Old wrote:

So why did it take "5 years" to figure that out"? Quite frankly its a "No Confidence" vote for the lot of them past and present.

 

OM - I have only been on the board during 2022 and cannot explain the why's or why not's of the past. What I can see is a board that wants to correct the situation. The first go at this was that all chapters must become "contract" chapters, which does solve the problem, but as we know, is not tenable for many "subsidiary" chapters. What Sue has done is lay out the problem that exists. As a board, we have committed to approaching this more thoughtfully. There are some groups now called chapters that may better fit under a different designation such as, "Social Affiliate" or some such description that more appropriately describes the nature of the relationship. Current "Subsidiary" Chapters that have assets, put on shows, or operate chapter-owned equipment will have to make a change as the status quo is no longer something that any one should want.

I am well aware that this is not pleasing news, but it is the reality we face. The "Concerned" group states that this board wants to eliminate chapters, that is not at all the case. The board is not making any decisions as to whether a chapter should exist or not, that is solely up to the members of the chapter. What we are saying is that "Subsidiary" Chapters, as they have been, must change to comply with rules that the board did not make nor can we change.

Old wrote:

I'm not buying it! So how long does it take to sound the alarm and make corrections.
I don't recall anyone coming outright and stating the problems, particularly where the membership could see it.

OM - I don't think that anyone has ever just laid it all on the table. I am going to take a guess, but my opinion is that anyone that knew of this also knew how disruptive it would be.  There had to be a board in place that, on the whole, was willing to tackle it, and take the heat. My view is that the board as it is currently made up did act in a responsible time frame. I definitely know we're taking the heat!

I very much appreciate your comments, keep 'em coming and let's get this sorted.
 

Old wrote:

So if the Subsidiary Chapters worked prior to the five year period when fees and documentation was not completed, what prevents us from returning to that former status?

I believe, (and I would certainly stand corrected if Sue chimes in), that the five years is only in reference to the Club not submitting the required filings for itself in the state of Oregon. As far as subsidiary chapters go, the former status is the current status, nothing has changed. 

This is an inferior medium to discuss things like this, but here's what everyone should understand: We are working on is gaining absolute clarity on what needs to happen and what can happen in regards to subsidiary chapters. We know for certain that if all chapter were contract chapters, there would be no issue. However, we also know that is not workable for all current Subsidiaries. The Board's initial approach was a "one-size-fits-all" approach, we realized that was not going to work and have gone back to the drawing board to find a ways to work with everyone. This is a big task, the subsidiaries are vastly different from one another, some are primarily social groups that get together from time to time, and others own and operate equipment. 

I think it is reasonable to ask: How did we get here? The answer to that is: It started from the beginning, the subsidiaries should have been setup differently from the beginning, all of the boards since that time should have corrected it. For whatever the reasons, those things did not happen, and here we are.

More than anything this board is just the bearer of the news, we are not the creator of the problem. Also the board listened to feedback and changed direction, that's not a sign of weakness.

Thank you,

Kurt Bangert


 

Old wrote:

So is the conclusion that a Subsidiary Chapter arrangement can not be made to work? That a central administration could not represent the Chapter membership and meet local State criteria.

OM - There is no absolute conclusion at the moment. What we are still investigating is how many options we can put on the table so that each subsidiary can make the best choice for themselves.