AHRMA Dissolution?

:tut:

 

A little more focus and a little less smokescreen, please. You are bringing up questions that weren't addressed. The questions at Barber had to do with the amount spent on the lawsuit and if counsel had requested to be removed. The reasons for not answering at that time have been explained, and have since been answered.

I don't have any inside information about how many trustees might have dissented on some decisions, but any rational person would expect that there was dissenion. Hell, they can't even all agree on simple rule changes (read the minutes), which is as it should be.

I don't know if the corporation has answered all 990 requests. You'd have to ask the accountants - it's their responsibility. Besides, it is none of your business.

 

I guess since we elect trustees based on our expectation of representation, and we can't(shouldn't) find out what that representation was ; "It's none of your business", well, I guess we took different courses in PoliSci...why bother with an election?

Sounds like a very American, democratic process that's in vogue now---never question authority. Just keep our heads down and shut up?

 

if your asking sean about wera, then yes its noneya, but ahrma?

 

In a strictly legal sense I don't think the statute requires an "Is it your business test" to determine if you are entitled to the info, but being an AHMRA member might qualify anyhow if there was such a test. So I think that you are wrong on this point.

 

So what's the "smokescreen" you refer to? I'm lost on that, kindly explain! Why not bring up reasonable questions? Was asking questions in AHRMA something 'taboo'? Apparently, from what I have been reading and hearing, it was. To inform you, any and all requests for IRS Form 990 must be answered by providing copies of the form; it is public information, and it is the law, and it's not the accountants' responsibility, either. Sooo..it would appear that you can provide no answers to my questions. Toodle-pip.

 

To 'OldSwartout"-

Y'know, as I reread your response and my retort, I realized that just writing that something was a function of (well-known) law wasn't sufficient. Perhaps
the devil in is the details, and AHRMA management (whoever that was) didn't
bother too much with responsiveness and legalities. Why take my word for it,
I say. That's no proper authority, is it now? So, to facilitate understanding and respect for the law, I will address my concerns directly to the IRS and
the State Attorney Generals' offices in OH and TN. I'm absolutely certain that those parties understand and apply the law every day, in particular, as those
laws pertain to nonprofit corporations. Why mess about with efforts that get no direct result? Let's get it on and over with, so everyone knows the score.
Time to press on, wouldn't you agree?

 

It's none of your business

I didn't say it was none of your (push rod, Rodger, or 83BSA's) business, just that it wasn't any of Charles' business. HE ISN'T AN AHRMA MEMBER nor has he been for several years. He wasn't interested enough in the past to spend the $40/year to keep tabs on AHRMA. That would have given him the right to question the trustees, vote for those running against those he didn't like, ask for financial information, etc. Now that AHRMA is in financial trouble he's more than willing to poke a stick at AHRMA and anyone that tries to insert a little calm into the situation. Charles has been making all this noise and he can't even vote for trustees in the election.

 

How would you know I'm not an AHRMA member? Maybe the check's in the mail! So, anyone who is not an AHRMA member can't think or discuss this situation? We better let them know it is none of their business!!! Well, I actually encouraged everyone concerned to obtain all the facts and public documents first before coming to any decisions. Let me ask you- sincerely-
what would you want any member of the vintage racing community to do to assist AHRMA? And I am asking you now to sincerely respond.

 

You said it in your first post. If the check is really in the mail, great.

1. Renew their AHRMA memebership.
2. Vote for the trustee(s) of their choice.
3. Get busy building your AHRMA Vintage race bike (sorry Sean) Time is running out - Daytona is just around the corner.
4. Go have as much fun racing next year as you can.

 

I think we need to separate the AHRMA racers/members from AHRMA
management. I have no issue with the racer/members. As far as the management is concerned, there are problems. One can not exist without the other. Will all of the present trustees resign so members can start with a clean slate?

 

In my best McCartyistic voice: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the AHMRA.

My interest is only the hope that this little nightmare be put to rest as soon as possible for the good of the sport.

 

"Be patient until the end...believe me
because of my honor, and respect my honor,
so that you may believe..."
- Marcus Brutus

"For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men."

-Marcus Antonius

Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2.

 

Huh?

 

Rodger, don't be lazy:tut: , read Act III Scene 2 and- you will have cosmic
understanding of AHRMA, Rob Ianucci, Iraq, Saddam, GW, Mongo,
Buckwild, Mad Brad, tcasby,the Maharishi, and Black Hole theorems.
Maybe me too.

 

AHRMA membership

C'mon, now. A little help here. AHRMA needs members who actually care enough to vote and show up at the races, if not to race, then to help at the track. The best way to help the sport is to participate.

We'll have to wait and see if Charles races AHRMA next year, but, personally, I don't think he really cares that much.

 

hey karl,
just curious. are you a wera member?


scott

 

Karl- in all due respect, I think there's an 'apples-oranges' conversation going on here between us and also in other postings, if not in the entire matter.
It's not a matter of racing per se as I see it. There are the racers/members and then there is the management, who should manage with the best interests of the members in mind. Unfortunately, things got way out of focus,
and this is rather apparent, about this litigation. Now, the life of the organization is in the hands of a bankruptcy court. Sooner or later, things will or will not shake out, and the role of the members in all of that is not quite clear. Should all members get more involved? Yes, yes of course, but in order to make informed decisions, they need to know more than they've known for years. I suppose one either sees the current posture of AHRMA as either a
blessing or a curse. I asked, let me know what you think: should all of the current trustees step aside, along with any directors/employees, to allow a
fresh start with new trustees, people like Carl Anderson, for one example?

 

And the point is?

 

Keep Mark, Craig. Put in new faces like Carl. That would be a good start. But we still have to wait for the lawsuits to end.