STOWE 2006 registration !!

[mikeyr]

Gene,

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I have Thanked Paul both publicly and privately in e-mail for his posts on his motor rebuild, it is one of the best threads on this forum. I anxiously awaited the next installment each time he posted something on it. I still Thank Paul for that and wish he would post more like it. It was one of my dreams when I installed this software, was for those types of super informative posts and why I went through the trouble to get a disk drive big enough to hold pictures and also install the pictures part of the software. I was hoping more people would see his example and do the same (I will but I have not worked on my car lately)

As far as the Stowe blog, I can't agree with it. This site is the official site for Singer's in the U.S. and the Stowe schedule is listed on the home page along with the PDF that was sent to me by Philllip. This forum has a "sticky" for Stowe where all the schedule last minute changes could be posted and also pictures could be posted here along with results etc. There was no need for a second site to confuse the issue, non-regular Singer owners will not know about the second site, they will come here, only a select few people will know about the second site, yes those are the diehard Singer freaks which an argument could be made that they are the best people to be at Stowe, but we as a club are supposed to like all Singer's not a select few.

No one has yet answered WHY ? it was felt a second Stowe site was needed, anyone ? anyone ?

[Peter McKercher]

I agree with Gene's comments about Paul's contribution. His pieces on the Roadster and Super Ten rebuild are well done and informative - certainly on a par with the best I've seen from any of the clubs. A great and welcome effort Paul. I also happen to agree that blogs provide an immediate outlet for those who wish to share their enthusiasm. It is very difficult to come up with brilliant input only to have to wait to have it put up by someone else.

To Mike's point, though, blogs are only available to those who have been informed of their whereabouts and they are virtually unsearchable. Just try a little test yourself and see how many blogs show up on Singers, even when you know what you are looking for and what server they are on. I expect you will only turn up about 2 or 3 hits in total out of Phil's 5, Paul's 4 and my 5 no matter how informed your search string.

For my part, I have actually linked mine to our Technical information section so they are searchable by main topic at least.

From a club perspective, obviously there is a substantial benefit in being able to search and retrieve this information on an efficient basis. Mike , of course, has a keener interest than most in this matter, as he has spent over 400 hours of programming time to put together what will be the best information retrieval system available on any club database.

[Paul Bouchard]

Mike,

Since your reply to my post is here in the open, I offer a response in kind.

I am a staunch supporter of NASOC and the Singer marque. I have displayed this support since my joining the club. I have used my relatively short experience with these cars to “singâ€Â

[mikeyr]

Mike,

I am a staunch supporter of NASOC and the Singer marque.

of this I have absolutely no doubt at all and I do appreciate all the posts you have done and have both privately and publicly said so in the past.

I feel your frustration. I wonder though, what would motivate someone to make such a move? Why use a bulletin board, that should be a means to communicate and support the efforts by all who want this club to succeed, as a tool to redirect, or belittle?

I am not aware of any time when I redirected or belittled anyone on this forum. You redirected people to your blog. I have created this site and this forum for the purpose of the club succeeding, if I have belittled anyone, please point it out to me and I will do my best to correct the situation. If my message that started this is what you consider belittling, I don't see it that way but I will happily listen to your reason why it is, I may or may not agree however. I have no problems continuing this out in the open but we can also not bore the members and move it offline if you wish.

Or you may decide that this has created such a rift in the fabric of NASOC that it be better that I no longer post. I am sure that you have the ability to remove my username and/or posts, but that is the problem with free speech… it’s either all or nothing. A tough choice.

No, it is not a tough choice it is a very easy one. I will NOT censor anything on the forums, I will not remove any post nor will I edit any post, I firmly believe in free speech and realize that sometimes that is not pleasant, but I will not edit nor will I remove your username. The reverse is actually true, I ask that you keep posting.

There is a major rift in NASOC at this time, we both know that and I saw your blog on Stowe when there is a specific section here for Stowe as a direct attempt at stoking the fire, other blogs don't bother me, well they do but I realize they are there and serve a purpose and I can't and will not try to stop them, this one bothered me beyond bother because there already is a section here for Stowe.

If I left you "aghast" I am truly sorry, but I also was extremely upset upon seeing a direct attack from someone I trusted. If it was not a attack, then again I am sorry, it sure felt like one. Maybe I am too sensitive due to the other issues NASOC is facing right now.

And by the way, yes, I will link up to any blog out there when asked. That also is part of free speech.

[Paul Bouchard]

Mike,

I guess that I was WAY too vague with my post. Let me try to shed a bit more light here.

You are too focused on yourself. Perhaps these “other issuesâ€Â

[Peter McKercher]

Paul

This appears to be a surrogate battle between two individuals with nothing to do with the issues under discussion.

As the OTHER candidate who wrote the OTHER posts, I’m quite able to speak for myself, rather than appoint an official spokesperson for my appearances on the board.

Yes I posted the notice on the board and it was incorrect as I mistakenly looked at the Stowe rally schedule. I revised it as soon as Mike forwarded the correct information.

Why did I not contact the organizers? Actually, I did. However, as I have not received a response from Phil from any of my emails during the past year, I didn’t expect one this time. So my request was merely a formality, which I hoped might precipitate a response to someone. In any event, my interest was in ensuring that the information was on the web site, as it’s getting late in the game to get a hotel room or pre register for Stowe.

I also used the term “weâ€Â

[Paul Bouchard]

Peter,

This appears to be a surrogate battle between two individuals with nothing to do with the issues under discussion.

Please do not patronize me. I am a big boy and can answer for my own actions, I can also fight my own battles and for you to infer that I am some sort of patsy in this is personally insulting.

Why did I not contact the organizers? Actually, I did. However, as I have not received a response from Phil from any of my emails during the past year, I didn’t expect one this time. So my request was merely a formality, which I hoped might precipitate a response to someone. In any event, my interest was in ensuring that the information was on the web site, as it’s getting late in the game to get a hotel room or pre register for Stowe.

Actually you did not.

I never received an e-mail from you. You seem to be so obsessed with Phillip that your eyes could not see my name and my e-mail address in the Calendar of Events that has been in every issue of the magazine this year.

The information on Stowe WAS sent to the NASOC webmaster, and then to the officers of the club. Furthermore, the Magazine has had information on Stowe in every issue this year (#1 pg 9, #2 pg 13, #3 pg 12).

I also used the term “weâ€Â

[Peter McKercher]

As I said Paul, step back and remove yourself as the subject. The issue is Phil and I and it would be worthwhile for him to step up to the plate personally (preferably off the board). He has my phone number and my email and has been invited to use either one.

And had you not struggled to explain yourself to Mike with so many veiled and unsubstantiated references to me this wouldn’t be on the Board. To leave it otherwise would have been unfair to those who have no idea what is going on.

Nor is the issue of contacting the organizers a reflection of your importance. It is a reflection on the lack of communication from one member of the Executive to the Board on a very important club event.

And yes, thank goodness Dave has held down those three positions. It was lifesaving for the club in the absence of other interested candidates and a great deal of work, as Dave will attest. The point is not couldn’t, but shouldn’t. We had lengthy discussion on this very issue and one of the points I made was that one individual should not set out to RUN for two Executive positions. However, in the event that a position remained unfilled (due to resignation, termination, death, or simply due to lack of interest) the position could and should be doubled up on a temporary basis as it was with Dave.

In our current situation (the last election), the issue was not a lack of candidates or interest – just the opposite. We had two candidates willing and eager to serve as President with neither offering to stand down after the election results.

You will recall during the last election Phil challenged Mike for the President's position. While he captured the majority of votes cast, instructions issued for the ballot indicated that a non vote would be counted in favour of the incumbent, making Mike the winner. With neither Mike nor Phil offering to concede, the question the Executive had to ask itself was " Do we assume the 20 votes cast represent the will of the club, or is it possible that those that did not cast a vote were content with the leadership as is and didn't bother to cast a vote with the knowledge that their inaction would constitute a vote for the incumbent" (Let this be a gentle reminder to all members of the importance of actually casting a ballot).

While there was considerable deliberation on the part of the Executive as to what course of action to take, I personally refrained from making a recommendation one way or the other. I refrained intentionally, for obvious reasons, as I did not want my input to be construed as a bias against him. I did, however, agree with Dave and Pim when they recommended that we suspend the results of the vote, change the voting instructions and allow the membership to recast their ballots. Pim also recommended that a review of the constitution should be undertaken prior to the recast in order to prevent a future similar situation from arising. The Board, including Phillip, unanimously agreed to this approach. As the newest and presumably the most impartial member of the Executive, Pim was given the task of drafting the rewrite.

With the release of the first draft, each member of the Executive was given the opportunity to comment. One of the issues I felt strongly about (and have vocalized in the past) pertained to the number of Executive positions one individual should be allowed to hold in the Club.

I believe that one member should hold only one position for a number of reasons;

1) NASOC is a club. While we might well increase efficiency by doubling up on positions, we would narrow access to those who want to make a contribution to how the club runs. Clearly we already have more people that want to run than there are positions.

2) I value participation over perfection

3) I feel that each position brings with it a need for certain individual skills

4) Individual voices for each Executive position ensure a diversity of ideas and input

5) The geography of our club suggests the need for broader executive representation than would work for a regional club

6) Constitutionally, Pim proposed that the role of the President be an impartial one, with particular emphasis on ruling on questions of order. Having the President occupy a second Executive position would negate this impartiality

As I said above, I have no issue with the temporary occupation of two Executive positions by one individual where a vacancy has arisen due to termination, resignation or death, but would expect the position to be filled at the next appropriate opportunity (time line being defined by opportunity). I have no objection to an Officer also holding an appointed position (registrar, librarian, etc), although again, if practical, I would rather see positions be as widely available as possible to the membership. This can only serve to strengthen our club.

With respect to the specific case of Phil wanting to hold both the Editor's and President's position, I recommended that a simple solution to the situation would be to designate the Editor's position as an appointment (not a member of the Executive), equivalent to what might be considered for the webmaster's, where there is a need for an individual with a recognized skill set. This would allow Phil to retain his role as Editor and Mike's as Webmaster while they both ran for the position of President.

The Board, with the exception of Phil, agreed with the above and given the opportunity to provide formal comment, Phil responded "I don't see much point in elaborating over the Bylaws right now. I see the direction they are going inâ€Â

[Paul Bouchard]

Peter, I am the subject here. Not Phillip, not Mike.

You posted:

Why did I not contact the organizers? Actually, I did.

You actually did not. I am an organizer of this event and I did not receive a message from you (2nd time posted). I have been available to answer any questions or comments on the event and I have not received anything from you asking for a schedule, a map, a list, nothing.

You posted:

Nor is the issue of contacting the organizers a reflection of your importance.

Then why not contact me?

You posted:

Phil challenged Mike for the President's position. While he captured the majority of votes cast

"challenged... captured..." strong words, but well chosen. They certainly convey your thoughts on this.

At any rate, I grow tired of this back and forth, so I give up.

Congratulations, you win.

Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions or comments about any event that I may be involved in. I will respond. Otherwise, do not.

This is my last word.