There was generally a great spirit of cooperation at tonight's meeting. In attendance were EAMG members, SuperDave, Sockeye, Brent, Liz, DaveM, Ledgeman, Brian, Bubba, Don, Dale, Robert, Zina, DaveQ, BarryG, plus interested BWA member GeorgeM. While Zina would not allow a vote of the people present - the consensus I witnessed was to move forward and support the formation of the Elkhorn Leadership Council. Some have concerns and want to go slow and "do it right". That sounds like a fine start on a new plan and one we can all feel good about supporting.

BTW, the new gravel to fix the pot holes and was voted on at the Elkhorn EAMG meeting last year, finally showed up at the takeout today. Seems that positive things for the takeout have already started happening.
barryg

Positive things for the takeout started happening in 1999 and have never really stopped.

The positive things that have been happening have been so smooth that few even noticed any of it was happening.

Few have ever felt a need to give the paddling community a blow by blow account of the trash that's been removed, weeds cut or gravel rearranged. That doesn't mean it hasn't been happening all along.

My question is, why the need for this hostile takeover(yes... it's been pretty damned hostile), if all we want is river access?

Things went pretty smooth at the EAMG meeting last night because we all sat around and agreed that the main thing we want is access and that led to a feeling of consensus.

We have the access, but there is more to the story.

The latest strategy has been to pacify people by saying that all anybody is interested in is access.

When will the real plans be revealed?

Besides "letting everybody having a say", what is the real goal here?

A pavilion?

What?

Dale:
Last night would have been a good time for you to contribute points or concerns like this while people were present. But you really said nothing much at the meeting. You did not get into the discussion of the purchase or the motivations behind us, the ones that made it happen, so you can have access. Of the 8 individual donors interested enough to be there, 6 of us support the AW council. Perhaps Zina and Don do too now. If so, that is all the interested donors present.

You use terms like "Hostile", which tells me you are not moving forward. It was the formation of the EAMG that was "hostile" in the first place. It seems everyone that cares wants to move beyond the varying issues in the history of the purchase in 1999 until the mysterious formation of the "EAMG" a number of years later. The donors, other than the interested ones did not show up last night. The "donor intent" was manifested by those of us there last night. We can endlessly debate the issues leading to the formation of this splinter group, or we can move forward. I think that was what most everyone felt last night, perhaps except you. Be nice if you would discuss things in groups with folks present rather than an endless tirade against Barry and I and whoever takes a position you oppose on the forum. Most of the time neither of us wish to respond to your false accusations and conspiracy theories. Please tell me what I am wanting to control. I spoke up a fair amount last night and you had an opportunity to ask me then. All of it is recorded with a voice recording device that Zina had. I would encourage anyone interested to get a copy from Zina. Please tell us what conspiracy you believe in today. So far, they all have been garbage. Funny that you won't share them in an open room where we can discuss and dispel your delusions. Are you part of the solution or the problem here? You like your shares you wield in the EAMG, don't you? Dilution of that is what you view as a "hostile takeover", isn't it? Dude!
Brent

For starters, it's spring break season and some people are vacationing. You can twist that into "they don't care enough to show up", but that isn't exactly the case.

Not everybody had the chance to say what they wanted last night. I sat in on the meeting and was respectful of others rights to speak. That sometimes means that everybody does not get their turn to speak. I could have attempted to shout over other people, as some others tend to do, though... I don't think that is productive, nor is it a good way to "move forward".

I was trying to ask my question last night when we ran out of time...

Back to my question...

What do you guys want done so differently that it requires a change management structure?

Pavilion?

What?

That is an easy question to answer Dale: have a truly representative council of paddler interests just like AW is suggesting, and which, as Bubba reminded us last night, is a reflection of ideas floated by us that are interested. Pavilion or not, which I don't care as long as AW and neighbors are fine with it, has nothing to do with the political structure of the EAMG or it's beginnings. I think Barry and I have always wanted more voices and representation in this property beyond who has "shares" because of money or connections. Anyway, I expressed these issues in detail last night as did many others that were there. I would rather not keep repeating myself. We probably need that recording posted for interested folks that want to hear about the details of the purchase and the perspectives expressed. You are right that some folks were on vacation like Burgess and Molnar. And I think John Foy cares even though he could not make it from TN. I also failed to mention that Sockeye said he had Gary Hoagland's proxy and Dave Merrifield held proxies too. They both raised their hands and spoke up. All one had to do, generally, was raise a hand and those that did, got called on. Come on Dale, you had plenty of chances to chime in or pose questions. Why wait for the forum to express your discontent?
Brent

Spring break! "Twist it around" - twist what around, they did not show up. Can I use Joey's SOL line here? Were you there last night, we never heard you express yourself or do you only use the forum to insite your hostile crap? BTW, No Pavilion, I’m praying for a mosque.

Mr. Margavage

You got to speak all you wanted to, because... you don't see the need to wait for someone else to quit talking before you shout over whatever they're trying to say.

Yes... I did try to speak, but there's only so much time at these meetings. You got your time and then some.

Would you have me shout over others as they are attempting to make their points?

That's all well and good for you, but...

Was that really helpful Dave?

Last night was about as productive a meeting as anyone could have expected. People were for the most part curtious, and respectful. Common goals were unveiled and discussion occurred about the best way to achieve those goals. another meeting is scheduled 4/23 to hammer out details and everyone is invited.

Lets not move backward now. Some donors were unable to attend for various reasons, ok, thats why there is a second meeting. If they fail to show up twice then the failure of responsibility falls on their shoulders and society moves forward.

Gmead

Dave, this meeting was poorly attended because it was rushed by you, as well as others. People had their vacations planned out and being as there was not to be any votes on anything, it was to be an information sharing meeting, there was really no need for them to reschedule the meeting, nor their vacations.

You guys are in such a rush...

To do what?

The takeout is there and isn't going anywhere.

Boaters have a very nice place to park while they're boating. It is the nicest whitewater boating access within 150 miles.

What's the rush?

One of the things that was stressed before this meeting was that it was an information gathering meeting and no votes would be taken, therefore, it was poorly attended.

yet...

there was an attempt to force a vote, even after it was pointed out that no votes were to be taken. It was an attempt at political maneuvering.

All this political crap sucks.

Super, Was that comment directed to me or Dale. Either way George is right, It's not helpful. And by the way, the SOL was in reference to voting and absentee votes, so I don't think it works here. Just a point of clarification. J

From My understanding the meeting was productive in getting the majority of thoughts out. That is progress to a degree. I anticipate seeing the minutes as I have posted previous. Maybe one day we all can tolerate each other, obviously not in cyber space though.

Joey Calder