AGM

Yowza All,
Thanks Dave for voicing the one thing that I'm still amazed, Clubs gave their proxy to someone who voted on an issue that was unknown to them.

The AGM consists of hundred's of elements that must be addressed before everyone shows up but .....advance notice of a rule change...."just can't be done". We can go to the Moon but not the mailbox.

Steve, sorry, that you and I disagree on this issue at hand. Meanwhile the dance obviously still continues. If you were to take a step back,......... can you even objectively see the other side's issue? Not asking you to agree with it but acknowledgement of it would be nice.

Parlimentary Procedures were not followed. PERIOD. That's why myself and others are annoyed. This rule affects the Club as a whole and your dismissal of the "minor" rule problem doesn't help.

As for the AGM 2009, I think my time and money is better spent elsewhere in light of the elastic procedures that this Club has adopted. While I love the marque, the lack of structure rule wise is disheartening. Dying to see exactly how the AGM plans on addressing more involvement with the younger members as we all seem to be "graying" and absolutely nothing seems to be done at the National level to address this.

Later, Good Health to You and Yours, Bob Lovell (on vacation)

Dave

Your comment:>>With regard to proxy voting in general at the AGM, unless delegates and voting members are able to confer with the clubs they represent before they vote, how do you, and they, know that the vote they cast reflects the interests of the members they represent?

My response: The clubs entrust their proxy to a delegate to make the best decision at time the vote is called, depending on the discussion taking place. If you think each delegate carrying proxies should confer with all the clubs he represents before making a decision, that is preposterous. Should the AGM be held up while a delegate calls 10 clubs trying to find someone in each club to make a decision. That person would have to call a committee to make a decision and that would take days, not minutes before the vote is taken. If you think everything should be reviewed be every club before a vote is taken, then you should propose that the AGM be done away with, the ballots sent to each member to make a decision and the ballots counted. What you would probably find is that out of the 6000 some JCNA Members only 100 or 200 would actually vote.

>>Much of the concern expressed by the membership has to do with the fact that the vote took place at all. To remedy this concern and to restore a modicum of harmony and good will, wouldn?ó?Tt it be a good idea to implement the following suggestions made by Ms. Gloette Hess, the Parliamentarian who reviewed the trailering rule vote at your request. In her opinion, she said: ?ó??ØThere are rules for the AGM that you [may] wish to consider in the future, as an example: that all rules changes will be submitted to delegates 30 days in advance of the meeting or no new business may be considered at the meeting without the approval of ?é?¥ affirmative vote of the assembly.?ó??Ø

There will be a Parliamentarian in attendance at the 2009 AGM to clarify such issues.

>>I?ó?Tm also posting this on ?ó?oThe Delegates Made Me Do It?ó??Ø thread, since that is where this discussion began.

Where did you ever come up with the opinion that anyone made me do anything? The issue was presented to the delegates, the delegates voted, the rule passed. And the rule would have passed even without my proxies. Where is there anywhere in there that anyone made me do anything. I was actually not even president at the time the vote was taken. Once I became president, I upheld the bylaws and the decisions made at the AGM. If you do not like that, then you should also submit a bylaw change saying the rules passed at the AGM are subject to change if someone does not like the outcome. And with your previous comment about checking with all the clubs represented by proxies, it sounds like you would prefer to do away with the AGM and just have a ballot in the Jaguar Journal. You should also propose that at the next AGM.

Look forward to seeing you there.

Any further discussion about this matter should be submitted to the board in the form of a proposed rule change or bylaw change. I am not going to continue to defend myself against such accusations and will not be responding to further forum postings or emails about this matter.

Steve Kennedy
President

Steve,

In reading your response to Bob Lovell on the ÔÇ£AGMÔÇØ thread which you initiated recently, you raise several interesting questions. I assume that you are talking about the infamous trailering rule vote at the 2008 AGM. This discussion is important because of its implications for future AGM voting.

With regard to proxy voting in general at the AGM, unless delegates and voting members are able to confer with the clubs they represent before they vote, how do you, and they, know that the vote they cast reflects the interests of the members they represent? In the case of the trailering rule vote, it has since been ruled that the trailering rule amendment was introduced from the floor and was not germane to the existing rule. How then could the subsequent proxy votes have possibly reflected the interests of the absent members since they had absolutely no idea what was being voted on?

Much of the concern expressed by the membership has to do with the fact that the vote took place at all. To remedy this concern and to restore a modicum of harmony and good will, wouldnÔÇÖt it be a good idea to implement the following suggestions made by Ms. Gloette Hess, the Parliamentarian who reviewed the trailering rule vote at your request. In her opinion, she said: ÔÇØThere are rules for the AGM that you [may] wish to consider in the future, as an example: that all rules changes will be submitted to delegates 30 days in advance of the meeting or no new business may be considered at the meeting without the approval of ?¥ affirmative vote of the assembly.ÔÇØ

IÔÇÖm also posting this on ÔÇ£The Delegates Made Me Do ItÔÇØ thread, since that is where this discussion began.

Dick Howe was the man who seemed to remember all things at the AGM's, unfortunately Dick had to retire from the position. He did however assist me with his recall of past events at a certain AGM. He pointed out that the three committees , Concour's, Rally and Slalom had been formed to sift through any proposals pertaining to each's ability, and make a decision whether or not to promote them at the next upcoming AGM or not. Therefore a proposal from the floor was withdrawn ,as it had not been submitted to the Slalom Committee beforehand for its consideration.
Dick pointed out that these Committees were to be comprised of people who had the best knowledge in their Regions in JCNA of that particular aspect of JCNA Competition. The President who instructed that these Committees be formed was Jerry Nell, who is unfortunately no longer with us, he was a good straight shooter in my opinion. Unfortunately men such as Dick, and Jerry are becoming rare..................

Bob,
As I recall from your phone message and emails, there was really nothing for me to reply to. You made lots of comments but there was never a valid question for me to respond to.

And just what do you mean by my " "sin of omission" technique."? I made it quite clear in both of my president's letters as published in Jaguar Journal as to my reasoning for not changing a rule that had been voted on by the AGM delegates and passed at the last AGM.

If you continue to think that a rule should be overturned because it does not suite your wishes, then make a bylaw proposal to that effect. Something along the line of those who voice the loudest protest win, no matter what the majority votes on. Just keep in mind that there will be a rule passed at some future AGM that you like and someone else does not like. If they protest, then the rule you like will be overturned.

As to my "use of proxies", as I have stated in the past, I make no appoligies for representing the clubs in my region with the decisions I made at the time. What you also seem to forget is that even without my 22 proxies, the rule would still have passed. The majority of the delegates in the room still approved of the rule change, whether you liked it or not.

With the 2009 AGM being in Denver, I hope most every club in the southwest region can attend. For those who cannot, I will encourage them to give their proxies to Tom Krefetz, the other SW Rep. As president, I think it is best if I only cast a vote in the event of a tie.

For the clubs in the eastern part of the US who cannot send a delegate, I encourage them to give their proxies to those who they feel will best represent their feelings.

If you feel you can best represent the feelings of the clubs in your region who cannot send a delegate, then I encourage you to carry their proxies to Denver.

Parlimentary Procedure is the priority of the board, and a Parliamentarian will be present at the 2009 AGM.

Steve Kennedy
JCNA President.

Hey George, thanks for redirect to the XKE thread which is now closed as far as I am concerned.

I hope you're not implying I am wasting time in this thread :-)

D Lokun
59 XK 150-S hotsie totsie

Yowza Mr. Kennedy,

I obviously posted in error on the wrong thread.

You were not elected to the position of President to make me or even the majority of club members happy. You were elected to uphold the rules that the club had previously adopted.

Since you've never felt the need to return ANY of my calls this is the forum used for our discussion. Interesting that my calls to those that supported this measure were also either unanswered or vague on the their individual vote until mentioning that they were witnessed voting for the measure.

I have no personal ill will towards you but you have shown an amazingly cavalier attitude about the matter, in my opinion. You have also "danced" around many of the issues ala Bill Clinton, specifically using the "sin of omission" technique.

I also feel your use of the Proxy system is worth examining for a tightnening of the rules.
I still believe the Proxy is usefull but not in light of an "illegitimate" motion that wasn't addressed by Parlimentary Procedure. Id est: "if we don't protest at the time it get's through". Most times the "clock would be turned back" in similar situations.

I can STILL be reached by phone. I'm listed in numerous places and I'll be back in town the end of September.

Parlimentary Procedure should be the priority not a "Just if we catch it" guidelines for future rules adoption.

Good Health to You and Yours, Bob Lovell
See my other posting R

Uh Dan your time might be better spent on the E type forum--seems like you have "caused" your own controversy!

Dear Steve ... You are doing a fine job and are appreciated for the same ... My personal thanks ... AND my piddling fee to be a JCNA member is well spent and I am sure ALL members appreciate how the BoD makes JCNA possible ... The discussions about the rule change are not casting aspersions on any individuals. It is clear that this trailer issue will come up at the next AGM. I have not heard about the demise of the 2008 Concours circuit from the controversy. Won't 2008 end being a "good year" for JCNA that you are proud of in the end and glad you oversaw as CEO?

D Lokun
XK150S, etc.