BOD appointment

[14-H]

I've seen several gripes now about the BOD appointment of Tony Esposito to the BOD to fill the vacancy created with the election of the President. Several times I've also seen the objection that the first runner-up should have been appointed to fill this vacancy since this was the "members' choice." While I have no belief either way regarding the selection of Mr. Esposito, here's what I think about the first-runner-up argument:

The first-runner-up is NOT the choice of the members to serve on the BOD!

To the contrary, the first-runner-up and the rest were REJECTED by the members as persons who should sit on the BOD this time around (doesn't mean the members can't change their minds the next election). Moreover, the BOD followed the ByLaws and people are now complaining??? Would it have made a difference if Mr. Esposito had been elected the President so there was no vacancy on the BOD? (there is no requirement that the President come from the BOD just like there is no requirement that the Category Chairman be first elected a commissioner). Jeeeezzz!

But, you know what??? If you guys want to change the ByLaws to require that the runner-up fill the vacancy, get off your duffs and put together a proposal to change the ByLaws at the annual meeting next year. You have the right to do that, you know. I worked dammned hard last year to make sure the members kept that right. THIS IS A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION!

[CSH12M]

As many have seen I am a die-hard supporter of the A.P.B.A. and of the BOD. These are people who volunteer their time and money to further our organization and sport.

That said, I also agree that the appointment of Mr. Esposito was ironic to say the least. As Mr. Hearn mentioned he and others just ended the fight to gain back this right and again put it in the hands of the membership. The first chance the BOD gets to uphold this right and they forget about the fight and fill the vacancy with a non - elected official. I asked a BOD member why this happened and they sighted the excellent marketing/promotion skills of Mr. Espositio. Ironic that prior to Sea Tac we had several appointed BOD members and that (among other things) caused a very expensive lawsuit.

Your argument that the next elected BOD member is actually the first rejected and therefore need not be considered is so obviously flawed I do not think I need to rebut it.

Your second point about electing Mr. Esposito President instead (because President need not be a BOD member) would have been fine by me. Usually in any publicly run organization that is the case. The President or CEO is a hired position that carries out the strategy and beliefs of the company as defined by the BOD, elected by the stockholders. The BOD is elected to form the direction and strategy of the organization and that should always be a reflection of the members. This belief should always be the top priority of those serving on the BOD!

As I mentioned I am always behind A.P.B.A. and the BOD but this is one time I think they made missed an opportunity and dropped the ball. Did we learn nothing from the past......

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Esposito, as I do not even know him, and I am sure he is a very talented individual. However, I think the BOD missed the point and I find that very very ironic!

Regards,
Dean Sutherland

P.S. I will draft a bylaw amendment for consideration to prevent this in the future. We should have no appointed BOD members. I am not a lawyer but I am surprised New York law allows them.

[14-H]

Originally posted by CSH12M

Your argument that the next elected BOD member is actually the first rejected and therefore need not be considered is so obviously flawed I do not think I need to rebut it.



Oh really! Was Nixon replaced by McGovern (the first loser) when Nixon resigned in 1974? No. He was replaced by Ford who was appointed. Try again!

[CSH12M]

Ed are you really trying to make that analogy........ apples and oranges.

In any case it is a poor analogy as Ford is the only President that was never elected! and what a great appointment that was!

C’mon Ed you can do better than that, did you have a hard day today?

Later,
12M

[Ron Hill]

Ford was Vice President, and THE RULE OF LAW was followed.

I know Tony, and I would support him as President, but as an appointed Board member......"Those that don't remember history, may live to see a repeat...

First loser???? BULL!!!!

[CSH12M]

I agree with you Ron, but let's not get out of hand.

We just got the A.P.B.A. back together again and enjoyed a very productive National meeting. I have every faith in my BOD to lead us into the future and furthur our organization for the good of all categories. They acted within the bylaws and did nothing wrong. I am just disappointed and thought they missed and oppourtunity with their appointment.

You summed it up well with "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

"Ask not what APBA can do for you, but what can you do for APBA"

Later,
Dean

[Grin&Barrett]

Originally posted by CSH12M
I agree with you Ron, but let's not get out of hand.

We just got the A.P.B.A. back together again and enjoyed a very productive National meeting. I have every faith in my BOD to lead us into the future and furthur our organization for the good of all categories. They acted within the bylaws and did nothing wrong. I am just disappointed and thought they missed and oppourtunity with their appointment.

You summed it up well with "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

"Ask not what APBA can do for you, but what can you do for APBA"

Later,
Dean


Dean,

This was my point also.

Ed,

I defended you and the BOD in just about every aspect of the court cases, I did so because as a member of APBA I thought that is what was right. I assumed that when your father was elected by the BOD to serve as President that the next highest vote getter would move into the empty seat that was my mistake. You say that AL is the first loser but I believe he received 242 more votes than Tony and only 57 less votes than Ernie Dawe. Also Tony not only was appointed to the BOD his term is for 2 yrs not 1.

Ed please don't think this is a slam on you, you did a wonderful job in writing the By-Laws, as I said in my other post and it was pointed out at the meeting the full council was not present or offered the chance to participate in the meeting where Tony was appointed, they will be from now on, but was the letter of the By-Laws then really followed. Since you fought so hard for the "Members" rights to elect the BOD I thought you would realize the BOD is going to be doing business under a more cynical eye than before. If they realize the members are watching closer now more than ever maybe history won't continue to repeat itself.

Matt

[HYDRO21Z]

To the BOD, I am disappointed in the actions taken in the first
meeting of the new ELECTED officers. I understand that the
appointment of Mr. Esposito was completely legal according to
the by-laws, however I and I am sure a large number of MEMBERS
do not have a copy of the new By-laws.( I realize this is my own
failure as copies are available) I in my own simple understanding
of our Association took for granted that all of the officers would
be elected and no longer appointed as was done before ( the
legal issue?). I have no knowledge of Mr Esposito, but I agree
with the previous posts that he was never on a ballot nor did he
recieve any votes for the job.
Mr Hearn, I thank you for your effort over the past year on behalf of the membership, and I have no ill will twards you or anyone
else on the board, I just believe this action was a mistake and
could be easily corrected.
Dan, thank you for this opp. to voice my opinion!
Ed, I would like someone to convince me that this action was in the best interest for APBA and the membership.
Just one member's question!
Dennis 21Z

[WebinfoAPBA]

I believe these are the current by-laws :


http://www.apba-racing.com/Downloads.html