Jbob, I agree with your description of a "basic guideline" solution. I believe Zina and Mark Singleton would agree.
Brent

Hanley, I agree with you wholeheartedly and those are great suggestions.
Brent

Bubba, You are correct, Dale isn't alone and Its good to see ideas coming from this thread. Hopefully the tone can stay that way and be productive. Just wanted to chime in briefly to lend my support to those that are vocal but not by themselves. Good job getting the ball rolling Dale. J

Joey Calder

Hanley, I agree with you wholeheartedly and those are great suggestions.
Brent

"Gonna Get Back to Basics

Guess I'll start it up again" Counting Crows Recovering the Satellites

Good job fellas. This has really been quite ridiculous and gone on too long. It almost seems like the posts have been made on purpose for some kind of "BWA vs EAMG et al" soap opera. Perhaps put on to entertain us for awhile during the cold winter months. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anyway, Hanley, right on - Simplicity Rules! Not Chaos - right on Bubba !

I'm both a BWA active boater and on original EAMG contributor that has stayed out of this for some good reasons - including those at odds were among all my friends in the BWA and I didn't want to get in the middle of that stuff.

I think the 3 person team has merit but we need to verify a process with those concerned. I also personally believe that, seeing as EAMG members who paid $500 or more ( I paid $1000 myself and my wife Patty also paid ), it would be a good idea to get those who are still active paddlers and get them to provide their own team member.

That's all for now. Just my .02

Mike

I like the idea that Simplicity Rules! I would once again encourage all the interested groups to come together and find common ground and a way to move forward. The dialog here is reassuring.

Thanks,

Mark Singleton

Before we start re-inventing the wheel... shouldn't we determine if the wheel is still usable or not?

Before I ever went to my first EAMG meeting(as a Viking rep), I was convinced, by the usual suspects, that the EAMG a hopeless cause. I expected to show up and be subjected to excruciatingly intolerable behavior by members of the EAMG and was all ready to try to re-invent the wheel on my own.

What I found was a mostly reasonable group of people who were coming together for a damned fine cause. They mostly worked well together and were interested in listening to opinions and ideas. They seemed truly interested in solutions and moving forward.

That's not to say I didn't witness some excruciatingly intolerable behavior. It was just from a different group of people than I had anticipated.

Live and learn.

I would ask anybody who has not attended one of their meetings or worked within the system to reserve judgment on this damned fine group of people who worked hard and put up the $$$ to purchase this parcel of land as an access point for the boaters of the Elkhorn.

The BWA, as a club, has had no real discussion of problems with Elkhorn Acres or the management thereof.

As is obvious... I'm pretty unhappy that our president took it upon himself to contact AW with the idea that the "BWA" was unhappy with the EAMG.

That very well may be the case, once we, as a club examine it, but it has not been presented as club business. There has been almost no discussion at steering committee meetings, regular club meetings or on the forum.

If people feel we need to discuss this as a club, vote on doing something about it, then re-presenting this as a problem to AW, then I'm all for it... but for our club president to take it upon himself to present this to AW without the club being aware of it is, to me, unacceptable.

Re-inventing this wheel is a little premature.

Folks:

EAMG was a fiat and NEVER supported by all donors. It is not a legal entity. Many donors are no longer even involved. The vocal people that favor the EAMG elite club appear to be non-donors, some of whom have made efforts to cultivate additional shares and thus more power vis-a-vis others in the "group". The persons that complain about a BWA role are by and large, non donors that believe the BWA and other AW affiliate groups are not up to the task. We are though - nothing to it really. In fact, all active EAMG officers, myself included, are BWA folks.

EAMG is a control mechanism that limits involvement of interested paddlers. The BWA has two votes as do the Vikings, supposedly, and the most strident and aggressive individual persons who never donated but "inherited" shares, (also by fiat and without consent of all original donors), have been able to and could outvote a BWA vote 2:1. The BWA currently has a very limited voice as do the Vikings and their members, vis - a - vis individuals with many votes and proxies in their favored "clique". Shares have been "distributed" or "inherited" without legal process or consent of all other original donors. Further, we have never needed nor completely agreed on an elite and selectively closed new club without the consent of all donors.

While I agree that I originally saw this as a BWA project, because that is what it was in order to do this purchase on behalf of AW (with some contributions from others - see the list Zina and others have of the original $500 and above donors), I have, for some time agreed that the VCC and EP should have a role. I agree with Mark Singleton's suggestion of bringing all camps together for a four person committee made up of interested persons. I think it moves the issue forward. AW does not support a system, to my understanding, that permits the possibility of votes being transferred and potentially ending up in the hands of non-AW oriented persons or entities.

EAMG is a source of friction between what hopefully are well meaning groups. It is broken. It has never worked. It has never been legal. AW is reluctant to embrace it when valued members of the community that were pivotal and instrumental in its purchase, such as Barry Grimes, are steadfast against it, not because they want to control it, but because they want to limit the ability of control by a few assertive individuals that have latched on a perceived donation of "shares" that have never existed and were never involved in the purchase. The model started out as a consensus to buy and give the property to AW. It never reached consensus again. Therefore, it does not exist, legally. Further, and as a testament to the incapacity of EAMG, most of the work done at the Acres were by BWA folks outside the EAMG framework.

There are a few folks that really know the history of this thing going back to 99. I am one and there are others. The few vocal ones on this were not there. They do not know, but only surmise based on what they have been told and their own personal biases to hang on to their "shares" they were given. There has been vigorous debate on many fronts since that time about the purpose and mission regarding the land. Many of the original donors are either no longer involved or have chosen to stay out of the fray. Probably they do not care and figure we will sort it out. But, Zina and I have met and are determined to find a solution that ends this rancor. Mark Singleton is supportive of the idea kicked around this morning by Jbob and Hanley and commented on by Mike Molnar, an original donor. A stakeholder's group giving all interested persons an ability to weigh in on easy topics facing the property and report and work with AW on same, makes perfect sense. Let's stop fighting and find a new simple way such as what is proposed regarding a four person stakeholders committee to work with AW. Simple, and represents all interests and gives equal voice to each group.

Brent

Maybe a 5 person group to eliminate time-consuming ties ?

Let's add the Bardstown Boaters, since they are an AW Affiliate club. That would be 5. Why not? Let's work together on this - everyone.
Brent