Cronyism in the ACMOC BOD?

GWH,

Can we write in candidates? -glen

Don and Glen:

I received the email from Tom Stenesa as well. I hope that George Howard will let us know the facts surrounding the nominations and why the nominations for Tom and John were not accepted by the Board.

I have a great deal of respect for both Don and Glen as former directors and would like to know what the process is for nominations and why all comers are not welcome. When I was a new member of ACMOC 10 years ago there was alot of hand picking of future board members by the current boards and the club was in my opinion subjet to great cronyism. I think that Don and GWH did a lot to change the situation and in my opinion the club has been operating much more transparently for the last number of years. What is going on now.

Thanks in advance GWH for a straight answer to this situation.

George Howard has been on the Board of Directors longer than I have, but let me give my perspective on this before he gives you the more scholarly version and corrects me where I am wrong.

First, a little bylaws lesson and some history are in order. The Board of Directors is made up of nine people who are elected by the ACMOC membership by a mail ballot in the fall of each year. They are elected for a staggered three year term, with three board members up for election every year. Board members are also term limited to two (3 year) terms, or a total of six years. The Executive Director, Tricia Potts, serves as an ex-officio member of the board. (I hope I got that title right).

The position is unpaid, other than a $500 travel stipend which is available to attend the annual show each year. To my knowledge, no one has claimed even $1 of this allowance to date, but it is available for members of the board who could not otherwise afford to go to the show. This was put in place to insure that people of limited means could serve on the board.

There have been many men who have served on the board over the years, but I must say that only a few have lasted for six years. When I was asked to run three years ago, the board was struggling to find people to serve. I was the President of Chapter 3 in Minnesota and was very happy in that role. The year I ran, I believe there were four candidates for three jobs. The one candidate who was not elected was soon appointed to the board anyway due to a resignation, which was an all too common problem. That very scenario played itself out again the following year, where the member who received the least amount of votes was appointed to the board within months of the election due to another resignation.

The task of the nominating committee has been somewhat onerous, since it involved “telemarketing” in the evenings to beg people to run. In the past, there was an unstated goal of having enough candidates to have a “contested” election. That generally meant getting four “volunteers” to run. Many elected under that system failed to serve very long as board members due to having to be talked into running and the “odd man out” at times has left the process with “hard feelings” for being asked and then not elected by the membership. Participation in the election process is further challenged because less than 300 ballots are returned each year from over three thousand members who receive them in the magazine. All of this has been the topic of detailed discussion at several board meetings.

With the publication deadlines of the magazine, the work of the Nominating Committee is generally done in the spring and early summer to get the “slate” of candidates ready for the fall election. This year, all three incumbent board members agreed to run again for a second three year term. That is very rare indeed. In fact, as a member of the nominating committee, I was elated that we had three volunteers right off the bat (one of them was me). I was somewhat uneasy about being up for election and also serving on the nominating committee, which we have addressed as a board and that problem will not happen again. When the committee assignments are dished out by the President in January, he will have board members who are not up for election on the nominating committee.

Both Tom and John asked to be nominated this year. After some discussion, the nominating committee decided to go with only three nominees to avoid some of the problems listed above. I was part of that decision and take full responsibility for my role in it. The board (by a split vote) decided to sustain that recommendation, with the caveat that both members that asked to run would be included in next year’s election process by the Nominating Committee. I am sure some of you would disagree with that decision, but I can tell you that it was not made will malice toward anyone involved.

We have also been involved in a protracted discussion with John and other leaders in the UK about several issues surrounding Chapter 2 in the United Kingdom. These issues include concerns about some members of Chapter 2 not belonging to ACMOC, late dues payments, how ACMOC dues payments are made to the home office as well as licensing and trademark concerns from Caterpillar, especially regarding their magazine. None of these issues are insurmountable, but they require much discussion and work, which is an ongoing process.

I am sure that both Tom and John would make good board members. Both care about the history and preservation of antique Caterpillar equipment and the overall mission of the club. If the membership feels that it is time to change horses, I am more than ready to step down. This is a great club and I am proud to be part of a great group of folks who serve on the Board of Directors. I will tell anyone interested in serving to contact John Hahn as the chair of the Nominating Committee.

It is a lot of work to be on this board, but it is also very rewarding work. I hope that who ever is elected to serve on the board in the future keeps the mission of the club at heart, gets involved with various committees, takes care of business and most importantly, “sticks it out” for the entire term they were elected to serve. See you all at the big show in Portland, Indiana next August. I will be in the ACMOC booth trying to sell you some very high quality stuff you don’t really need.

Jim Clack
ACMOC Treasurer
Baltimore Maryland

Form my own personal perspective, I think it is important that the Club encourages all members to take part in the democratic process.

Providing all potential candidates are valid members and meet all the necessary criteria under the bye-laws to stand for election, then it does not seem to be fair and reasonable that the list of candidates be restricted by any person, especially when this decision is taken by the incumbent members of the BoD. This gives totally the wrong message, whatever the 'best intentions' behind the originally decision.

If we keep putting up just three candidates for the three vacant positions, we will not be acting in the best long term interests of our Club.

Good democratic debate in any organisation is healthy and should be encouraged!

Jim Clack:

Thanks for your thoughtful response to the issues addressed by Don (former Board Member), Glen (former Board Member) and me (I have been lobbied for years to run for the Board but have too many irons in the fire).

While I appreciate your reasoned response to the issue of "hard feelings", the entire world cannot be made up of those who win all of the time. It is my view that if a member of ACMOC desires to run for the Board and is willing to serve, they should be included by the nominating committee in the full slate that goes to the membership for vote. If they fail to garner enough votes to be elected, so be it, that is the democratic process. If they still desire to serve, they can be appointed by the Board when there is a vacancy or they can run again the following year.

I have not received my ballot yet but I know that one person I will vote for is JIM CLACK. Jim has been a huge contributing factor in opening the club up to the membership and insisting upon transparency as to the goings on with the club. Jim has followed up on what Don Dougherty started and worked tirelessly on to reshape the finances of the club and to make public the revenue and financials of the club to its members. I think the club would be very sorry if Jim were not a Board member for the next 3 years.

I disagree with Jim and the nominating committee in their decision regarding the 2009 elections; however, I support Jim for reelection.

As far as Chapter 2, I know there are a lot of issues that need to be ironed out and I think it would be productive if Chapter 2, and the remainder of the world out side of the USA for that matter, had a voice on the Board. I for one would welcome the opportunity to have Chapter 2 host an ACMOC International Show in the near future.😄

Tom Madden

Good Tuesday evening from Denver, Colorado. Where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play; where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day!

I read most of the above comments this morning sipping a fresh cup of coffee. But alas, I had a tight schedule, and this evening is the first I could devote time to answering the questions.

Glen, the ballot will be included in your magazine. It will have the three nominees, and will also include a place for you to write in three names of folks you would prefer to see elected to the board, if not the ones nominated by the nominating committee.

I just received my magazine by First Class U.S. Postal Service mail today.

Tom, the board of directors did not reject any candidates by name. The board simply adopted the recommendation of the nominating committee. We, the board, were aware of the desires of both John Gaunt and Tom Stenesa to be nominated, but they were not included in the nominating committee's recommendation.

The new magazine you will be receiving has my usual report from the board, all on page 6. I quote from that report as follows:

"In years past, it has been the club’s practice that the Nominating Committee nominate more candidates for director than there were seats up for election. At the board’s meeting of September 8, 2008, the board arrived at a consensus that the nominating committee should present only 3 nominees for director. After that September meeting, John Hahn was elected director, and took his seat on January 1, 2009. John Hahn was also designated the chairman of the 2009 Nominating Committee. In order to insure that the current board members agreed with the September 2008 consensus, and considering the importance of the decision, the board took up a motion that would limit the number of nominees to 3 each year. The vote resulted in a plurality of directors in favor of the change. The justification for the change was grounded on the fact that the membership of the club is spread out not only around the United States, but around the globe, and that as a result, most members are not actually familiar with others in different geographic areas. Accordingly, members must rely on the nominating committee to find and promote good candidates. If only those who have wide name recognition are elected, then many who would make superior directors but are not well known will never have the opportunity to serve.

"The ACMOC ballots always include a place for write-in candidates. For 2009, the Nominating Committee is presenting a slate of three nominees. They are Jim Clack, Lee Sorbel, and Dave Wintermute. All are currently on the board, and if re-elected, they could serve out a second 3-year term, and then would be term-limited."


Jim Clack's explanation is pretty accurate and probably better than the one I quoted above (written by me). However, Jim did err on a very minor point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He stated: "The Executive Director, Tricia Potts, serves as an ex-officio member of the board." Actually, Tricia Potts is our employee, and her title is "Executive Director". That title as used in the non-profit organization world translates into "Chief Operating Officer" in the corporate world. She does not have a vote at the board of directors meetings. We do encourage her to voice her opinions on matters. To date, we have not delegated very much authority to her, but that may change. She runs the day-to-day affairs of the club, relieving the directors and officers from that task. The directors and officers are thereby enabled to direct their attention to policy issues and the club's future. Tricia is a very valued employee, and we were lucky to be able to hire her. She keeps us on our toes. Tricia is an "ex-officio" member of a number of committees appointed by the board, which does not include the nominating committee.

Jim mentioned the $500 stipend. Actually, a director can be reimbursed up to $500 to attend board meetings and shows. (Most board meetings are held by telephone conference call. We usually have one in-person meeting a year, and that is at Peoria, Illinois. To save money this year (2009), we decided to dispense with the in-person meeting and held it by telephone conference call.) We have to make a claim for the money, and the money can only reimburse for mileage or common carrier tickets. I will be making the first claim for going to the New York Show. I am retired and on a limited income, and without the slight bit of encouragement, I would not have gone. When directors attend shows, we usually work all the time, and don't usually even get a chance to operate any equipment or otherwise have fun. By the way, it obviously cost me a lot more than the plane ticket to attend the show. If people have any concern about money going to reimburse mileage or plane tickets, let me know, and I'll dig into it a bit more.

As for the discussions with Chapter 2 officers about business matters between the chapter and the club, the board appointed a committee to handle that, and I am not involed in that matter and am totally ignorant of the current status of discussions.

GWH

Good Tuesday evening from Denver, Colorado. Where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play; where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day!

I read most of the above comments this morning sipping a fresh cup of coffee. But alas, I had a tight schedule, and this evening is the first I could devote time to answering the questions.

Glen, the ballot will be included in your magazine. It will have the three nominees, and will also include a place for you to write in three names of folks you would prefer to see elected to the board, if not the ones nominated by the nominating committee.

I just received my magazine by First Class U.S. Postal Service mail today.

Tom, the board of directors did not reject any candidates by name. The board simply adopted the recommendation of the nominating committee. We, the board, were aware of the desires of both John Gaunt and Tom Stenesa to be nominated, but they were not included in the nominating committee's recommendation.

The new magazine you will be receiving has my usual report from the board, all on page 6. I quote from that report as follows:

"In years past, it has been the club’s practice that the Nominating Committee nominate more candidates for director than there were seats up for election. At the board’s meeting of September 8, 2008, the board arrived at a consensus that the nominating committee should present only 3 nominees for director. After that September meeting, John Hahn was elected director, and took his seat on January 1, 2009. John Hahn was also designated the chairman of the 2009 Nominating Committee. In order to insure that the current board members agreed with the September 2008 consensus, and considering the importance of the decision, the board took up a motion that would limit the number of nominees to 3 each year. The vote resulted in a plurality of directors in favor of the change. The justification for the change was grounded on the fact that the membership of the club is spread out not only around the United States, but around the globe, and that as a result, most members are not actually familiar with others in different geographic areas. Accordingly, members must rely on the nominating committee to find and promote good candidates. If only those who have wide name recognition are elected, then many who would make superior directors but are not well known will never have the opportunity to serve.

"The ACMOC ballots always include a place for write-in candidates. For 2009, the Nominating Committee is presenting a slate of three nominees. They are Jim Clack, Lee Sorbel, and Dave Wintermute. All are currently on the board, and if re-elected, they could serve out a second 3-year term, and then would be term-limited."


Jim Clack's explanation is pretty accurate and probably better than the one I quoted above (written by me). However, Jim did err on a very minor point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He stated: "The Executive Director, Tricia Potts, serves as an ex-officio member of the board." Actually, Tricia Potts is our employee, and her title is "Executive Director". That title as used in the non-profit organization world translates into "Chief Operating Officer" in the corporate world. She does not have a vote at the board of directors meetings. We do encourage her to voice her opinions on matters. To date, we have not delegated very much authority to her, but that may change. She runs the day-to-day affairs of the club, relieving the directors and officers from that task. The directors and officers are thereby enabled to direct their attention to policy issues and the club's future. Tricia is a very valued employee, and we were lucky to be able to hire her. She keeps us on our toes. Tricia is an "ex-officio" member of a number of committees appointed by the board, which does not include the nominating committee.

Jim mentioned the $500 stipend. Actually, a director can be reimbursed up to $500 to attend board meetings and shows. (Most board meetings are held by telephone conference call. We usually have one in-person meeting a year, and that is at Peoria, Illinois. To save money this year (2009), we decided to dispense with the in-person meeting and held it by telephone conference call.) We have to make a claim for the money, and the money can only reimburse for mileage or common carrier tickets. I will be making the first claim for going to the New York Show. I am retired and on a limited income, and without the slight bit of encouragement, I would not have gone. When directors attend shows, we usually work all the time, and don't usually even get a chance to operate any equipment or otherwise have fun. By the way, it obviously cost me a lot more than the plane ticket to attend the show. If people have any concern about money going to reimburse mileage or plane tickets, let me know, and I'll dig into it a bit more.

As for the discussions with Chapter 2 officers about business matters between the chapter and the club, the board appointed a committee to handle that, and I am not involed in that matter and am totally ignorant of the current status of discussions.

GWH

Good Tuesday evening from Denver, Colorado. Where the buffalo roam, where the deer and the antelope play; where seldom is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day!

I read most of the above comments this morning sipping a fresh cup of coffee. But alas, I had a tight schedule, and this evening is the first I could devote time to answering the questions.

Glen, the ballot will be included in your magazine. It will have the three nominees, and will also include a place for you to write in three names of folks you would prefer to see elected to the board, if not the ones nominated by the nominating committee.

I just received my magazine by First Class U.S. Postal Service mail today.

Tom, the board of directors did not reject any candidates by name. The board simply adopted the recommendation of the nominating committee. We, the board, were aware of the desires of both John Gaunt and Tom Stenesa to be nominated, but they were not included in the nominating committee's recommendation.

The new magazine you will be receiving has my usual report from the board, all on page 6. I quote from that report as follows:

"In years past, it has been the club’s practice that the Nominating Committee nominate more candidates for director than there were seats up for election. At the board’s meeting of September 8, 2008, the board arrived at a consensus that the nominating committee should present only 3 nominees for director. After that September meeting, John Hahn was elected director, and took his seat on January 1, 2009. John Hahn was also designated the chairman of the 2009 Nominating Committee. In order to insure that the current board members agreed with the September 2008 consensus, and considering the importance of the decision, the board took up a motion that would limit the number of nominees to 3 each year. The vote resulted in a plurality of directors in favor of the change. The justification for the change was grounded on the fact that the membership of the club is spread out not only around the United States, but around the globe, and that as a result, most members are not actually familiar with others in different geographic areas. Accordingly, members must rely on the nominating committee to find and promote good candidates. If only those who have wide name recognition are elected, then many who would make superior directors but are not well known will never have the opportunity to serve.

"The ACMOC ballots always include a place for write-in candidates. For 2009, the Nominating Committee is presenting a slate of three nominees. They are Jim Clack, Lee Sorbel, and Dave Wintermute. All are currently on the board, and if re-elected, they could serve out a second 3-year term, and then would be term-limited."


Jim Clack's explanation is pretty accurate and probably better than the one I quoted above (written by me). However, Jim did err on a very minor point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. He stated: "The Executive Director, Tricia Potts, serves as an ex-officio member of the board." Actually, Tricia Potts is our employee, and her title is "Executive Director". That title as used in the non-profit organization world translates into "Chief Operating Officer" in the corporate world. She does not have a vote at the board of directors meetings. We do encourage her to voice her opinions on matters. To date, we have not delegated very much authority to her, but that may change. She runs the day-to-day affairs of the club, relieving the directors and officers from that task. The directors and officers are thereby enabled to direct their attention to policy issues and the club's future. Tricia is a very valued employee, and we were lucky to be able to hire her. She keeps us on our toes. Tricia is an "ex-officio" member of a number of committees appointed by the board, which does not include the nominating committee.

Jim mentioned the $500 stipend. Actually, a director can be reimbursed up to $500 to attend board meetings and shows. (Most board meetings are held by telephone conference call. We usually have one in-person meeting a year, and that is at Peoria, Illinois. To save money this year (2009), we decided to dispense with the in-person meeting and held it by telephone conference call.) We have to make a claim for the money, and the money can only reimburse for mileage or common carrier tickets. I will be making the first claim for going to the New York Show. I am retired and on a limited income, and without the slight bit of encouragement, I would not have gone. When directors attend shows, we usually work all the time, and don't usually even get a chance to operate any equipment or otherwise have fun. By the way, it obviously cost me a lot more than the plane ticket to attend the show. If people have any concern about money going to reimburse mileage or plane tickets, let me know, and I'll dig into it a bit more.

As for the discussions with Chapter 2 officers about business matters between the chapter and the club, the board appointed a committee to handle that, and I am not involed in that matter and am totally ignorant of the current status of discussions.

GWH

Let me start by saying I think the BoD was wrong to limit the nominees, as far as I am concerned any member in good standing should be able to run. Losing hurts but you just have to get over it and move on. I also think that anybody that does take the time to run and not elected should be next inline for filling any vacancy
That said I must tell you it is I have nothing but praise for most of the current and immediate past BoD members. They have taken the BoD from a bunch of reckless ego maniacs that didnt keep any minutes or finance records and did what they wanted with no accountability to the members.
That all changed when GWH.Jeff,Don,Jim,Glen and Lee came on board now it is all in the news letter for members to see so as far as I am concerned they can stay for as long as the want now that we got rid of the guy from WY. but the bylaws dont allow it.
I know its been hard in past to find members to run for BoD so bad that they even asked me a couple time, now thats bad. I only wished that Mr. Bodine did not ran some of them off with his bad antics.
I did not vote for Lee his first time as I'm opposed to too much Cat Inc. I had my fill of Berny Ret. Cat Inc.who ripped us off. But Lee has proven to be a good BoD member. Thats what brings my concerns about Tom. In his letter Tom states his egarness to get aggressive with the Cat museun in Peoria (< 3 > Aggressive involvement in the establishment of the long-awaited tractor museum.) something that Im not a fan of. If Cat Inc wants let them do but keep ACMOC out of it
I am voting for the incubments. I see nothing wrong with John or have nothing personal against Tom, just tooooo much Cat Inc. I am more concerned who is going to replace GWH when his time is up and who will replace Jim when he becomes the Pres.. Its also important to get members from other countrys more involved and on The BoD. When I say too much Cat Inc Im refering to our BoD as a corperation Cat Inc Is one of the Best.
You are free to vote for who you want, but keep it mind that the BoD under the leadership of Jeff and Lee along with BoD members like Don,GWH,Glen,Jim turned "OUR" club completely around and on the positive side with accountability . Keep in mind members, there is an election every year and there won't be any limited number to run as we are already working on the legal aspects of that. So get your name in early. And good luck to all