To all interested parties

A meeting room has been reserved for the EAMG for Wednesday, April 2nd,
6:30 to 8:00 pm at the Franklin County Extension office, 101 Lakeview
Court, Frankfort (we pass it on the Elkhorn Shuttle, it's next to the
Golf Course). I will send out an agenda early next week -- please
feel free to email me with agenda items. Clearly, the primary item is
to discuss the way forward for managing the property. There will be a
meeting protocol to allow everyone a chance for comment.

In addition, the room has been reserved for April 23rd, 6:30 to 8:00
pm for an open discussion among any private boaters, especially
members of the local clubs BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and
Bardstown Boaters. An agenda and meeting protocol will be posted here
a week or so before the meeting.

After these meetings, I expect that the various clubs will discuss
their preference for a management structure, and then their
representatives will meet with Mark Singleton either by phone or in
person, to determine what, if any, changes will be made in the
management process for Elkhorn Acres.

In the meantime, let's all enjoy the spring rains as much as possible.

Zina

For the Wednesday EAMG meeting:

First of all, I want to state that this is more of an information gathering/sharing meeting and there are no decisions slated to be made at this time. But this will allow a better understanding of various issues to be discussed at the regional meeting, as well as bring up any questions which need to be brought to AW.

Agenda:
1) Historical perspective/ For the Record (half hour or so)
In order to better understand the needs/desires of the original shareholders, we will list the goals of the original participants in the purchase. People who can't get to this meeting can email them to me. There are no right or wrong answers to this question -- each person had reasons that are all equally valid.
The protocol is that each idea is listed only once. Each attendee will be given 5 Post-It dots, and when the list is finished we will all allocate them among the listed ideas, to give a sense of what the priorities of the original donors were. This will be duly recorded and sent to AW.

2) Vision/ brainstorming (15 minutes)
Setting aside the question of whether or not the management structure changes or migrates, let's stop and think about where we think the place ought to be in ten years. If we were to keep EAMG as it is, would we keep the current set of offices (secretary, treasurer, planner, project manager...) ? Who do we think would be filling those offices in 10 years? What would we like to see happening at the property?
This is not to be a debate about whether idea X or Y is good or bad -- just a quick moving generating of ideas and issues, to open up our thinking. This is good preparation for the larger meeting with boaters from the whole region.

3) Discussion of the Management Guidelines (15 minutes)
I think the guidelines AW set out are pretty clear, but this is the time to ask for clarification, and see if we're interpreting them consistently among the group.

4) Discussion of AW's management council proposal and brainstorming of possible other scenarios (up to 1/2 hour)
This is the time to bring up pros and cons of the proposal, questions about implementation, thoughts on tweaking it, alternate proposals. We will try to record all comments. It is more important here to have a lot of different thoughts than to debate one or two thoroughly. Again, this is a preparation for the larger meeting on the 23rd.

Thanks, and I look forward to seeing you.

Zina

For the benefit of those attending the meeting but who may not have received the open letter to the EAMG from AW, I've attached it to this message.
barryg

Zina:

As an original donor involved with the early mechanics of making the purchase happen, I have repeatedly expressed concerns with the organization as set up, years after the purchase and without full involvement or consent of all donors. The EAMG never had full consent. It was not a democracy that took a vote and agreed to majority rule. It just formed by some of the donors long after the purchase. It formed due to the desires of some of the donors and despite the silence and objections of others. It does not represent all paddlers or AW Affiliates and is weighted in favor of donors, many of whom no longer paddle or do so rarely. In ten years, these folks will be gone and the EAMG will not effectively represent interested paddlers. This is an Elite club that has tried to muscle control over the takeout despite other, stronger interests in the access in the long haul. The AW Affiliates have little voice, 1 vote out of (40 or so?). Proxy voting is rampant in EAMG, clearly disfavored by many in the boating world. We have not had a meeting since the Election well over a year ago. Are there any officers at all? There certainly has not been a meeting and the last few meetings really resolved nor did anything despite all of us agreeing on things to be done without regard to the organizational defects.

This organization purports to have Bylaws which have not been adopted by proper process. The supposed Bylaws in place are complex and tedious and was never in the radar of us donors in 1999. Many years after we bought the property, Bylaws were attempted to be enacted by some of the donors in order to better control (legally?) what happened with the property. I was unaware of this attempt until after the fact despite being a donor very involved in the purchase and donation to AW. I was not the only one. Secret back door deals? - this is one of the biggest ones by BWA select members in years. Further, AW was not involved in the set up of the organization and was unaware of the creation (out of thin air) for shares, subscribed and unsubscribed shares, the unregulated transfer of shares and the lack of cohesive founding organizational members. There has never been a formal written agreement with AW despite past debates leading to that suggestion years ago. Still nothing except AW's recent clear statement that EAMG is not the management structure they have in mind, after hearing everyone's personal comments on all sides of the fence. Everyone has had a voice with AW and they are aware of everyone's position. Now AW wants the Council of interest paddlers over EAMG - that is clear.

There are suggestions that non-donors have shares. How did that be allowed and why are there not share transfer restraints by the organization? There was no warning, just a statement of "shares" being transferred. Some donors (myself included) do not recognize the validity of those transferred shares for different and additional reasons than not recognizing any shares. How are we going to deal with that? Does whether it matters that there was no process to allow that depend upon who someone likes personally and decides to side with? That is not process, that is nothing but a popularity contest.

Many donors simply sat back and did not care what others did. The rest of us fought over what was being shoved down the donor's throats as an organizational fait accompli. Now the fight seems to be with those that were never involved, who somehow assume the organization to be a legitimate one (depends on where they are in the popularity contest), and seem to want to fight with donors of the EAMG simply because they have a personality conflict or other disagreement with that donor. As long as the EAMG exists, these organizational defects and shortcomings will not go away and there will be division. In addition to your comments about what we will discuss tonight, I want to raise again the very fundamental issue of the failure of EAMG to comply with appropriate organizational process in its last 5 year quest to become an entity. I will move to dissolve the EAMG as redundant and a hinderance to resolving the management of AW's property. I am sure that is nothing new to many of you. See you tonight - I look forward to the meeting.

Brent

The new Elkhorn Leadership Council as proposed by AW (see the attached document in the post above) seeks to resolve 2 long standing and fundamental problems with the EAMG:

1) To give those folks who were not original donors but are concerned with issues about the takeout a voice and a vote in the decision process. The controversial "bylaws" of the EAMG, which were never recognized as valid by many of the original donors calls for a completely closed and restricted organization. Under the EAMG rules, if you did not donate $500 or have someone who did donate give you their "share" or voting proxy then you have no vote. The new Elkhorn Leadership Council will ensure that all folks concerned with the takeout and who belong to an AW Affiliate organization have an equal and equitable voice and vote.

2) Create a mechanism for AW Affiliates to reach a valid consensus on decisions about the takeout. The EAMG has been dysfunctional since it's creation. Beyond getting the grass mowed and planting some trees, the EAMG has not been able to agree on any other issue it has faced. The initial building of the road and the parking lot, the construction of the change rooms and recently the rental of the porta pottie were all actions that had to be made outside of the EAMG because that group could never reach agreement. On current issues facing the EAMG it's performance continues to disappoint. The EAMG has yet to fix the 1.5 year old potholes in the road, construct a donation box or the railings to protect the grass in front of the change room or even bring up for discussion the proposed shelter that is advocated by some. The Elkhorn Leadership Council as proposed by AW provides a new and equitable framework for reaching consensus decisions about all of these issues now and into the future.

As things stand right now, the EAMG continues to be completely preoccupied, not on tangible issues surrounding the takeout, but rather on the never ending controversy involving it's very existence. I hope that those who are concerned with the management of the takeout, EAMG member or not, will agree that it's time to come together, move forward and support the new Elkhorn Leadership Council as proposed by AW.
barryg

Barry, In light of the BWA meeting last night I extend you an apology and a thank you for your posting of the AW letter to the EAMG. This is however the first time I and probably many others have seen this letter specifically. It presents a different tone than prior information from AW on what they want to do in that it is more specific and precise. This is why I feel many have a distaste for the issue on the basis of limited forthcoming of information on the issue. We (meaning anyone who reads this info) can only educate ourselves to the extent of the information available. I still feel that EAMG can become what AW wants if they can sort it out amongst themselves and adapt. If they can't than at that time your proposal of who should be the two representatives from the BWA should be made again. I feel frustration on this issue being an issue because I don't feel that the true pulse of the BWA has been expressed. That is because there has been no formal poll/vote of the membership body, only speculation from postings by vocal individuals. We (any involved) have made mistakes on this issue as a whole in misrepresenting the issue to AW (yet to be determined if the majority feels there is an issue) to AW. Unfortunately this bed has been made and it has to be laid in now. The entire situation sucks. J

Joey Calder



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2008 08:37PM by jcalder.

Joey, thank you for reading AW's letter about the Elkhorn Leadership Council and I accept your apology.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned in the Elkhorn Forum, I am highly encouraged after tonight's EAMG meeting. A final consensus of the shareholders to accept AW's proposal seems very probable, and there seemed near unanimous agreement for the EAMG to support the Council process moving forward.

A regional meeting to discuss the ELC is to be the Wed after the clinic. I hope that at next Tuesday's BWA meeting the club will move to support the Council process and send representatives to that meeting. For me, and many others there tonight, the entire situation is suddenly beginning to not suck:-)
barryg

Sounds like it was productive. All I wanted was to allow that group to make a decision before anyone else moved forward with any new developments. If the group has spoken, GREAT. I hope in the future we can take this experience of a way to face issues and start in the appropriate channels. I look forward to reading the minutes from the meeting and the outcomes. Barry, though I know we have differing opinions on many issues, I also know we see eye to eye at times and I can appreciate our differences as opinion based adn not personal. I would still boat with you anytime. J

Joey I appreciate your words and I too would boat with you anytime:-) How about today? Maybe the Rain Gods are smiling upon us as the weather dudes have been saying my favorite 3 words : flash flood warning" (with apologies and no ill wishes for people whose basements flood or worse...)
barryg

What I heard from the meeting last night was a consensus of 3 or 4 primary goals for the property from the EAMG donors.

1) Privately owned creek access for all boaters with some limitations as described by current AW guidelines (which have only recently been made available)

2) General concern about property maintenance, and the future of property management for generations to come.

3) Development of a more balanced and equitable share of management voting privileges via equal representation of regional boating clubs (BWA, ElkhornPaddlers, BB, Vikings...) and the donors.

Over all there seemed to be a couple sticky points that most everyone was prepared to overlook for the long term benefit of the whole. No voting occurred last night and I am under the impression that voting will occur either at or around the time of the second scheduled meeting on 4/23, which is open to the general public (just an impression not fact).

I believe there were 10 donor members, 3 proxy reps., a Vikings rep., a Elkhorn Paddlers rep., and of course a BWA rep., at last nights meeting for a total of 15 voting privilidges (plus those who represented more than one voting privilidge). The general consensus at the meeting did lean toward discussion of a regional management consortium, which is fine provided we continue to pursue the consortium from the basis of an EAMG voting majority.

The meeting represented just short of 50% of the donor voters to the best of my knowledge. I hope that on 4/23 the donor representation will be much higher and provide an undisputable consensus for or against a new regional consortium

My biggest conflict within this process has been failure to afford the donor group a voice in the process. I believe today that the opportunity was at hand last night and will be afforded again in the next meeting. Should those donors not seize the opportunity to be involved they must conceed their right to second quess the outcome of the 4/23 meeting.

I have said this before and I will say it now, I am not against a move toward future management only against trampling those who made this property available, and provided us the luxury of this problem.

Gmead