MCVO Separates from National VCA

[Hisserman]

The langauge cited has nothing to do with a membership being revoked. Please take the time to read it again. It pertains to the process of amending the MCVO's Bylaws and it is very clear. A proper secession would entail amending those Bylaws to eliminate all references to the VCA and the National Board and Officers. It really is not debatable. The wording is quite clear.

I don't want to bog things down with details, Bob, but you're mixing and matching. Your first reference to the MCVO bylaws dealt with removing VCA membership rights, and this is what I first addressed. You are also correct in citing the proper method for amending the bylaws in subsequent posts. The MCVO *** and membership are well aware of that method, they properly amended their bylaws on other matters within the last year. Nonetheless, the MCVO *** clearly had the ability to cede without amending the bylaws. The bylaws did not prohibit their action, some of the bylaw language merely became obsolete once the action was taken. The bylaws will be updated, but as I pointed out, the *** is not in a rush to do so because it is anticipated that there may be other policy changes that will impact the language. The MCVO *** always have and always will operate within the proper procedural guidelines of the bylaws.

 

[BlknBlu]

i think we can agree to disagree with how Bob feels. But his viewpoints do bring another view of the issue and keeps us all thinking. I encourage his views. We are staying civil so far and hope it stays that way. After all we are all looking for better of the club.

Bruce

 

[Bobpantax]

Thank you for your post. So what you appear to be saying is that you do not think your membership has the right to vote on the secession which creates the obsolete references thereby making any vote you allow them on the change in the language of the Bylaws ,which includes those references, of no consequence and moot. I see your point but I am not sure that you see mine. I think that your Bylaws, taken in their entirety, create an implied right of the 170 plus MCVO members to vote on the secession. If I was on your Board, which of course I am not, that is the way I would see it and I would have a vote of the MCVO membership on the Board proposal to secede. Precedents are important. While your current Board may be great, are you sure that you want any future Board to have the kind of power a secession without a member vote establishes? Isn't the power issue one of the issues at the center of the National VCA problems and one of the main reasons for your Board's desire to secede? It seems a bit odd that you do not seem to see the irony of doing it without a vote of your members given the current problems; and, the even more significant and powerful message it would send to the National Board doing it with a vote.

I don't want to bog things down with details, Bob, but you're mixing and matching. Your first reference to the MCVO bylaws dealt with removing VCA membership rights, and this is what I first addressed. You are also correct in citing the proper method for amending the bylaws in subsequent posts. The MCVO *** and membership are well aware of that method, they properly amended their bylaws on other matters within the last year. Nonetheless, the MCVO *** clearly had the ability to cede without amending the bylaws. The bylaws did not prohibit their action, some of the bylaw language merely became obsolete once the action was taken. The bylaws will be updated, but as I pointed out, the *** is not in a rush to do so because it is anticipated that there may be other policy changes that will impact the language. The MCVO *** always have and always will operate within the proper procedural guidelines of the bylaws.

 

[FrankBarba]

I have contacted my previous Club President. I asked some very important questions regarding the
VCA & VPA. Guess what ??? Former Club President did not get back with me regarding the questions i have?
Was there a document that was signed by Club Presidents not to Disclose information about New Cars, VCA Business,
VPA purchase.

What a great club. Give us your Money and we don't have to tell you anything. I still say bring the *** up on
Embezzlement Charges.

Now on to another non transparent Viper Event? The Ring....Did our club pay the expenses of getting the Vipers to Germany?
Did our club pay for *** to attend this event? Were we charged for Consultant Fees to bring in Pro Drivers, Ralph, Techs to Germany?
I'd love to hear about this.......

 

[Janni]

As far as I know, Ben Keating of Tomball Dodge and SRT did the 'ring. They were Ben's cars, I think, and SRT helped with ring rental and drivers, etc. I am not 100% sure on who did what etc - but there was never any discussions of VCA paying for the cars, drivers, staff, etc. And honestly - even if we did -that would be one thing I could support!!!!!

Viper Magazine - Chris Marshall - was there to cover the event.

 

[GRNBGON]

Why so quiet?

 

[Hisserman]

Bob - I appreciate your point that the full MCVO membership could/should have had a more direct role. If I was still on the MCVO Board I might have suggested handling the succession a bit differently. However, it still stands that our Board actively communicates with our membership and they are fully in sync with the sense of the membership. You are correct that there is always the potential for abuse, but that is one of the benefits of the MCVO by-laws, they authorize membership action as one alternative. Unfortunately I don't think we have such options with the National by-laws (at least after the last by-law revisions).

 

[ViperGTS]

the latest application form for central, north TX events dont mention the VCA anymore...just Viperclub TX...more regions separated?