So...just who is it that is going to "say" who is managing Elkhorn Acres?

...the EAMG is going to concede and turn it over to a new group? Unlikely.

...AW is going to declare a winner? Unlikely

...this will go around and around until everyone wants to puke? Probably.

It seems to be a MOOT (not mute, obviously) point.

Fred

Until the BWA, as a club, expresses dissatisfaction, I think talking about a compromise is premature.

Good points Fred, definitely not moot points which seem to be going 'round n 'round. . . . . . . . .

I’ve been quietly reading every post here from TN and want to submit my two cents to you all. As someone who was part of original team soliciting donations and purchasing the property at auction and as someone who served as treasurer of the EAMG for the first five to six years of it's existence, I will come out on the position that the EAMG has been an ineffective model should be replace by a more effective organization.

My concern with the EAMG since day one has been it’s inability to make a decision. There are several factors that contributed to this:

1. Beuracracy – they wanted to discuss everything over and over as a group and in sub-committees in different meetings
2. Quorum – everything had to be decided upon by a quorum and a quorum was rarely if ever present.
3. Apathy – a quorum was never present because the “shareholders” themselves didn’t care enough to show up at meetings.
4. Infrequent meetings – meetings were held only quarterly if not less often.

Having said that, I’m concerned that an alternative group with the geographically diverse representation as proposed in the AW affiliate "council" concept will have us back to square one with apathetic council members unwilling to travel to attend meeting leading to infrequent meetings.

The great thing about the concept of the BWA taking over is every month there are general and steering committee meetings to get decisions made. The downside to the BWA taking over is is doesn't necessarily involve the other AW affiliates interested in that property. With respect to the desires of the original donors: If they were really concened they would have 1) attended the meetings, and 2) retained their voting "rights" rather than tranfer them to someone else.

If you end up going the council route, please get multiple representatives from each organization with no quorum required – only popular vote by those in attendance. Better yet, allow voting via e-mail, conference call, WebEx/GoToMeeting, etc.


Respectfully Yours,


John Foy

John

foydawg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you end up going the council route, please get
> multiple representatives from each organization
> with no quorum required – only popular vote by
> those in attendance. Better yet, allow voting
> via e-mail, conference call, WebEx/GoToMeeting,
> etc.

Yes yes yes. I really thing that could be workable.
As I mentioned, Barry, I think that the best you can and should do IMHO is to make a good faith effort attempt to get as many of the EAMG together as there is contact info available for, with the stated objective of replacing EAMG with a new management structure operating under new bylaws. No one can fault you if only a sub-quorum group can be assembled.
Maybe BWA should have a prominent role in that. Perhaps BWA would be the designated chair of the EA cmt, responsible for coordinating meetings of that cmt. Also, surely the EA cmt should be expected to consider proposals that are presented to it from member organizations.
Just a few more random thoughts.
Chris S.

Chris Schardl