Hey Doug,
You are somewhat correct, I did, and do support that termination, and have reason to do so. First, if you remember, I ran opposing Terry for President. I did so for several good reasons, one of which was Sherry. There were at that time situations developing, which were a cause for concern to me, among them a power play for control of the organization, at least that is what it looked like to me. If the board had put their foot down at that time, nothing would had developed, but Sherry had enormous influence with them. Landis had gotten very close to her over the years, which I feel in not appropriate for someone in a supervisory position. And as a result, there was influence peddling. None of this was good for the association. But, it was something that didn't need to be addressed to the members, it wouldn't benefit anyone. Terry as you know, carried the election. It was by far the highest vote total we ever had, my total was sufficiently high enough to had carried in any previous election, matter of fact, we doubled previous numbers. That in itself should tell a power play was in progress, why did twice as many members suddenly decide to vote? Not normal! What I did do is, when Terry won the election, I shook his hand, congratulated him, and supported him. I detest a sore loser, I've seen some, they are not happy people. If the members supported the winner, I will also, thus, I am not in that catagory. I may not always agree, but I will support. We try to keep these disagreements amongst ourselves. Since the members supported Terry in the election, my only reasonable choice is to accept the will of the members. This has worked well, I have brought forward issues that would never been possible in the past. The peak of Sherry's influence over the board was at the California WGT. A couple of major changes that I feel were very bad happened at that meeting. She always had friction with Mary Ann Townsend, our former Charles City secretary, and Don Barnett, the fellow who was trying to set up our website. Mary Ann had been doing an excellent job, ever since our association was founded, she was, and is easy to work with. Sherry came into the meeting with Landis, and his at that time buddy Peter Markowski, in Peter's report he recommended putting everything in one location. Well, Mary Ann couldn't be there, but she got word, and saw the handwriting on the wall, she resigned! The end result is we have McMillian doing her job, and it cost us members about $20,000 more per year. Oh, by the way, they are the same folks who handle the subscriptions for Sherry's buddy Pat Ertel, I wonder how good of friends they still are? Then, Don was working on the website, I admit, he was doing a lousy job, but he was doing an excellent job making sure our trailer got to where it needed to be, and it was stocked and inventoried. At that same meeting, they jerked the carpet our from under Don, paid Sherry to do the website, Don wasn't getting paid, and had Chris do the work for free! Don dropped completely out, I don't blame him. I just in the last year have been able to talk him into joining again. All this is just indications of bigger problems, and a need for good management which we don't have! I believe at some point Sherry became overconfident, things were said, and things done, that I am not comfortable with. The main reason Terry hasn't told more is he is under threat of lawsuit, for several different causes. His lawyer told him to go easy, if he didn't want to be in court. HPOCA couldn't be taken into court on it, but he could, if he opened up. As a result, he has been very cautious. Initially, he thought he could tell all, didn't work out that way! If you noticed on one of Sherry's posts, she told me to be careful, something about defamation of character. Well, I'm a small fish, where would that leave Terry? I think in a tough position! Much of what I am telling you is my own personal opinion developed thru observation of events. Most can be verified in minutes of meetings. I like Sherry, and I like Landis, I consider both to be good friends. I just don't agree with some of their issues, or the way these issues were addressed. On the other hand, sometimes I disagree with the board, their issues, and the way they are addressed. I keep a separation between people and issues, which at time is tough, and at times upsets people. One case would be Sherry's reply to John Tichenor's letter in the magazine, if that wasn't a challenge, I don't know what would be. I wouldn't blame the board for picking up the glove on that one. They tell me they didn't, and it wasn't a basis, I can't see how! There were I feel many underlying problems, I feel some may have eventually surfaced, and shown their ugly face! I can see where the board's action was justified, on the other hand, I can see where all this could have been prevented, I could see this at the time, perhaps the board couldn't, or didn't want to. And I could see where the situation could be managed differently, I tend to agree with Bill Brandt on that. For about a month or maybe a little longer before the Penfield show, I campaigned to get the contract renewed. The majority of the board were fed up. My workable point was, if the members are happy with the product they get, and it is on time, they obviously have no problems. If the board has problems, then put your own fires out. Well, Luke Rizzuto told them about the same thing, the result was a renewed contract. I don't agree with the way the termination was handled, I must agree it was justifiable, and can find reasonable cause. With money being the root of all evil, I personally feel this effected the situation for several years. I have been told I am wrong, it is hard for me to believe, in view of all that has transpired.
As far as nominations, I did have to use manipulation to get nominated to run against Terry. I told some nominating committee members I could be nominated thru the committee, or from the floor. There were 3 of us, Terry, Ollie, and myself, Ollie dropped out. Well, I don't think we need to talk about effects of numbers, we know the final results. Just an example of politics, I want them to go away!!!
How do we achieve this? Go back to our basics! I always say,'We all pay dues, we are all equal!', we should worry about playing with our tractors, and let the professional politicians play with their politics. I agree it is a sorry state of affairs! I am actively working, seeking solutions to these problems. It does have a very strong influence as to how I work with the bylaws committee, and how I work with members! I am not sure as to whether this website works toward solving problems, or to create dissention. I see lots of good ideas, but few solutions. What I see is we have a problem, what I rarely see is how to solve the problem, at least from my perspective. You are one of the few who have worked with me to solve problems, most just present a problem for me to find a solution, then when I do, sit back and throw rocks. So, it is not real encouraging for me to post. I admit, I throw a few rocks myself, it is very frustration to be presented problems which do not pertain to the issues at hand. And bylaw issues should deal with bylaws, not everything on anyones want list!
I had a friend who had 2 teenage daughters, one day they argued as teenaged girls sometimes do, as to which one their father loved the most. He told them, 'I hate you equally!', I am rapidly developing the same opinion of all the factions which we face!
I hope this helps you to understand my reason for position, and opinions!
Have a great day up there in PA!!!
Andy