Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[356JAGER]

One item not addressed by Mr. Maltby is the non-profit club providing profit for the editor of the magazine, also a member of that non-profit club. Our local club provides an electronic and printed newsletter using volunteer input from club members, and to my knowledge, provides income to the club from the vendors advertising in said newsletter. Very nicely done, and not using the club's financial resources for the club's magazine, instead using them to provide events for the participation of the club members. Perhaps Mr. Maltby will provide enlightenment as to the reason for that club's use of it's resources for the club's magazine and little for member events and interaction. It's my understanding that Registry Holidays are to be funded by the volunteers that put them on, with the club providing insurance (paid for by the members) and their official 'seal of approval'. Any monies made over costs to be given to the club, not sure who eats it on the other end.
Again, any clarification from Gordon appreciated. We are after truth and knowledge after all, another reason the contracts should be viewable by all club members.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

Here is a non-litigation and non-political take on the matter of three year contract for the magazine ( but with no comments as to the contract for member services).

During the time Ron Roland was Treasurer, the Registry published cash basis (tax return) financials as is done now. Now---overall--not so much has changed. The last time Ron reported, the cash balance was about $375,000 (give or take $50,000) and that is the balance at last report as well (give or take).

Ron added to the report (I am paraphrasing of course, a comment that essentially meant---hey don't look at this as money that could be returned---this is money that is for dues paid in advance. The idea (accrual accounting is that)if a member paid $50 in dues on 8-30 and the fiscal year is 8-31....that $50 is not income since the member is owed (say) six magazines in the future. Nonetheless, and properly, for tax puropses and cash basis accounting, the $50 is revenue in that year.

So----if one does the math, at any given time, there is (give or take) $350,000 of this. In the recent cash basis report there is way down in the footnotes a comment as to this amount that describes it as money required if the Registry went out of business. That works if the underlying magazine contract was for one year as it historically was until (I think) last year when the contract was changed to three years.

There is no "fund" per se for this obligation except of course the cash maintained by the Registry. A three year contract for the magazine is about $1M (give or take). Setting aside the accounting, the contract itself may discuss how early termination would work. And, the contract may or may not allow for early termination should a new or partial new set of Trustees wish to do so.

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

So the arrangement is not exactly a "Poison Pill" per se, although it might be difficult for new leaders to continue such a contract, it really does not deter a "take over" of the leadership. I suspect the contract was put in place as a way to manage dues paid in advanced. Gordon probably demanded such contract, and this is a vehicle to accrue future dues, or payments, to him, as previously mentioned, since he is supplying resources for the product, and that is the only product for his company. If so, a sloppy way (at best) of getting the job done from an accounting perspective.
Bill, I know you were explaining what a Poison Pill is, but no need. Thanks.

Another Question:
Whatever came out of the "independent auditors/advisors", namely Eric Cherniff and Mark Roth. Was anything ever suggested or pointed out from their efforts? I am wondering as I know both of them have a belief in transparency of the financial dealings.

DG, Yes! Transparency would alleviate all of this! All of us here believe that. Unfortunately the majority of members seem complacent, or scared to voice their opinion.

And with good reason as I can personally attest, although to do so would have potentially negative consequences. These guys don't like questions is the best way to describe it.

[bbspdstr]

Having read the "Bill Block thread" on the R-site, I noted that it was begun by a first time poster asking if anyone knew the whereabouts of his father's former 356. And then.....and THEN....

For others reading the subsequent popping of the big zit, it certainly must look like a "WTF moment." As in "What kind of car club IS this?"

It will be a reaction like "I actually paid money to join this car club?" or, as some existing psychopants do....they'll love the nastiness and mystery in the who-Dunn-it the Registry has become.

I guess the Registry has no hope in reverting to when, as Vic stated, we were all friends? Friends don't do to each other what's been done in the last 6 years among a very few members- compared to the unknowing or uncaring majority who are justifiably happy with just their magazines. Hell, I'm just another subscriber myself.

Peace,
-Bruce Baker, Registry #154 (but as Tom says; "Who cares?")

[Meissen540]

Bruce,
I agree with your assessment on how that thread reads. Once again, the responses create an air of suspicion.

Regarding my tag "Registry Number: Who Cares?", that was born out of a small rift years ago on the "old" talk list format where a certain Trustee asked me how can I know anything about these cars as my member number illustrates I wasn't around for very long. So as a little burr in his saddle, I added that.
Maybe I should change it to: Why is Transparency so bad?

As to your member number.... Up yours.

Tom
Atlanta

[bbspdstr]

OK, Tom....let's take this outside!

Outside this particular thread, of course. I have received a personal note that this thread may be better served as it's original name implies; a Litigation Update subject thread.

That person is correct....things Registry such as the Dr. Block(ed) thread on the R-forum would be best on the Radio Free Registry space.

How's THAT for self-moderation?

Of course, all this...wherever.. is a great service from Justin....but it should be readily done on the Registry site if polite and rationale Q&A discussions could be handled. But it apparently still can't be done. At least that bizarre VIN# thread hasn't been Toy'd with as yet.....wow, remember those days?

Yikes, this has been a long hard road...but in the end, when finally the right QC, CS and PR people take over, repaving can take place. This has been an extremely expensive road for Steve Heinrichs, personally, and I am extremely impressed but grateful he has persevered. The suit definitely could have/should have been avoided but it wasn't and when the dust finally settles, I think/hope the 356 Registry will be better for it.

Unfortunately, the 'conversation' about things the trustees (and the editor) find uncomfortable are still shouted down as if They are chastising children instead of welcoming dialogue with adults who just either disagree or have simple questions they would like to have answered or suggestions they would like to make. It's as if nothing has or will change as long as a few lifers are still in control, even if the law says the details of governance that bind Them have to be followed. (and that includes what was demanded in what Vic has termed "the silly lawsuit.")

It's freekin' details that all this is about...making former friends and supporters fade away or fight...when all we really want is politeness, openness, transparency and a voice...and to share info about the 356s in the friendly environment that members own along with other members who truly follow the safest way to run a corporation ...where the devil truly is in the details.

I was told by "retired" trustees that I was not "tough enough" to last as a trustee if elected. How many others here on abcgt.com ran for a seat on the board? Tom, Bill (Sampson) and I did, who else? I guess that could be on RFR....so I'll stop....almost-

Is it realized yet that if there is no Registry Holiday this year and the Forum doesn't qualify as "commingling"... ergo, the Registry IS "just a magazine." What then? Change NFP status or keep ignoring 'the rules'?

So, to stay on topic, sorta.....what is forecast when the litigation is complete? Members tossed or bullied-out get to rejoin? A Special Election? Term limits? Review of the by-laws? A 'real' audit for a new corporate financial baseline? AKA, a 'fresh start' for the club? OK, psych evals for all combatants would be a fresh start.....and a DIY Rorschach test in the magazine to help determine why a true 'club' isn't important to the majority of 'members.'

-Bruce (back to viewing all the other calmer sections on Justin's site)

[356JAGER]

Tom,
Member numbers mean squat. Mine when I joined in 84, was 1948, the year the first P car was built. Around the time the current publisher took over, there was a reshuffle of the numbers, reason unknown, and mine was 'reassigned' to 2108 along with I presume, a host of others. So much for a 'low' number having any meaning as to your longevity as a subscriber, much less your base of knowledge per our cars. Wonder who has 1948 now ?
Best
Joel
Registry Number: 0

[Meissen540]

Joel, I am fully aware of that history of the numbers being changed. I gave it a "don't care" when it all came about, as I had only a few years under my belt, and my number was in the stratosphere compared to yours and Bruce's. I don't recall the specifics as to why it took place, or maybe never knew as it was a non issue to me.
All I know is that little line still gets a rise, and I will be sure to dig on Bruce now when I see him later in the year.

Thx

Tom

[356JAGER]

Tom,
You're more than welcome. Apologies Bruce...
Cheers,
Joel

[Type550]

They must be desperate for members if they even have specially printed cards made...

[bbspdstr]

Joel, I am fully aware of that history of the numbers being changed...... Tom

For others who may be unaware, my understanding is that "a better way" of numbering members in a quickly growing Registry was devised by Bill Durland, way back when, that organized the membership by zip code. I cannot know now, but I think I was in the first 100 356ers to send Jerry Keyser money to join his club and I think I had member number 66. Alex Finigan has #4 now and I think may have joined slightly after me...but lives in Massachusetts and therefore has a lower zip code number.

Imagine my surprise when I suddenly was given #154.....still, it gets me no more respect than #66 from those who run the club (but haven't been in it as long)....and those guys, according to Jim Liberty in a posting over there, are complaining that They are the victims in all this mess. Yep, they had to spend "time and money" only to lose what they could have avoided. What a waste of time and money for all involved.

Today, Gordon uses email reminders to all of the 356ers I know. I received my reminder notice a couple of days ago that my lapse in magazine subscription will be June 1 and after only 2 more issues I will get no more. I've pondered the benefits of re-upping each of the last 6 or so years, but as I learn something new in about every issue, I send in the money. No Holidays this year and thus no Registry-sponsored "commingling" (events) and no more posting for me on Their Forum (aka a stress test)...but I get a ringside seat to see how Steve's suit shakes out when it's all done.

Tom, I look forward to seeing you later this year, fer sure.
-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Bruce,
If past behavior as to 'keeping the subscribers informed' is any indicator, I'd be willing to bet that that those perusing this forum will have the results of the suit brought by Steve on behalf of the members of the club, long before the subscribers do. I don't believe they have informed their readership of the losses they have already incurred at this juncture.
Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

Liberty also does not mention the time and money wasted on the frivolous counterclaim (a separate suit entirely) against Heinrichs. That counterclaim as reported elsewhere has now been dismissed. Yes it's a waste. Mr. Liberty should know that whenever you violate the law a risk of that behavior is litigation. Few of the wronged actually follow through because it is painful for them too, but, eventually, you'll wrong the wrong person, as the trustees chose to do (and in fact went out of their way to do) and the inevitable occurs.

Does anyone know the date of Bill Block's "discharge?" I do not recall whether it was before or after Steve Heinrichs filed suit.

[bbspdstr]

"Guys, it's unfortunate but the old guard has won the war you waged through attrition and time. No one, or very few, really give a sh#*%t any longer and that was really apparent from the beginning. The few serious folks are here and the rest are just like the typical American voters that have no clue or are not educated enough to know better or more likely don't have the time to really care much about it. This is really old news and you need to let it go. I'm sure this will piss off some guys, but this ship has long sine set sail. Let's just focus on these great cars and move on."

Mark (Erbesfield)...you have it right...all but the first line. I believe there is soon to be the postponed (by the court) trial and I read that Steve has most all of his demands cleared by the judge already. Once it's settled, we can move ("let it go") on to implementing the detail changes so the Registry can sail on a better, safer course. Officers and trustees will eventually get used to things like known guidelines to travel and expense reimbursement and other (perhaps still unknown) items. Most all will be fine, other things may be questionable. Who knows? It became routine for only the board, not the members, to know much about anything and yet, No One has accused anyone of out-and-out stealing through all this. So, please indulge us old guys who want to wait around to see what the next episode is like and let us carp and jabber away while we're waiting... and pass the popcorn.
Thanks,
-Bruce

[Jack Staggs]

The "if he were a member" quote from page 5 of the trial court's order is part of that court's summation of the Registry's argument, which argument was rejected. Here's the link for those who missed it: http://tinyurl.com/mlb36qj

Although the court did not decide except by implication (and had no need to directly decide) the question of whether members have the right to copy records, I have no idea how anyone could conduct a meaningful examination without having time to review copies and I can conceive of no cogent argument for why copying is not a reasonable and proper purpose.

I asked a question recently and I went back and found this from an earlier post. Could this mean that "by implication (and had no need to directly decide)" is this a one time decision? Could further court action may be required to determine the letter of the law regarding ANY amembers accessibility, or is this settled? I am not casting aspersions on anyone, just trying to figure out what to me is as clear as mud.