNCA] Re: NCNCA Board of Directors Candidates
George,
Wherein they organizations (NCNCA and NCVA) are the same:
1) Each organization has members (NCVA members are individuals, NCNCA members are clubs).
2) Each organization allows MEMBERS to both nominate and vote.
In other words, each organization is consistent with its current structure.
Wherein the organizations differ:
NCNCA Elections garner about 80-90% of available voters (65-70 out of 80 clubs vote); NCVA Elections garner about 10% of available voters (60 out of 600). I believe the NCNCA model for elections is a much more successful one from participation and representation perspectives. Yes, athletes are not clubs.
The "popular vote" in NCNCA as you call it does mean something. It means that the nine highest vote recipients serve the organization (which is the designed purpose). If you mean to say that the highest vote recipient does not become President any longer then you are merely saying that the voting is not the same as it used to be. Yes, is is different and this change was nearly unanimously passed by the NCNCA Members, its clubs, last year. If you do not care for the change, that's allowed but you are at variance with the majority of association members who you are now seeking to represent in the current election.
You appear to criticize the new ways and methods and wax lyrical about bygone days. The current structure and methods of governance in NCNCA is consistent with California State Corporate Law for the first time in perhaps twenty years. I believe that the history of theft, fraud, cover-ups, failure to perform, self-dealing and favoritism by those governing NCNCA is no longer at issue nor likely. George, you served on the NCNCA BOD while these practices were rife which gives me great pause as to your current blustering. Why is it that you did not oppose those practices? In fact you openly laud a practice that is diametrically opposed to Corporate Governance as practiced by any informed non-profit organization.
If you are suggesting that we need to go back to the old ways then I must assert that there are several Board Members who have worked diligently to end these practices and poor governance model that will oppose such nonsense. Frankly George, you do NOT understand that which you criticize. Happily, if/when you are elected to the Board of Directors, those with experience doing things appropriately and lawfully will patiently teach you what the law says about non-profit governance. Until then perhaps you could ask some intelligent questions quietly and seek to understand the answers.
Thanks,
Bill
--- In NCNCA@yahoogroups.com, George Meilahn wrote:
Warren,
> Was it not your suggestion that the BOD follow the pattern of NCVA, in that the vote is for a set number of BOD and then that BOD selects the officers?  Some key differences between the two governing bodies include:
> Â
> NCVA riders equal ~ 700 and each rider may cast a vote for the BOD
> NCNCA riders equal ~4000 and only ~80 delegates may vote for the BOD
> NCVA--any NCVA member may run for the BOD; NCNCA--only those nominated by dues paying clubs may nominate.
> And now both governing bodies do not give the right to pick BOD officers to the individuals, but rather to the BOD itself. Both NCVA and NCNCA allow non members to attend their meetings, but not the right to vote. For nearly 10 years NCNCA allowed and encouraged non BOD members to attend meetings, and if a delegate to vote on BOD matters. I can see why delegates are frustrated that their vote doesn't matter, as many decisions made never get presented to the delegates. And of those 9 seats, some may not even received 50 votes.
> George Meilahn
> NCNCA BOD 2008-2010
> From: Warren Geissert
> To: NCNCA@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 11:07 AM
> Subject: [NCNCA] Re: NCNCA Board of Directors Candidates
>
>
> Â
> Ron Castia wrote:
>
> "One perspective I would like to share.
> I would prefer not to see a board made up of mostly track racers. This isn't the track, it's road and off road. Just because a mechanism or form of governance worked with the track organization, doesn't make it an automatic fit for the much larger constituency of the NCNCA."
>
>
> Ron, I think your concern is without merit, and your assertion that NCNCA is road and off-road, not track, is incorrect. The NCNCA governs all disciplines of racing in the District including road, CX, MTB and track.
>
>
> This past year there were two NCNCA Board members who are also on the NCVA Board, and that was definitely a help at times. This coming year there will be no NCNCA Board Members who are also on the NCVA Board, and I think there will be 3 out of 9 NCNCA Board Members (same as last year) who race on the track and road.
>
>
> Regardless of whether there are 3 members who happen to race and/or promote races on the track and road, or if there are two, it makes no difference except that they might have more insight into another aspect of racing that road-only people might not have. Two board members promote CX races, and they also provide useful insight at times about CX races.
>
> Specifically, if there is some aspect of NCNCA governance that you think came from the NCVA, please state what it is, and why you think it is/was not the best solution for the NCNCA as well. Perhaps you are concerned that I, who was a NCVA Board Member for the past 3 years, was the one who first suggested the recent Amendment to change the NCNCA elections to October, for better continuity, similar to why the NCVA has their elections in September. The NCNCA delegates supported that idea by a vote of 35-0.
>
> I think it's a little insulting to the NCNCA Board members when you suggest that they/we would incorporate some aspect of NCVA governance as an "automatic fit" for the NCNCA. I believe we are quite able to think things through more carefully than what you suggest. And keep in mind that the NCNCA Board is made up of NINE individuals who each get an equal vote.
>
>
> -Warren Geissert
>
__._,_.___
Or they can try to teach some of the official's on how to set it up and use the programs. Once learned it would probably become similar to the camera and other equipment we use at races except there would only be 1 setup. Maybe. I'd learn and try it out. It's worth a try considering how much money was spent on it. Which, in the minutes is very vague about the actual dollar amount.
Didn't you and someone else just post a question about where the money went for the timing chips besides the timing chip promoter's pockets?
The bigger question is why purchase chips and not set in place a means to use them every weekend?