There's a proposal on the AGM agenda advocating new, restrictive criteria for accepting new JCNA affiliates.

Originally, and the rule under which most of our clubs became affiliated with the JCNA, was quite simple.
Any group of 20 or more enthusiasts wishing to affiliate could do so, by submitting a roster, a check for the appropriate dues, and a set of non-discriminatory By-Laws that complied with the JCNA's By-laws and procedures.

A very important point to remember:

THE JCNA DOES NOT FORM JAGUAR CLUBS

Jaguar enthusiasts do that. The JCNA has no franchisees, and therefore has had no right to grant "territories".

Over the years there have been several instances where, for various reasons, new clubs have been formed in the midst of, and including some of the existing and former members of established clubs. Some of these, formed because of irreconcileable differences, have succeeded, and others failed.

If the issues resulting in "spin-offs" could not have been resolved on a local basis, it seems unlikely to think that any JCNA organized initiative might resolve their differences for them.

The only choices then are; acceptance of an additional group of enthusiasts who get along, or rejecting them and seeing the individuals lose enthusiasm and drop out completely.

The proposal you'll be voting on has been well thought out and is being presented as an easily understood flow chart of a very complex set of rules and restrictions. The logical questions, after reading the above, might be:

Do we have the right to apply these restrictions?
and
Is this really necessary?

Gary Hagopian

I have presented this explanation of my personal belief, because as "chair" of the AGM, it would not be proper for me to do so.

Submitted by NE52-32043 on Mon, 02/16/2004 - 15:24

Sorry to jump in late on this thread, but I've been on vacation.

I agree with the concensus here. We should not be telling people which local clubs they need to join. People affiliate, organize, join, band together or just hang out for a variety of reasons. If enough of them want to get together and set up a club that revolves around Jaguars and is willing to make that a part of the JCNA universe, so be it.

As a general philosophical matter, JCNA should be inclusive, not exclusive in its approach to membership. Especially in the Northeast, where there is a high concentration of people within relatively short distances of one another, a proposal such as this seems unworkable and frankly discourages the formation of new groups. I, for one, don't think that's what we want. I'd rather see more clubs with more JCNA members. If, over time, the merger of some clubs makes sense, the members of those clubs can make that decision for themselves.

I know that there is some "history" behind this proposal, and the bad blood that it created is still visible in this proposal. But the distaste that one club has in its mouth shouldn't translate into a policy that unnecessarily limits the formation of new clubs throughout North America.
Steve Weinstein

Submitted by mfrank@westnet.com on Mon, 02/02/2004 - 21:20

I'd have to add emphatic support for a "NO" on this proposal. Here in the downstate NY area, we have a concentration of clubs, probably more so than any place in the country. Yet we manage to retain a critical core of membership in each club. It may confuse outside observers, but we have no problem with it. I've never once been to a JTC meeting where someone complained about poaching by JAG, Delaware, or LI. It just doesn't happen. Individuals make choices based on their personal preferences, all the clubs serve a vital membership, and everyone gets along.

I expect more clubs here in the future, since NYC and Westchester county are so poorly covered by the exisiting club structure. Do not be surprised if a Jaguar Club of Greater NYC appears, overlapping JTCLI, JTCNJ, JAG, Empire and JCSNE to some extent. I'd hate to think that such an entity would need to obtain the concurrence of five clubs to become a JCNA affiliate. I could easily see a situation where a potentially valuable club went independent, rather than deal with the politics. Don't adopt this rule!

Mike Frank

Submitted by silver007@shaw.ca on Mon, 02/02/2004 - 18:45

Daniel,
I totally agree with your "vote no " to the afore mentioned proposed restrictive formation of new JCNA Affiliate Groups. The more members JCNA has the better things will be, more input, more chance for North Americans to see our great cars, old and new.......silver or blue, or whatever.

Art Dickenson.
1983 XJS GT \"Silver\""

Submitted by dthompson@gbc.ca on Mon, 02/02/2004 - 12:07

My take on this is quite simple: I am against any rule that seeks to tell enthusiats what they CANNOT do. JCNA has too many rules already. It seems to me that this organization spends an inordinate amount of time dreaming up new rules that fall into the "cannot" category.

If 20 enthusiatic Jaguar lovers want to get together and form a club, there should not exist any logical reason why they should be prevented from doing so. I don't care what the politics behind it are. The comparison of new club formation to "divorces" is ridiculous. Perhaps we should change United States law to say that spouses are no longer allowed to get divorced but instead must stick it out and try to make the marriage work.

Vote no to this proposal. The rule book is too thick as it is.

Daniel Thompson