Well, it could have been a executive meeting, i guess... I was at the meeting at Valerie and Ben's that was the last one. So what calls an executive council meeting to order without the share holders? I'll just go outside and make snow angles in the sun and pretend i don't know anything.

DA

Snow angles Dustin ?
Snow angels.

Brent, I’m a little confused. You keep complaining about closed processes, elite groups, lack of democracy, and not enough chance for every interested party to have input. At the same time you appear to be involved in a bunch of behind the scenes activity, some kind of closed, secret, elite, anti-democratic process about which you won’t even answer simple questions from interested parties.

Meryl: I guess we just disagree about who has done behind the scene deals and engaged in elite, anti-democratic process. Obviously you and Dale, perhaps others, have strong feelings that I can never satisfy. What is the point of this post but to increase the discord? Let's work on a solution.
Brent

How is it possible to have a solution when we don’t all agree what the problem is? You said you think the problem is that the existing process is elite and anti-democratic. Well, you don’t appear to me to actually have a problem with elite anti-democratic processes because you appear to me to be engaged in exactly that. So, how is it possible to work on a solution? I guess the point is to find out what your real opposition is to EAMG, so maybe a solution can be worked out.

And what is the point of your “you and Dale” comment? Trying to marginalize me by lumping me in with my boyfriend, my opinion doesn’t count cuz I’m just standing by my man? I don’t have any problem disagreeing with Dale when I think he’s wrong.

re "I don’t have any problem disagreeing with Dale when I think he’s wrong."

Believe it folks... she can be brutal.

Meryl: See all prior posts from everyone on this topic for the past several years. We are going in circles now. We must come together on this issue. AW wants that. I want that. Many others do too. Sorry I lumped you in with Dale. I just figured you shared his sentiment about the topic and me. I apologize. I would have been happy to talk to you or anyone last night at the pool session. But let's stop the inquisition and get back to conflict resolution over an old issue that was around since before many folks here were involved at all. Peace? Pretty please?
Brent

I have been asked by a couple of people you all know and love to post their thoughts on this .......

Please be aware the opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the poster of these messages. Mine are far more extreme.

First, Handsome Dave Merrifield,
______________________________________________________________
Hi. I’m Dave Merrifield, paddler, BWA member, original donor. I’m very happy with Elkhorn Acres.


I used to park at Sauffley’s when paddling the Elkhorn prior to the land purchase. That sucked. I always felt like I was trespassing.


Someone came up with the idea to buy the property when it came up for sale. Whoever started that, thanks! Whoever put together the deal, thanks! Whoever donated money, time, or karma to make it happen, thanks!


Someone came up with the idea to donate the land to the stewardship of AW. Whoever made that happen, thanks! And thanks to AW for supporting this takeout!


Soon after the purchase, somebody laid in a bunch of gravel for a driveway and parking lot. Whoever made that happen, thanks!


Then somebody put in a changing screen. Whoever made that happen, thanks!


Somebody planted some trees that are starting to look nice. Thanks!


Somebody’s been keeping the grass cut. Thanks!


Whenever I paddle the Elkhorn, there’s a welcome place to park at the takeout. It seems to be low impact to the neighbors and to the creek – certainly better than when we all trespassed at the side of the road.


I’ve never felt the urge to camp there. The place has no potty, running water, or electricity, plus it just feels like camping in David Quarles’ back yard and I’ll bet he wouldn’t like that.


Elkhorn Acres has fulfilled my entire vision of what it should be. I’m glad I donated, and I haven’t spoken up much about it because it seems to be just fine. The driveway had some potholes last time, but I don’t know how to fix stuff like that, so I won’t complain. If somebody wants to fix it, however, I’d be happy to donate $50 or $100 for gravel.


What’s all the fuss?


Dave Merrifield
____________________________________________________________
Second, Mr. Jim (I need a bigger sail boat) Dinger,

From Jim Dinger:

I distinctly have memory and most likely written email proof that AW was
aware of and supported EAMC as managers of the property for them, AND the by-laws
that were sent to them to describe the way we would do business concerning the
property. "Legal entity" ?????? Who needs a legal entity. What
organization's development is supported by "all the donors?" We gave the property to AW
and they agreed the EAMC should govern it and concurred with the by-laws
proposed.

I do not remember Brent being present at any of the EAMC meetings in the
first year where the by-laws were developed so his comments do not hold much
weight with me. I do not think Brent could tell me where those meetings were even
held. I look at the pitiful state of the property at this time, after all these
years, and see that the lack of organization, the whims of few, and the lack
of development support because of derisiveness of just a few people (probably
5 at most--and they don't even agree) have prevented a positive approach to
managing the property. So what have the very few that disemboweled the EAMC
about 5 years ago do for the property? What have those individuals done who
tried to disrupt further organization of the EAMC two years ago done for the
property? Yes, we have access, but not a pretty site.

I was in favor of BWA taking on the managing role (or is that roll) if AW
would accept that invitation. BWA is the most frequent users of the site, and
should be well aware of its condition and needs. However, if BWA doesn't want
it, the present EAMC has a duty to AW to manage the property, unless I'm
unaware of any AW decisions in the past 2 years to the contrary. jsd

Atomman

Thanks Dave Merrifield!

While I appreciate the comments of Jim Dinger, it simply highlights that there has been division between original donors over the role of managment and the formation of the EAMG since the beginning. There was definitely an issue of notice to all the donors about this group that was trying to be formed and formalized at the time. There were 34 individual donors that gave in excess of $500. 33 of them were, or at some time have been, BWA members. Folks interested should have that list as several people have it. Many others gave sums less than $500. They did not get a "share", whatever that was. They are not on that list. It seemed to me that we all donated money and gave it to AW. We never had any rights after that with respect to the property, other than to assist at AW's pleasure. From there, anything that needed to be done could be done by the same or other motivated BWA members. We did not need the bureacracy of a new organization with "shares" in the hands of a few individuals and the unlimited ability to transfer those shares into the hands of anyone at all in the future without regard to AW or interested users such as the BWA who had limited vote vis-a-vis the individuals anyway. Many donors did not get shares or either did not want to exercise them. Some did get "shares" and began meeting to set up the EAMG, unbeknownst to others that donated. All EAMG officers and most donors and all facilitators were BWA. To this day, everything done has been done at the behest of persons in the BWA. Barry Grimes should be thanked for everything he did in this acquisition, not vilified. However, I agreed and have for some time felt that it should be open for representation of all interested groups, especially members of the AW affiliate clubs, particularly the Vikings and all AW members. I believe the stakeholder approach that has shaken out in this mix with a representative from each interested group coming together a couple of times a year, perhaps in Frankfort, a central location, is inherently fair, sensible and stops forever the bickering over the formation of the EAMG that has its most vocal supporters being, generally nondonors. There were camps within and without the EAMG and the donors and we need to set this aside. I think, again that Jbob and Hanley's discussion on this, Molnar's comments, my discussion with Zina and all of us hearing from AW's Mark Singleton, and my hopes of hearing from Darrin Hines of the Vikings and the EP and others (B, all can lead to a workable and simple solution to taking care of the grass, gravel, and assuring that we are a good neighbor there. I know that there are many strong feelings out there, but, I hope we can come together on this in a way that puts it to bed and all can agree is fair about who is involved in interfacing and representing AW's interests in this wonderful access site.
Brent

I don't chime in on this, usually, because I am a newcomer, ignorant of history and policy, and can never seem to find time to be of much use (still heavy of heart because I couldn't make it to NPFF, let alone help). But a stray thought did creep into my mind (or belly), that I'd like to toss in (or toss up).

I think that a committee of 5 individuals would be unworkable. If they manage to get together that often, they will appear to be a small click oligarchy running the show. If they don't, there's no show. So, if a new EA cmt of some sort is to be constituted, I think it should have SEVERAL representatives from each interested party, and some expectation (quorum requirement) that each party be represented at each meeting.

Alternatively, a c. 5 member EA cmt need not ever meet, except in the virtual sense via email and forum, and would be strictly advisory. They could have the sole duties of arranging and publicizing a semiannual powwow in Franklin Co., to which all members of all local clubs are invited, and of setting the agenda (including listing proposals) for those meetings. Then the proposals can be discussed and votes taken at the powwow.

I'd better stop now, b4 I get overwhelmed by stray thoughts.

Anyway, it looks like everyone is in agreement that BWA shouldn't take over EA management. So, I'm a little perplexed about the argument about the proportion of donors and/or EAMG members who were or are BWA members.

OK, I'll shut up.

Chris Schardl