Again, it sounds like the proposal is to replace the existing management group with a new management group. Again, it sounds like there are several valid concerns regarding Elkhorn Acres and a proposal for a new and improved management group. However, some of the comments are suggesting a division and diversion of the group by "redeveloping" the group. These comments are not suggesting an action plan within the current organization. The comments are not suggesting that we can work together to improve the current organization, but appear to me to be critical and judgmental. Let us all remember that ideas and words are free, it is who and how it will be implemented that makes all the difference and all the cost. Luckily, we have had volunteers step up to ensure the Acres has been appropriately groomed. Both Dale Perry and Dave M. have shown their value in this area.

I respect the history of the existing management group and those who have worked hard, volunteered, discussed, planned, donated and protected the property thus far with the vision of preservation and safety. It is my opinion that the existing group should take the lead...and if there are concerns, it seems that there is a process within the existing group to address these concerns outside of a coup d’état (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_de_tat).

As far as I know, I am a member of the management group (although not an original donor) and am happy to volunteer to attend meetings and to assist in helping the group to follow through with some of its charges, such as the gravel. It sounds like there is a simple "to do" or "honey do" list that needs to get done on a regular basis. If the argument is about getting stuff done, then I know several volunteers of the management group who are worthy of getting it done (Did you see who was volunteer of the month? Did you know he also is a member of the management group?). It also sounds like existing members of the management group are willing to re-activate the cause. I am happy to assist in discussing how we can ensure that all affiliate groups/input is represented during decisions regarding the land. It would surprise me more than a second trip down Double Suck if the other members felt less.

Joey's comment of doing a sort of needs assessment, or survey, of the affiliate clubs regarding areas of improvement for the Acres (both in terms of management and general improvement) is a worthy comment.

Listen—Meagan Sisk needs to be asked her thoughts. Now there’s a girl who can get it done.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater….Charlie can’t swim….yet….

Joey c:
It is not about whether others are upset with EAMG or not. They do not know that much about them, probably even less than many current BWAers that have not been around for the EAMG debates for 8 years. It is about whether they would like representation on a Council or not. They could decline. It is really about what AW wants. They are not served by a shareholder system like that configured by the EAMG. If there are no complaints about how the property has been managed, then, they can thank the BWA who has done it all.
Brent

Interesting. Before it was all about democracy and what the boating community wants, now it's all about the landowner. What is it really, Brent?

Meryl:
It is always about the landowner - AW. It is about democracy for those Affiliates that wish to be involved in AW's property. Not about who is gifted magical shares created out of thin air by a sub group of donors and being clamored for by other nondonors. It is about equal representation by Affiliates of AW - pure and simple. No more congregating shares and transfering shares by individuals. It is about putting to bed a divisive issue. It is divisive and the EAMG has always been broken. Thanks for asking.
Brent

To all parties that attend the meeting tonight.

I am getting ready to go to work and before I do I would like to ask all of you to please behave tonight at the meeting. Lets stick to the issues and in this case I think we need to be sticklers on ye ol Roberts rules. Lets also keep in mind that this is a discussion on what the BWA wants. There has not been any official overthrow of the EAMG as of yet so lets keep that in mind. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!!

Nearest I can tell... AW only has a problem with the EAMG because Brent, as President of the BWA, misrepresented the BWA's position to AW.

AW has never expressed having a problem with the EAMG until Brent/Barry convinced them that the BWA had a problem with it.

Now... AW or Mark Singleton thinks the BWA is dissatisfied with the EAMG.

That may be the case... but... the BWA, as a club has never really discussed it.

If the BWA determines, as a club, that we really have a problem with the EAMG, then we should work from there.

AW has a problem with EAMG because of the shareholder system primarily. They are alarmed at the transfer of shares and the accumulation of shares by individuals. They are aware of the problems within the donors (not just shareholders) and have been for years. They believe that a simple solution exists. I do too. BWA will have representation on such a council. I cannot imagine that the BWA would want to have no voice in the property. Mark Singleton will be back on Monday. He is willing to give attention to this issue. Thanks again for your personal insults and attacks Dale.
Brent

The BWA already has representation within the EAMG. To hear some tell it... it's all BWA already.

The Vikings and Elkhorn Paddlers have their voices within the EAMG and don't seem to have any complaints.

What happened to the Vikings and Elkhorn Paddlers voices when Brent/Barry claimed at the latest BWA meeting that... and I quote... "AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there"

It's just a few very vocal "individuals" who don't feel as though "their" voice is large enough that have a problem within the current system. These are also the individuals who have been lobbying hard to have the BWA named as managing body for the Elkhorn Acres. They will concede... when called on it... to include the Vikings & Elkhorn Paddlers... but over and over... it's been the BWA that they've demanded be the managing body.

We're not talking about the BWA feeling as though their voice isn't large enough... 'cuz the BWA, as a group, has never expressed a dissatisfaction with their voice within the EAMG.

Again... if the BWA has discussions on this and votes otherwise, I'll concede... but... they haven't been given the chance.

You know, it is interesting to hear the hearsay attributed to me, in fact, quotes by a person who did not hear them because he doesn't attend meetings. Dale, I am not sure you ever concede anything. I can't get you to even want to reach a compromise on something. The BWA can and has debated this. Where are we? Dale pointing fingers again at his perceived enemies, me and Barry, while clamoring for his multiple illicit shares he commands in the always defunct EAMG. Maybe the EAMG should just fight it out amongst themselves in court to see if they really ever had the authority to form and act. Donors have a right to complain about the EAMG. Non-donors really don't, especially if they were gifted shares in a transfer that was never legal. I know Dale wants to get down and nasty (throw elbows), but, I would prefer a compromise and I have been compromising ever since my early well founded belief that this should all be run through the BWA. Affiliate clubs do not have voice as long as someone like Dale is accumulating shares and votes. I even heard that Dale solicited Burgess for 4 shares. Maybe I am wrong on that. Dale, please give up your fantasy for Dalekhorn. See you tonight I hope?
Brent

I've never asked anybody for shares and that includes Burgess.

As far as I know... none of the people who have had shares passed to them have asked for them.

Valerie and Hoagie both emailed me out of the blue to pass on their shares to me. I did not ask for them and I would gladly pass my shares along, if I thought it would solve anything.

The quote is from a post by Barry Grimes.