Radio Free Registry

[356JAGER]

The R is not a 'car club ', it's a magazine posing as a car club to gain tax exempt status for the publisher and perks for the trustmes. When is the last time they put on an event for the members, (subscribers) and paid for it with
the members 'dues' ? Why is there no way for members to directly contact all other members to discuss the club and it's operation ? Only those in charge have that capability, but then that makes it much easier to maintain control of
the 'troublemakers' and their concerns.

[Mycar]

Now I have to read about auction results

I agree with much on this thread but I like the auction results section!

You mean the auction results in the magazine ?

[356JAGER]

Mike and Neil,
Is not staying on topic a British thing ? Or is it an inability to deal with
the subject at hand like grownups. Then again it may be that zany Brit humour
one hears rumour of..
Cheers,
Joel

[bbspdstr]

Ironically, even the 'auction results' aren't reality, much like a 'reality show' isn't reality. Add a celebrity ownership and that adds a few extra grand to the 'value.' Add the 'buyer premium' and escape reality altogether...........

With the Registry, it seems to me that the old saying of "the more things change, the more they stay the same" applies. Vital new faces who should represent change for the better now speak like those they replaced, reading from the same in-House script. Remember, Term Limits just can't work...because, because....well, just because!

The whole scene has changed, aged. I get donated current issues of the magazine and am always impressed at how Gordo manages to keep using his magic to make 50 and 60+ year old cars seem interesting (and profitable).

It makes guys like me miss the good old days, happy in a perverse way that my left knee is problematic now largely due to stiff clutches on my 356s and 911s over the last 50 years.

-Bruce

[S.J.Szabo]

Barking Up the Wrong Tree

[S.J.Szabo]

[bbspdstr]

sic, indeed. I now look at it in black and white. You're in or out. I'm out and getting more insight out than in for 40 years. Fancy that.

A few, against originally well-intentioned criticism from a few others, are buffered by an estimated 7,000 ..... most of those being in it for the magazine. "Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances."

After my time away from the R (the "Porsche 356" R to be clear), maybe that is exactly the point. Most don't want a real "club," they only want a magazine. If a small % want to mingle, they find a few who like the same thing....and they don't need to be a "member" to do that. Can't blame 'em for that.....it IS a hobby.

I suppose it can still make me waste time and Justin's band width with new info as published by the 'few' who control the R. I apologize for that.

What I do find still rather blatantly insulting is in a scan of a page in the most recent R magazine I received from a friend, page 48.

Starting at the top, "Accountant's Report" says any member may review the original (report) by contacting the membership office...which is in the publisher's office. Not a trustee, not the secretary...the publisher of the magazine.

There is also a letter from the accountants that, as usual, notes that "management" has elected to omit substantially all the disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted here in the good ol' US of A. So, it finishes that these financials are not designed for those who are not, say, a CPA...or those "not informed about such matters." Yup, it's right there for the "members" to digest...both of those who may care? Obviously, no one cares.

The mention of "Budget" makes me recall how there was "too much money" and it needed "spending down"......followed by an increase in "dues." I wonder which side the now nearly half-a-mil is closest to? No one cares.

For the "Club Financial Records" the publisher has the temerity to use "as ever" in saying that any member can request a viewing of any of the R records, but it has to be cleared by...ready?....the membership office. Not the treasurer, but the last I knew, the woman who works for the publisher..and the R. Go figure. Maybe, "as ever" it means a quick look at which paperwork They remember to take to a faux 'town hall' with the Trustees at an event, OR a ceremonial reception in Bend, Oregon with the treasurer. Who knows? Who cares? (one person did, and sued when push came to shove. He won that issue, but can anyone say it works? Nah, no one cares.

The final funny is "Registry Contracts" which come up for bid at the end of 2016. Here, "interested QUALIFIED parties can submit a proposal for say, the magazine..... to ANY trustee. I'm thinking I get letters in the mail all the time that say I am 'pre-approved'....so does Gordo get the same from the trustees? Again, who knows? Has anyone heard of a bidding war for publisher since Gordo took over? (Hey, I can say he does a good job...as it IS his "club"/job...he better be "qualified," huh?) Ahhhh, who cares...."just gimme my magazine!"

The last sentence is "Job descriptions are available." That's for those bidding for the magazine production, goodie store and Membership services...but NOT for being a trustee. I've always found that odd, especially when I asked for one when I ran for trustee. I used to care.

To paraphrase SJ: "and the subscribers read on" (except page 4

[S.J.Szabo]

Note: The author's apologies for any redundant items below that will doubtless pale in comparison with Mr.Baker's more timely piece. On the other hand, a good song is worth singing again in a different voice.


allforeverManagement has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influenceconclusions aboutfinancial position, changes in net assets, and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters.inure to the benefitinsider contracts

[Jack Staggs]

Anyone following the "term limit" discussion currently on the Registry? Interesting thoughts and ideas, some from unlikely sources...
Look to the positive, and please keep your side of the street clean on responses here, OK?

[bbspdstr]

Sorry, this is R-elated but not term limit re-lated.

With serious federal ramifications "in our faces" and to be decided in a few months, it is difficult to still give full attention to the petty BS in the Registry. For me, working too many hours also puts the R back a few more positions. Our recent heat waves and humidity also makes me cranky enough......BUT, I have very recently been approached by a Registry member who is considering hosting a future ECH.

I replied that I would be more than glad to help (I have nothing against 356 owners and the concept of a club for the same)....but did he not realize that I am no longer IN the Registry?

I expanded my reply (but have not sent) by saying that there has been an effort afoot among the Ruling Party (the opposite to the Party Party) to show that some of what we few "malcontents" exposed as improprieties have been recognized and at least, to some extent, rectified....(or glossed over) by the In Crowd. (I.e. the man who makes the most money via the organization is no longer listed as an "officer")(finally).

The most ironic observation can be that those of us who wanted to study the "books" for whatever reason now could, thanks to Steve's expensive lawsuit. The only problem with that is that none of us are still members. (I would not put money on a chess match with Chuck House.)

One thing hit me as I composed that unsent tome; I had been asked to share my hosting experiences by a recent past ECH chair. What he had told me didn't hit right away...but just did. It was that an R trustee was to receive all monies toward that Holiday and would send back event money by a justificastion from the local organizing committee. In essence, the trustee and his wife (the R secretary) would be the registrars.

Thus, the R could claim that it was not just a Registry SANCTIONED event....but management was hands-on INVOLVED. Wow! How did I not connect that sooner? "Commingling" with the local group in event production from the east to the west so it looks like there really IS a "club"...the trustees also got to know what money came in and out, "helping"...with total control included. Yep, "We are your trustees and we are here to help."

Our 2008 ECH gave back over $7k AND a detailed accounting. Had the trustees told me that all of our money had to be sent to CA to be sent back to our PA committee, I would have left that group much sooner than I did.

Any car club management that has local marque enthusiasts who will work so hard for so long, for free.....should just say "thank you" twice. Once for all the effort and the second time if the "club" makes money on the hard work. Three times if the trustees get reimbursed for going to the event.

Bruce Baker

[Bill Sampson]

Jack:

When I get back from our 5 week road trip I'll consider having a look at the R site when/if I have time. I don't at the moment and may not when school starts. Best wishes to you.

Bill

[bbspdstr]

Jack wrote:
"Anyone following the "term limit" discussion currently on the Registry? Interesting thoughts and ideas, some from unlikely sources...
Look to the positive, and please keep your side of the street clean on responses here, OK?"

OK, I succumbed and looked at pages 14 and 15. I think I had read up to page 5 or 6 a while ago. Woe is to them to have so much trouble with a solid idea such as term limits. It amazes me how dense that crowd is. Don't they ever ask what some of those trustees actually DO? Why they want to hang around for decade after decade? Some of us had the temerity to ask, even run for a seat to see for ourselves...but got nowhere.

Can't beat incumbency without term limits....so they recently seemingly sweetened the pot (or whatever they are smoking) and added time to each cycle. Man, do they deserve each other......I mean the trustees and the subscribers. The forum is only for a few of the middle-grounders or trustee pom-pom squad and an annoyance for the trustees when they feel the need to participate. An open question: "If it's so much demanding work for a 'volunteer,' why hang on to a seat for so long?" I have asked and never gotten anything back but raised hackles.

I saw something from one who signs off as "Rookie Trustee"...but he sure sounds like a veteran trustee, jus' sayin'....

All I should say is; The more I see of the Registry, the happier I am here on ABCGT.com." That should pass the Clean Side of the Street test. That's "positive."

What I need to say from his personal affront to me of years ago is that I am thrilled Bob Campbell shortened another of his "Enough is Enough" statements and posted it to someone other than Al Zim, Bill Sampson or ME!

He posts that he is stepping down when his current umpty-dumpth term expires and would have last time around...but he was waiting for the "conclusion of the lawsuit" that he helped start. His mention of (the 2-term-only) President Obama in that message is theoretically against their forum rules, but he is obviously above any law, especially that of the Registry, the state of Ohio or the IRS.

I keep thinking..."Is that what a car club should be like?" I have expressed my opinion already that the Registry should just be a magazine and stop it's lousy job of pretending it's a real car club. Threads like the one about term limits keeps that thought fresh.

-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Since none of those here are subscribers to the magazine, and as such have no ability to request the documents that were always available under the law, but refused until a long and expensive (in so many ways) litigation, ended with the courts saying ' yes, the simple words that always have authorized this, are, in fact, correct, ' I wonder if Steve Heinrichs has been given those documents, since the courts also decided that he had been wrongly removed from membership. The leadership of that 'club' did a great disservice to the 356 community by not simply complying with the rules under which they have always been governed. So much lost to keep secret what should be public knowledge. Shame on them for what followed.
Cheers,
Joel

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Baker's comments about Holidays pokes a finger into an interesting can of worms, that being the basic and stubborn spirit of dishonesty that is the carefully maintained hallmark of being a Trustme.

Should anyone doubt this, one has only to look at the track record of both the old and new versions of the breed. Ask yourself, has any new Trustme shown even the slightest interest in complying with any of the Federal regulations that govern the conduct of a 501(c) Social Club?

Has there been a push to end the illegal "insider" publishing contracts? Instead, there has only been encouragement to other members to continue the practice.

Where is the agitation to spend more of the members' money on legally required activities, like supporting actual Chapters, instead of spending it all on the rag? Instead, in the case of the Holidays (the sole compliant activity almost conducted by the Club) the Members get yet another sleazy "workaround", meant to give the appearance of compliance without actually doing so.

Is there even the slightest sign of a movement toward responsibly appropriate accounting practices? Instead, it's Slight of Hand to fool the suckers as usual.

Based on current experience, it would seem the discussion of term limits is a moot point, since it appears that any new Trustme is curiously simpatico with the zeitgeist of dishonesty within the Ruling Circle.

Do you suppose that the swearing in includes a vow of Omerta?

And the band plays on....

[Bill Sampson]

Jack - and all:

I've attached summit photos from the highpoint of New Mexico, Wheeler Peak and the highpoint of Arizona, Humphreys Peak. Going to those places was certainly positive.

Less positive was my brief review of the term limits thread. I promised I'd look at it. I couldn't take much. I knew not whether to laugh or cry. Cliff Murray is apparently pushing the concept and has learned as did many of us when Cliff and his cohort lambasted us for suggesting the very same things that hell hath no fury like a trustee who feels scorned. Trustee Campbell has an unfortunate need to confuse any policy disagreement with a personal affront. He couples that tendency with an affected "I'm just a simple guy" persona. Bob saw the lawsuit to its conclusion which, despite his protestations to the contrary, was that the records he and his fellows made every effort to hide must be made available to members - THAT is the ruling on the suit itself. Every single record that the trustees refused to turn over to any member must be made available to a member on the member's request. The refusal of Campbell and the others to acknowledge that ruling ironically suggests that for once Murray is correct - term limits would be a good idea. Had such limits been adopted years (decades?) ago the Registry might have become a car club instead of a magazine.

The irony of the discussion over there DOES amuse me, but, I'm not planning to follow the thread and don't miss the magazine or the Registry BBS.