Change

[Dick C.]

Re: Change

Mike,
Thanks for the post.
"The Five" as I call them did not have the best interest of NCRS by taking the action they did.
The board should call for a special meeting and resolve the Conflict of Interest that she has by being the NCRS President and a director with Bloomington.
If the board really has the best interest of NCRS, this action should be a priority of each board member.

[Robert G.]

[Michael J.]

Re: Change

Mike,
Thanks for the post.
"The Five" as I call them did not have the best interest of NCRS by taking the action they did.
The board should call for a special meeting and resolve the Conflict of Interest that she has by being the NCRS President and a director with Bloomington.
If the board really has the best interest of NCRS, this action should be a priority of each board member.

I would totally agree Dick, this whole thing has created far too much bad feelings, animosity, and questions about those 5s actions, the air needs to be cleared with the membership so we can all fully understand WTF happened here.

[Mike D.]

Re: Change

Arland, great idea.

[Jaime G.]

Re: Change

Given the apparent lack of notice for this Board meeting, would it have been inappropriate for someone to have suggested or moved that the election in question be delayed until the next Board meeting, and Mike asked if he would continue to serve at least until that time?

What a great idea!! Nobody on our board thought of doing the right thing.

[Jim L.]

Re: Change

What a great idea!! Nobody on our board thought of doing the right thing.

Given that the entire membership was notified in the Winter Restorer, and that the meeting is traditionally held at the Fla Regional, I don' see how anyone can claim with a straight face that there was a "lack of notice".

[Michael J.]

Re: Change

Agreed, what happened here is a lack of communications, for what reasons we still do not understand and the "5" have not told us anything.

[Ed N.]

Re: Change

I would totally agree Dick, this whole thing has created far too much bad feelings, animosity, and questions about those 5s actions, the air needs to be cleared with the membership so we can all fully understand WTF happened here.

Not for nothing, but I think buy now there has been enough words spoken to make a reasonable assessment on what happened.

1. A meeting was called to order

2. A vote was taken

3. The results were recorded and validated

All that other stuff is just gaslighting nonsense. Get over it, man-up and move on.

[Roy S.]

Re: Change

Not for nothing, but I think buy now there has been enough words spoken to make a reasonable assessment on what happened.

1. A meeting was called to order

2. A vote was taken

3. The results were recorded and validated

All that other stuff is just gaslighting nonsense. Get over it, man-up and move on.

[Jim L.]

Re: Change

Not for nothing, but I think buy now there has been enough words spoken to make a reasonable assessment on what happened.

1. A meeting was called to order

2. A vote was taken

3. The results were recorded and validated

All that other stuff is just gaslighting nonsense. Get over it, man-up and move on.

That you and that lady choose to turn a blind eye to this despicable situation, refuse to acknowledge that Mike was ambushed, and seem to think his treatment is somehow OK is just beyond belief. How do you live with yourself?

[Terry M.]

Re: Change

Terry in my world we will always be friends no harm no foul, but you played the Female card and I felt the need to respond, this is about Ethics and the Ambush of a setting president pretty much speaks to those ethics, I have no desire to belong to an organization that tolerates that type of action by the newly created coup leadership.

Roy,
My view is we spent too many years together to blow that up over much of anything. I will always be indebted to you for teaching me (and many others) so much about the NCRS judging system. We may wind up agreeing to disagree.

There are policies in place regarding conflict of interest. Gary C has linked them. There are also ethics policies to which Gary also linked.

You and I might debate their effectiveness and intent, and I personally would enjoy doing that, but at this time they are what they are provided we have seen the latest versions. I had opinions about those policies back in 2013, but I kept silent. In hindsight that may have been a mistake. On the other hand I am not sure how effective my voice would have been. In any case all that is water under my bridge. I know both you and Jon Brookmyer are still pained by the events of the past and Dan took his pain to his grave. There has been all together too much angst over these issues.

I am still baffled over the conflict of interest charges that Dan and Jon had to deal with when now some 35 years later we are considering holding a National Convention at the Museum and we fund a scholarship there. What happened in the passing 35 years? Will we all grow to regret how you were treated? I would hope most/all of us do already. Perhaps taking a longer view will allow cooler heads to prevail.

[Terry M.]

Re: Change

Terry,
I am trying to stay out of this fray, but when factually incorrect statements are made that reflect on me and how I went about my job as NCRS President I just have to respond. You made the following statement in your response to Roy: "I was told that board meeting was hastily arranged, I understand by Mike himself. I have avoided mentioning that because I was not aware of that until yesterday." First off, NCRS Board meetings at the Florida Regional have been standard operating practice since I joined the Board in 2012. Second off, this particular meeting was discussed and agreed upon at the Board's meeting in Frisco, Texas last October. Further, the meeting date and location were included in the minutes of that meeting published in the Winter 2022 edition of the Restorer (see p.50). I communicated with the entire Board membership on January 20, 2022, reminding them about the meeting date and location, asking them to confirm their plans to attend, soliciting agenda items, and requesting reports be sent to me by February 11, 2022, so I could include them with the final agenda. The final agenda was sent out on February15, 2022, with all of the attachments I had at that time. I arranged every Board meeting myself starting when I got the job in 2014, as did Dick before me, and Vito before him. Not sure who you thought would be handling that task. In any case, there was nothing "hastily arranged" about the meeting, and the membership was properly notified well in advance, contrary to Shannon's statement earlier in this thread. Had she actually shown up for the meeting she would have observed that we had almost as many members in the room as we had Board members at the table. Before you make statements about me or my actions, please try to get your facts straight.
Mike

Mike,
I apologize to you. I have been miss-informed. You are correct - I should have done a better job of checking the facts.

Edit add: I will attempt to edit the post you are referring to Mike, if the system will let me. I saw another post mentioning the notice at the end of the earlier minutes, and I should have acted sooner. I did say I may have overlooked the announcement; and I did.

[James G.]

Re: Change

Shannon was one of the first people I met when I began showing my car in the NCRS. My first flight judging was a regional and she introduced herself not long after I drove my car in for placement. Her smile and encouraging words immediately put me at ease and left me feeling as though the club appreciated the time, effort, and expense of bringing my car 400 miles to the show.

I have since spoken with her a number of times both at additional NCRS shows as well as MCACN and have never been left feeling anything less than her infectious enthusiasm for the cars and the hobby.

IMHO she is an asset to the NCRS.


I don't know that I have ever met Mike so I cannot attest to his personality regarding jokes or halfhearted statements, however when I hear anyone preface with a word such as Reluctantly, I take it comes from their true feelings about the situation.
EVEN if they are "joking"and regardless of past contributions, such statements do not lead others to feel as though there is a positive forward facing energy at the top.
If I were reluctantly accepting the position I would be ecstatic if I were being replaced by someone enthusiastically accepting the position.

[Ed N.]

Re: Change

I don't answer to staged and manipulative questions.

[Tom R.]

Re: Change

That you and that lady choose to turn a blind eye to this despicable situation, refuse to acknowledge that Mike was ambushed, and seem to think his treatment is somehow OK is just beyond belief. How do you live with yourself?

And I heard on the floor of Building D, the now former NCM liaison was likewise blindsided (ambushed as you like to say), without prior notice, that at the meeting a replacement was announced. Sounds like those tactics are institutional to NCRS governance? Does that temper your prolific, persistent emotional discharges?