AGAIN!!!! who's needs are not being met? Please just come out and say that you want camping/other development at the takeout. That is what this is all about.

I personally would like the takeout to stay the way it is. So it can stay a takeout.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2008 09:32PM by jboater.

Years ago when I was called by a volunteer about giving money to purchase Elkhorn Acres, I choose to only give a $100. I was made aware that I wouldn't have a vote with this amount. I still don't have a vote and I am OK with that. What is wrong with Elkhorn Acres? We boat, we take out and go home.
The property is zoned residential, not party central! Access is a big issue on all of the creeks that we boat. What needs to be changed on the Elkhorn at the takeout? Barry and Brent what would you all do differently?
Actually when the innitial donations were sought, weren't there people who specifically gave $500 only after they found out that was the only way to get a vote on the EAMG? tim miller

Mike...

Blaming this on personality conflicts is pretty thin.

You said yourself that you "don't think that the BWA has the right to go over the heads of the original donors".

So... why didn't you call them out on that?

Shouldn't somebody have called them out on it?

Good luck finding somebody that DOESN'T have a personality conflict with them to call them out on this stuff.

We still have not gotten a satisfactory answer to our question of when/if AW/Mark Singleton told Brent/Barry that “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there”. The closest we've gotten is Mark saying that he communicated with Brent on this AFTER the meeting.

Somebody has to call bullshit. Don't they?

Laying all this stuff on personality conflicts is misleading.

Whatever Dale, just trying to be diplomatic. I don't want to be a log in the road. . . . . .

Not being closely connected to the facts of what was evolving on that, I wasn't in a position to call them out on it ( define ). I missed a lot of meetings over the past several years and I'm just now getting more in tune with the scene on this. Maybe I should put a disclaimer next to my posts or just not post at all.

I'm just trying to get this thing over with. Were Barry and Brent et al doing this with evil intentions ? Of screwing the rest of us some way ? To determine the size aggregate of the next gravel load ? I really don't think so

I'm not going to invest my time in a quest to relive every event / decision / rumor / fact and who was the bad guy(s) / gal(s) and who was the good guy(s) / gal(s). I guess, would it be OK just to get Brent and Barry and whoever and have them apologize to the club that they were wrong to do what they did ( define ) ?

And I do still believe those who paid are first, but then I agree too that the responsibility needs to stick the current group of active paddlers. Makes sense. I guess that it's just not possible to get everyone in agreement as to the whole deal. . . . . . . . .

Sounds like it comes down to personality conflicts, doesn't it ?

That's all for me. Go pick on somebody else........................
Mike

Jbob, I do not care if there is ever any of those things or not. That is for future generations and AW to decide if they ever come up. I just do not think the political structure of the EAMG is fair, was fairly created, nor is in the best interest of AW. The creation of shares and the unlimited transfer of those shares is the problem. Always has been.

Tim, the EAMG as the organization is currently, was not envisioned at the time of the money raising, and certainly none of the issues about shares were addressed, including the question about persons not having shares for not participating, even though they gave $500. That got you a vote as to who to transfer it to as I recall. I think you should have had a say for your $100, quite frankly, whether you wanted one or not. There were two camps that wanted the donation to go to different recipients potentially and a deal was hammered out that picked AW. The donors all agreed. The management and who and how that was to be created was not hashed out until later by a group of the donors. When it tried to formalize, I objected, for a number of procedural reasons, but, primarily because the organization was unfairly restrictive and prone to nepotism.

Mike, it does have some basis in personality conflicts too. Dale is very publicly clear about how he feels about me and Barry, and Super Dave and Ellen Walker. I am sorry he feels this way. Regarding his question about whether Mark Singleton has ever indicated that he defers to the BWA on the issue of camping before that meeting, ask Zina. She spoke to him about it in August of 07. When I spoke to Mark about this after the meeting, he confirmed that he did so defer to our vote/decision. What is the big deal? There was never a plan or conspiracy! I did not know we were going to be discussing it although I had seen some comment on the forum about it. I think Mello brought it up, and it was discussed. It was not a small meeting. But, it was not a large meeting. However, it was a decent turnout as most of them seem to be. I thought it was unanimous. I thought McKenzie raised good concerns. Because of that I asked Mark and he said he was fine with it.

No one was trying to out the Vikings and there has not been a single meeting of the SC or Reg Meetings where I have put this on the agenda even though I have opposed the formation and the continued fiction that is the EAMG since I first learned about it as an original donor involved in the purchase. I explained my position when I was asked at the last BWA election meeting in response to Meryl's question. I do not think the political structure of that group serves AW interests. I have no designs on the takeout, have no special plans for it, no desire to control, or for that matter, even suggest that control should be in the hands of the BWA. I do not want to restrict anyone that paddles and uses the property consistent with AW's mission or, for that matter the mission statements of any of the interested clubs. I am open to all AW affiliates having an equal say and for that, Dale, I am glad you raised this whole issue out of what seemed to me to be a minor camping question that was discussed and voted on and then cleared by AW. I do wish you had been at that meeting so we could have had your viewpoint though.

Donors intent I keep hearing. Which ones? When? How many of those would have been fine with the BWA human resources managing it? Isn't that what has happened anyway? The EAMG is a limited BWA. All officers are BWA. The BWA is all over this deal and the EAMG. The BWA has done everything that has been done at the property. Let's do a simple Council made up of each AW Affiliate club. The EP can join AW for $75 per year. We could donate their membership. Heck, I will give it to them myself. We elect a Tzar like for NPFF and Spring Clinic to be the BWA voice. Zina would be a good choice. There are probably others. Bubba would be good. Jbob would be good. Whatever and whoever - we could vote on that person. We get an equal voice to the Vikings and the other affiliates. Most of the discussions about issues can take place at club meetings and on the forum with the representatives communicating mostly via internet. Perhaps a meeting in Frankfort once or twice per year. Then they report to the clubs and AW with recommendations and actions. The original donors (BWAers mostly) intent is represented because of the BWA's role and vote. Every interested stakeholder group has an equal voice. There are no shares and nothing to squabble over in the future because there will be none of this "some have shares and some don't". Squabble over. Back to what we can do to assist AW's mission with the land. Let's do this and get past all this history.
Brent

Mike... I'm not trying to pick on you...

I could as easily have turned all that around and tried to claim you were picking on me by claiming I was driving all this because of my personal issues with Barry.

I didn't do that.

This isn't personal. Please don't keep beating that drum.

It distracts people from the real issues.

Brent, you keep trying to turn this into a personal issue.

It's a lame strategy and an attempt to distract people from the real issues.

Er, ok Dale.
Brent

I hope we all would agree that the key goal is to reach a consensus - the basic necessity for any group of volunteers to be effective . Unfortunately, consensus is something the EAMG has consistently and miserably failed to ever deliver. The EAMG has not met the needs of it's stake holders.

Latest example of the EAMG's neglect of the takeout is the lack of gravel (or whatever divisive solution) to fill the potholes in the road to the parking area. Shuttle cars are driving around the mud hole - making it bigger. If the Rain Gods continue to bless us, soon we'll have a nice field of mud to wallow in. To stop that from happening please stop driving through the mud holes till it's fixed. Who knows when that will happen? The EAMG has been talking about this and supposedly directing action to fix it for months yet... nothing happens.The EAMG is not meeting the basic needs of the takeout.

The EAMG is broken for whatever reason you care to pick and has been a failure at responding and making decisions for the land almost from the moment it handed over the money to AW to buy the land. See SuperDave's post for more details. It's clear to many that things will be continue to be in gridlock without significant change.

A new idea is being discussed among boaters about doing something else. A lot of this plan has been taking shape while folks have been hanging out at the takeout and kicking it around over an adult beverage after a cool day of fun on the mighty Elkhorn.

Some are asking what if decisions about the land were assumed by a new council composed of representatives from all of the AW Affiliates in KY?

Current AW Affiliates include the BWA, VCC, and the BB. The EP could also participate if they became an AW Affiliate.

Under the new proposal, each AW Affiliate elects a representative who would then sit in council with the other Affiliate representatives. This council would report to AW and make sure regular maintenance is performed. They could also do fund drives, ponder/present suggestions for improvements/changes for the land and then report back to their respective clubs for discussion,voting and recommendations to AW.

To help with communication between the Affiliates and the stake holders a new AW Elkhorn Forum could be created where discussions, news and announcements about the land could take place.

This plan would create an ever refreshing membership of boaters interested in the Elkhorn takeout and a fair, open democracy among stake holders going forward. United we stand:-) Who will support this plan? And if not, then how would you improve it?
barryg

Have other AW affiliates and local clubs been contacted to see if they are upset with the current EAMG set-up or if they are interested in being part of this plan that is being hashed out on the BWA forum. If so, what are their thoughts/comments?