Dan:
Wow - thank you. Still unable to address the issues, more willing to attack me than my analysis. That actually supports my case. In case you forgot while you were digging through old Team Girand communications, the ISSUES are:
First, the USAT is not bound by DRAFT minutes....especially when the board knowingly is aware that they are wrong. To do so would be foolish and a violation of their duties. Second, while Mr. Grinder may be correct that Ms. Gattis' e-mail discussion did not correct and ratify the minutes....he failed to discuss or even mention the November correction and ratification. The minutes were officially corrected and the procedure used in the election and outlined by the corrected minuted were ratified by the board (not an uncommon corporate procedure).
Feel free to address these points in between throwing barbs my way.
No Dan - I did not raise any concern about the collection of ballots to Jim's or to any other candidates' attention. That was the validly adopted procedure as set forth on our governing body's homepage. Once again (we are going around in circles here) I do not support such a technique or candidates' access to ballots. I believe I have said this no less than four times already. But since all other candidates were equally allowed to do so, it quite frankly never even crossed my mind to tell Jim that he alone should not abide by the promulgated election procedures.
I see - so you can point to past, old postings as evidence of your full disclosure. But in my case, past, old posting equates to lack of candor and disclosure. Double standard? Hypocracy? Laughable? Like you, people can go to Slowtwitch and find my past postings. But that only works for you, not for me? Interesting.
I brought forth the conflict already Dan. You twice I believe urged people to vote for the individual running against Jim Girand. He lost. Now you are attacking Jim Girand with personal attacks and innuendo along with the voting process through which your candidate was unsuccessful. Conflict? Maybe. Lack of disclosure? Can't place an obligation upon me without living up to it yourself Dan.
*****You are confusing different cases. The USAT sued two individuals for selling a race entry in the Escape from Alcatraz race (the purchaser got hit and sued). I vehemently oppossed the lawsuit brought by the individual against the USAT and was quite vocal in it here and elsewhere. That individual had no relation to our club. The inidividuals who I assisted transfered entries for the San Jose International Race. Both were new to the sport and unaware of the prohibition - in fact they were very open about the transfer and this lead to their being caught. They readily admitted it when caught. They cooperated 100% in the investigation. They never denied fault nor sought not to be found guilty. They merely asked for some discretion in the mandatory 1 year ban in light of their circumstances. They did not get it. But, the rule has now been changed to allow the uSAT judges to use some discretion.
Alan
Wow - thank you. Still unable to address the issues, more willing to attack me than my analysis. That actually supports my case. In case you forgot while you were digging through old Team Girand communications, the ISSUES are:
First, the USAT is not bound by DRAFT minutes....especially when the board knowingly is aware that they are wrong. To do so would be foolish and a violation of their duties. Second, while Mr. Grinder may be correct that Ms. Gattis' e-mail discussion did not correct and ratify the minutes....he failed to discuss or even mention the November correction and ratification. The minutes were officially corrected and the procedure used in the election and outlined by the corrected minuted were ratified by the board (not an uncommon corporate procedure).
Feel free to address these points in between throwing barbs my way.
No Dan - I did not raise any concern about the collection of ballots to Jim's or to any other candidates' attention. That was the validly adopted procedure as set forth on our governing body's homepage. Once again (we are going around in circles here) I do not support such a technique or candidates' access to ballots. I believe I have said this no less than four times already. But since all other candidates were equally allowed to do so, it quite frankly never even crossed my mind to tell Jim that he alone should not abide by the promulgated election procedures.
I see - so you can point to past, old postings as evidence of your full disclosure. But in my case, past, old posting equates to lack of candor and disclosure. Double standard? Hypocracy? Laughable? Like you, people can go to Slowtwitch and find my past postings. But that only works for you, not for me? Interesting.
I brought forth the conflict already Dan. You twice I believe urged people to vote for the individual running against Jim Girand. He lost. Now you are attacking Jim Girand with personal attacks and innuendo along with the voting process through which your candidate was unsuccessful. Conflict? Maybe. Lack of disclosure? Can't place an obligation upon me without living up to it yourself Dan.
*****You are confusing different cases. The USAT sued two individuals for selling a race entry in the Escape from Alcatraz race (the purchaser got hit and sued). I vehemently oppossed the lawsuit brought by the individual against the USAT and was quite vocal in it here and elsewhere. That individual had no relation to our club. The inidividuals who I assisted transfered entries for the San Jose International Race. Both were new to the sport and unaware of the prohibition - in fact they were very open about the transfer and this lead to their being caught. They readily admitted it when caught. They cooperated 100% in the investigation. They never denied fault nor sought not to be found guilty. They merely asked for some discretion in the mandatory 1 year ban in light of their circumstances. They did not get it. But, the rule has now been changed to allow the uSAT judges to use some discretion.
Alan