Radio Free Registry

[bbspdstr]

Define the Maltby Triple Play:

A. He ran first in the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes.
OK, this one is out...unless Gordo had another trustee or officer in the horse costume with him who could run as fast as he can. I'd say place or show.....no better.

B. He single-handedly tagged runners on first, second, third on a sacrifice bunt.
Maybe this one, with his speed and a borrowed uniform. He can play both pitcher and catcher, so I pick this one!

C. He is an un-elected voting Officer, a double Inside Contractor, and a Member that inures great benefit from the income of the Club.
Can't be this one. A 'trick' question. It's too easy. There has to be a real 'club.' Gordo MAY be inuring as publisher of a magazine, no?
What? I failed?

A failing score qualifies one to be a Trustee.
OK, I'm a trustee...what do I win? A trip to a 356 event overseas?

[S.J.Szabo]

[S.J.Szabo]

[Bill Sampson]

Well said S.J.:

Had the trustees simply complied with simple, lawful requests from Mr. Heinrichs regarding only basic club financial information the lawsuit would not have been filed. Their overblown egos - after all they believe it is their club and not the members' club - would not permit any mere member to ask even the simplest of questions. Heinrichs was left with a choice of giving up his rights as a member or enforcing them as permitted in this great nation of ours. He courageously and quite properly chose the latter.

Regardless of Judge Sheward's latest rulings a couple of items are not in dispute even on appeal:

1. The original suit in Ohio state court sought one thing: the right to examine the club's books and records;
2. The trial court's final judgment is that members have the lawful right to examine club books and records - that is Mr. Heinrichs won exactly what he initially sought despite close to three years (and continuing) of stubborn, wrongful and unlawful opposition from the trustees. If they had set their arrogance and egos aside and actually thought of the good of the club rather than their own perceived rights this matter would have long been concluded.

None of the openness, limited as it is, existed before the "malcontents" asked simple questions. Due simply to the arrogant, egotistical behavior by so-called leaders the suit remains open.

President Dunn remarked that membership records were the big reason for the trustees' refusal to make financial records open. President Dunn lies. Mr. Heinrichs offered to drop any request for membership records, even in discovery, if the trustees would drop their frivolous appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court concerning discovery. The membership records would have remained undiscovered and under the sole control of the trustees. Nevertheless, the trustees insisted upon pursuing their completely meritless appeal, inevitably lost and thereby, due solely to their gigantic egos, lost the possibility of keeping membership records secret. I'm ignoring the fact that until the lawsuit had been pending for a considerable period of time there had been absolutely no promises of membership record secrecy. Club members have no one but the trustees to blame if they are unhappy that membership records were delivered to Mr. Heinrichs. Any Registry member should thank Vic Skirmants, George Dunn, Bob Campbell, Jim Liberty et al if they are upset about membership records falling into the "wrong" hands.

[213532]

If only more Registry members had access to the truth rather than the one-sided story .

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Mike

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.213532:

Sadly, the truth has been buried, but not so deep that a curious Member could not unearth it for himself, if he only cared enough to do so.

The biggest problem with the Registry is two-pronged:

First, too many Members simply do not care. Perhaps it is because there are so few old-timers left who have invested decades of service, support, and loyalty in what the Club was supposed to be. Perhaps there are many who are content to be suckers, invoking their insouciance with "It's just a car club".

Second, the number of Subscribers has grown so large as to dwarf the influence of Members who actually care about the Club, as demonstrated by the investments noted above.

Still, it is gratifying to think that some who find their way here find something of value.

[Jack Staggs]

Many years ago, Mike Nelson asked me if I would like to attend a certain 356 event. I asked him if it was for members only. His immediate response was that it was "open to anyone that is even REMOTELY interested in 356". I like that. In fact, it has become a mantra to me, of sorts. I can find no fault when folks have various levels of enthusiasm. They cared enough to join. Perhaps they just like being a member of that club, or perusing a magazine. Maybe a cool sticker or badge on their car, like the USC guys. Others may enjoy people waving at you as you pass by. Lets not condem these folks by "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". They don't have to care at the same level as anyone else to labeled as "The biggest problem with the Registry".

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Staggs, under more normal conditions, i.e. if the Reg were run like a proper club and in compliance with all applicable Federal and State regulations, I would agree with you.

However, this is not the case with the Reg., and that difference is both purposeful and forceably maintained by a Leadership zeitgeist that is based on making chumps of the Membership. And the continuance of this perversion of what Members, in good faith, believe a car club should be, by convention and by law, is only made possible by the disinterest of the Membership.

But is it not a part of a civilized moral code to oppose a despotic Leadership, regardless of the subjecant's passivity that insures its continued existence? Is it not fair and proper to chastise those whose careless deference to lies, subterfuge, and gratuitous arrogance promotes and perpetuates the abuse?

So, perhaps it is a value judgment to believe that such a club's Members have not only a vested self-interest, but a moral duty to refuse to be taken for that ride, but such are the working values in a democratic society.

[bbspdstr]

A re-write;

Jack, I like your affinity for the concept expressed by this quote: "Many years ago, Mike Nelson asked me if I would like to attend a certain 356 event. I asked him if it was for members only. His immediate response was that it was "open to anyone that is even REMOTELY interested in 356". I like that."

It used to be a Mike Nelson 356 world, you'd sea a 356 and try to hunt down the owner. (Groan....only old farts will understand that TV reference or perhaps even the original concept of the 356.) I eschewed 'clubs' for cars for a very long time, even PCA when that was all there was when I had Speedsters and other 356s in the '60s. It was chance meetings and smiles and the flashing of headlights to an oncoming 356 that made one feel a, well, flash of camaraderie based on a certain sports car.

Then, mid-'70s, along comes a special car club for JUST the 356. OK, it seemed to be made up of a few guys selling something...but PCA was getting to be to-o-o-o big an umbrella for all things Porsche and one could feel support for us 356ers ebbing away. I sent money to Jerry Keyser and got a nice newsletter. I was happy to be in HIS "club."

Then, after the turn of the new century, I felt that evolved entity ebbing away also. Things were not as comfortable as when we were all just "Jerry's kids." It was about the time of one of the largest Holidays to date in '08, the eastern one with my name attached as chair, that I realized that I was being thought of as a "malcontent" for asking questions about the club that could have explained away my perception/feeling of "something wrong." Of exclusion and a caste system led by perpetual boards. Friction was building. Sure, I was verbally told "all was well" but no proof was offered. Rumors swirled and suddenly, sides were taken and heels dug in. Political muscles were flexed and the control of the press became absolute, especially with that newfangled Internet on top of no-longer-Jerry's quaint newsletter.

So, now when an involved long time supporter of the R with significant credits like hosting Holidays back when there was competition to do so....unlike the latest begging for volunteers to do so...backs away because questions asked about club business were called "attacks" to avoid answers, it becomes personal. Then comes the choice of "fight or flee"....because it is, after all, "just a car club" and it shouldn't be so hard to get along with those who control EVERYTHING or to get cooperation about information from them as a "member". I fled....by just not paying any more money for basically just a magazine subscription...after 40 years.

Steve Heinrichs asked similar questions to mine and was also stonewalled. He decided as I did; not to make opinions about club business based on assumptions...and engaged in an expensive legal battle to actually see records, regain what we all had previously been provided without even a request; a membership list...and find if the R-Inc was financially strong enough to weather a "worst case" scenario. So, while trying to be sure the whole of the club was in good shape for a long future, a few who had all the power immediately demonized him and others who had the temerity to want total transparency. Why? There have been too many unanswered "why" questions...probably starting for me about the time Chuck House demanded the "one voice" trustee policy. Why?

This brings me back to the magazine. I think it's a good enough publication to stand alone without a weakening "club" as an excuse. If not, why not? Theories abound. However, my last communication to and from or with Gordon Maltby many months ago was my personal admonition that he step down as an officer and just avoid the conflict of interest as the rules and regs state for a 501 (C) 7.....and he told me simply and directly that he was "tired of my bullshit" and I replied that at least we were in sync, as I was tired of his. Damn, another "friendship" down the drain.....

So now the latest mag of his makes it sound like it was his idea to follow the rules and blames Jerry Keyser for the long term impropriety of the Chuck House revised bylaws (of course rubber-stamped by the few members who even noticed defensive wording for the trustees were being inserted). The latest mag has a comment that there is now "transparency...as much as possible." (my paraphrase) Huh?

Not that anyone cares, it's just all from my own viewpoint and why I decided to "flee" after 40 years of involvement and why I believe the only hope for the R is another bylaws change for term limits for every board position. Got to shake things up to restart interest or it truly will need to become just another for-profit magazine. No other reason to exist or an entity to be sued...as it's easy not to take a magazine "personally"....one just stops sending money.

I'm fairly content with the re-do of Pano. Pete seems to remember where the Porsche brand all began. Again. I also flash headlights to newer Porsches, especially Cayennes, when I'm driving a 356. I'm sure they assume there is a speed trap ahead.....or they are just confused...or busy texting.....

-Bruce Baker

[S.J.Szabo]

That Old Familiar Songall

[S.J.Szabo]

That Old Familiar Song

[S.J.Szabo]

Election Follies

[356JAGER]

Just saw this on the R site and wondered what 'Registry Branches' Cliff is referring to ? There are no official Registry Branches, the other clubs actually specifically disavow any affiliation with the Registry. Of course,
this is another one of those areas where the Registry is in violation of the rules governing non profit clubs.

C J Murray
Post subject: Re: Who are the trusteesPostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 11:24 am
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 4885
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
The majority of the Trustees are members of very large and active local Registry branches and are known to attendees of the local events or those who read a branch newsletter. Florida Owners Group where Frank Hood has been president has around 300 members and the CA branches have many more members and activities. It is only natural that they get more votes than candidates from regions where there is no local branch activity.

I don't think the majority of Registry members are regulars on Talk so I'm not sure how beneficial that exposure is really. It has to be a double edge sword anyway. I don't think I would get many votes from devotees of Rudge wheels for instance! hock:

_________________
DEVIN D - WANTED - DEVIN D - WANTED - DEVIN D - WANTED
'55 Cab 1300 Super
'57 Speedster
'59 Sunroof
'63 GS 2133 coupe

From the 356CAR site:
356CAR is an independent organization for 356 Porsche enthusiasts throughout Northern California, including the San Francisco Bay area, Central Valley, Sacramento and the Sierra Foothills. Ownership of a 356 Porsche is not required for membership. 356CAR is not affiliated with the 356 Registry, Porsche Club of America or Porsche Cars NorthAmerica.

Just wanted to clarify the inaccurate statements made by Mr. Murray.

Cheers,
Joel

[jstenner]

--------

[Bill Sampson]

Thanks Jack. I'm happy to be a member of the Porsche 356 Club (as it was once called) now known as 356 Club of Southern California. There is, as in FOG, considerable crossover. However, by design the Porsche 356 Club of SoCal is (happily) NOT affiliated with the Registry trustees. That is a very good thing. Neither of us have missed anything at the R although it appears that the thread mentioned by S.J. Szabo, upon examination, is a splendid example of comedy writing itself.

Happy New Year.