What does the $6,000 include other than mowing and $1,900 for gravel.

Sorry Brent,

I still don't see this discussion as a BWA issue! THe property is owned by the AW and managed by a private group. The budget to maintain it is NOT BWA business.

I have noticed that the AW has effectively avoided participating in this discussion and wisely so, the arguement hear is between the original individuals involved in the purchase and the management group, it's method of maanagement and the ego's involved.

Let the parties directly involved battle it out and when a compromise is reached then bring the decision to the BWA as a club and we can vote on our support.

If you wouldn't bring the divorce proceedings of a couple of BWA members to the forum for discussion then don't bring other personal conflicts here either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THe BWA is an outside entity involved only in the support of the management group and it's decisions to the best of my understanding. As the President of This club I beleive it is partly your duty to serve the club and it's best interest, not attempt to use the club as a platform for which to pursue your person plans and agendas.

I motion this thread be erased. This really should be private conversation, not visible to American Whitewater public. The Elkhorn Acres is not by any means excluding any users that are private boaters by being managed by a group of people who worked their asses off to secure the land in the first place. The BWA should be supportive of the EAMG as it is one of many users of the property. However, I'm not saying the EAMG is perfect either. This discussion should continue outside of this venue and I strongly suggest that all members of the EAMG be present (and invited) to get all of these discrepancies worked out. The one piece of property that brings us together should not be the wedge that splits apart our club, to me that is why the EAMG should remain the group overseeing the care of Elkhorn Acres for the benifit of the private boating community.

Thanks,
Dustin

CHEERS DUSTIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a *draft* budget, sent to the officers for discussion and amendment, not anything resembling a final proposal. Two of the items had figures which were annotated "wild-ass guess" meaning that more research needed to be done to figure out appropriate figures should those items be included. This annotation was a feeble (and failed) attempt at humor, and at enlisting those with more experience in construction estimation to help figure out what certain things might cost.

The basic categories in addition to the gravel and railing were:
mowing
donation box construction and installation
signage for no trespassing/ no camping (discussed for years but never actually installed)
porta-potty rental
reconstruction of changing rooms.
The total of all those was $5150, over 2 years, with a significant lack of confidence in the figures for the donation box and changing rooms.

Items not discussed at that officers meeting were listed in the 2008 portion, as a means to think ahead what *might* we want to include, not as a means of setting a project schedule. Those items did not come out of a vacuum but were things which have been brought out as issues in the past. This was a draft document to stimulate discussion. I apologize for not adequately explaining what I meant by draft and causing such angst over a process meant to be open to discussion, amendment, refinement. I had hoped there would be some sort of consensus amongst the EAMG officers, or at least a clear statement of pros, cons, issues before the draft was paraded before everyone. Steering committees exist to do the more in-depth research and pondering of all sides of an issue so that it can be presented to the greater group succinctly, thus taking up less of their precious time.

Zina

foydawg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What does the $6,000 include other than mowing and
> $1,900 for gravel.

More smoke and mirrors…

Brent wrote, “everyone will note that I have not started or implemented any procedural or parliamentary maneuver via steering committees or otherwise to directly address, affect or take over management of AW's property”

No, you haven’t yet, but that was a threat/promise you made in an email to the EAMG steering committee/a couple of other people.

Brent wrote, “AW simply trusts it's friends in the BWA…”

That’s not quite right. While AW doesn’t have any problem with the BWA, and in fact, they should love us, it is the EAMG that they trust to run the property, as they are the ones who bought and paid for the property and handed it to American Whitewater on a silver platter. AW doesn’t give a rats ass whether it’s the BWA or the EAMG that manages the property. My guess is, they don’t want the headache that this “hostile takeover minority” is providing them. If not for this hostile group, AW would barely be aware that the property exists, except when they pay the taxes.

Brent wrote, “I am simply asking for input from my club on this topic”

It’s not that simple. You are trying to do more than that. You’ve said as much, but not to the club, yet. No, that is not “simply” what you’re asking.

Brent wrote, “The management group, is not an official group, has never been formally accepted by all donors”

What’s official mean, exactly? How official would you need it to be, for it to be recognized by you? As long as a single donor holds out, it will never be “formally accepted by all donors“.

Brent wrote, “…the changing room were done by volunteers without regard to any formal management group”

This is a blatantly false statement. The changing rooms were done, by rogue volunteers, specifically without the approval of the EAMG, with the intent to give the group a “black eye“. The volunteers bragged about specifically doing it outside of the EAMG. These “see through” changing rooms should point out why the EAMG is important for planning purposes. Why are they see through? Was that intentional or were the “architects” of the changing rooms just that inept?

Brent wrote, “Why create a large budget”

The budget really doesn’t mean that much. The whole “budget” issue is in response to a minority of EAMG “insisting” that “all” donations go to American Whitewater. I don’t have much of a problem with this, though, I understand this as just another “stick” by the minority to throw in the “spokes“. By the donations going to AW, the donors contributions can be tax deductible. This is a good thing, even if it is being used a “tool” to torture the EAMG(and now, unfortunately, the BWA). AW didn’t have a problem dealing with this, but they, like any good, large, organization, asked for a budget. Those who deal with budgets understand that they don’t really mean that much.

This whole “budget” issue is being blown WAY out of proportion. The EAMG can only spend what money that the people will donate. If the people won’t donate the money, it won’t get spent, budget or not.

Dustin, I don’t agree that this thread should be pulled. Pulling threads should only be done under some very specific circumstances. This thread, while being pretty distasteful, would not meet any conditions under which I think threads should be pulled. Now… if we started bad-mounting Apple computers… that might be a different story. :-)

I sincerely hope that any other group that is contemplating purchasing a piece of property and donating it to AW under similar conditions doesn’t stumble across this thread. It would probably inspire them to do something other than allow AW to hold title to the property. I’m pretty sure the people of the EAMG would do something different, today, if given the chance.

It’s a damned shame. In my opinion, AW should be the perfect entity for the donation of these types of properties, if not for the aggressive, power hungry club politicians.

This Discussion is claerly NOT a BWA discussion, atleast not at this point. Public Discussion on the AW/BWA forum is at best premature and should be removed from this forum until the EAMG determines what if any improvements are to be considered for the 2007/2008 fiscal years.

I agree with Dustin, it is totally inappropraite to manipulate this forum into a budget discussion on hypothetical queries about a property who's title is held by the AW.

Until the AW administration asks for theinput of the BWA membership the servicn officers of the BWA should be hands off within the club regarding Steering commitee decisions of the EAMG

I haven't had a bone in the fight , but I will have to disagree, it is a BWA issue. We as a club are one of the major donors and the Club itself, represented by the current President, is a voting member of the EAMG. Even a good portion of the money for the proposed parking area improvements came from club funds. So the budget of EAMG is a Club issue.

I will point out that the parking lot improvements were brought before the club as a specific budget item and the BWA committed funds to that part of the budget, as did the Vikings.

I agree, the Vikings should run EA. They have given probably as much or money than the BWA (this year they gave $1000) has the BWA given that much? I know the Elkhorn Paddlers gave a $1000 to the initial purchase plus more since for maintenance. If I give $10,000 do I get to run the EA? Money is a ridiculous (unless your a politician) reason to decide this issue. I will bet that that 'private' donors gave the bulk of the money for this land not just an 'exclusive' club like the BWA (you have to pay dues to belong, while the fee is nominal, it is required to even be involved in this discussion).
BIll

atomman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I give $10,000 do I get to run the EA?

At $500/ "share" you would (according to some who advocate a shareholders only attitude) be entitled to 20 votes and essentially hold the majority portion of votes in a closed EAGM.

>Money is
> a ridiculous (unless your a politician) reason to
> decide this issue.

No kidding. Glad your coming around to understand that:-)

>I will bet that that 'private'
> donors gave the bulk of the money for this land

That is exactly correct. Of the $29k purchase price approximately $27k came from private donations - and the overwhelmng majority were BWA members.

> not just an 'exclusive' club like the BWA (you
> have to pay dues to belong, while the fee is
> nominal, it is required to even be involved in
> this discussion).
> BIll

The BWA is only "exclusive" in that you must pony up $20 to join other than that, there are no restrictions to becoming a BWA (or Viking or Elkhorn Paddler).

barryg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2007 05:12PM by barry.