Friends of Big Bend National Park
Big Bend Conservancy

Over-estimating your experience or under-estimating the terrain in a place like Big Bend can result in serious injury or death. Use the information and advice found here wisely. Climb/Hike/Camp/Drive at your own risk.

+-Calendar for sale

 2019 BigBendChat Calendar on sale now!


voting question for TR owners

  • 8 Replies
  • 3448 Views
*

Offline trtlrock

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1263
voting question for TR owners
« on: September 08, 2009, 06:58:35 PM »
Anybody on this board who owns land in TR & plans (& knows how) to vote on the upcoming issues?

If so, I'd love to trade brief thoughts, and perhaps get your advice enlisting a proxy, as I think I'll be out of the country by the time I get my ballot.

[trying desperately not to post this same message on one of the numerous, and sometimes combustible, Yahoo groups]

TIA...
John & Tess

"...and I'll face each day with a smile, for the time that I've been given's such a little while..." - Arthur Lee

*

Offline Doc Savage

  • Diamondback
  • *
  • 471
  • Ready to see BIBE again
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2009, 01:02:04 PM »
Well are you asking about the mechanics of voting, or how and what the issues are?

As to the how, they typically send out a ballot that you fill out and send back in. As I understand this issue, we first vote to approve proxies, then after that, we have to vote on directors and send proxies in if we want, and if they were earlier approved.

Personally I'm still trying to make up my mind on what to do. I'm sick of the garbage going on and if selling off some of the assets (pool, lodge, campgrounds) is what it takes to stop it then fine. My issue is that they didn't stop there. Selling the road maintenance equipment and then contracting out the work is lumped in with the vote. I've never seen where contracting out services saved money over doing it yourself. Besides, the equipment is almost completely paid off. Doesn't make sense to me.

So I either vote to approve the proxies and then allow stuff to be sold (which most likely in the BOD's own words would include the road equipment... big mistake). Or I vote not to sell (because we don't need to sell the road equipment) and we get stuck with the moneypits of the lodge and pool. Doesn't sound like anyone really thought this one out. Should be multiple options available. The options presented leave me with the standard options we get for presidential elections... darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Robert
Enjoying the Texas life!

*

Offline Kathleen

  • Jack Rabbit
  • *
  • 42
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2009, 09:17:41 AM »
Our TRMA and bylaws do NOT allow for you to use a proxy if you are out the country.

There is usually enough time for you to send in your ballot even being in another country. Or you can have someone get your mail and tell them how you want them to vote and give them permission to fill out the ballot for you.
The only thing we are voting on right now is to change Article 3 to allow proxies to be used at the upcoming member's meeting in January. It will be a one time use proxy that will only be given to the secretary of the board to use to cast your vote at the member's meeting about sale of the lodge.

Personally, I am going to vote NO to change article three to allow for this one time proxy because:
The writing is too ambiguous and difficult to understand.
It does not give the exact verbage of the matter that will be voted on at the member's meeting.
I am not necessarily against selling the main lodge area but like another poster, I feel that lumping in our road maintanence is not a good idea.
I would rather see what the new board could do come next year in getting the bath house swimming pool and RV park open with what money we have. I do think it can be done with a good manager.

Kathleen

Anybody on this board who owns land in TR & plans (& knows how) to vote on the upcoming issues?

If so, I'd love to trade brief thoughts, and perhaps get your advice enlisting a proxy, as I think I'll be out of the country by the time I get my ballot.

[trying desperately not to post this same message on one of the numerous, and sometimes combustible, Yahoo groups]

TIA...

*

Offline trtlrock

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1263
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2009, 08:25:20 PM »
Thanks for the insight Robert & Kathleen.

A convincing argument (imho) to vote against this Article-3 proposal...
John & Tess

"...and I'll face each day with a smile, for the time that I've been given's such a little while..." - Arthur Lee

*

Offline trtlrock

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1263
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2009, 10:20:45 PM »
Thanks for the insight Robert & Kathleen.

A convincing argument (imho) to vote against this Article-3 proposal...

Or not. The voting material that arrived today has changed my mind completely. :icon_rolleyes: [btw, I do know I'm pretty much muttering in a vacuum here  :icon_smile:]

It seems as if voting yes on the amendment to Article-3 simply empowers the BOD to bring the sell/don't-sell question about the Resort to a legal vote in January, when I would then vote again on that specific question.

Why is the road maintenance equipment apparently being bundled for sale with everything else? Couldn't say, especially since I gather it is recently paid off.

But, for the issue at hand, I don't care. If I want the money-pit that is the Resort to disappear, and have my assessments spent on road maintenance (yes) and collections (hmmm :eusa_think:), then it needs to come to a vote. And this amendment to Article-3 seems to be the way to do that.

I definitely refuse to buy into the "get a new BOD -- find a way to inexpensively keep all or parts of the Resort going" concept. IMHO, even $0.01 spent on the Resort is $0.01 too much.

So, unless I've got it wrong (tell me! :icon_biggrin:), I'll be voting yes on this amendment...
John & Tess

"...and I'll face each day with a smile, for the time that I've been given's such a little while..." - Arthur Lee

*

Offline trtlrock

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1263
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 08:53:59 PM »
Soooo...continuing my soliloquy...

after reading many of the TR Yahoo groups last night, I have changed my mind  :icon_rolleyes: again  :icon_rolleyes:

seems that (at best) the BOD has presented a flawed ambiguous plan of action for selling the TR assets. And it seems that they can't even do that without getting this proxy vote passed.

So I guess the TR landowners have the leverage here. By voting no to the proxy amendment it will (I guess) force the BOD to come up with a better plan.

And, why do they say the road maintenance contract with Porter is "temporary?" How temporary is it likely to be if they sell off the road maintenance equipment? And why is the ex-ranch mgr suddenly working for Porter? Coincidence?  Who knows...

I am beginning to see the [warped] logic behind not paying one's assessment fees. I suspect I will not pay them next year...at this rate POATRI will implode & cease to exist long before they come after a relatively recent non-payer like me. I suspect I will be like number #742 on the 'collections' list or something like that.

Do I agree with some of the lunatic-fringe black-helicopters cries that the BOD is corrupt? Don't know, probably not. But, at best, the BOD is certainly inept.

And I think financially starving them into non-existence is looking like a pretty good plan right about now...

So, umm...I'm voting "NO" to the proxy amendment.  :icon_smile:

 -- monologue off --
John & Tess

"...and I'll face each day with a smile, for the time that I've been given's such a little while..." - Arthur Lee

*

Offline Kathleen

  • Jack Rabbit
  • *
  • 42
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2009, 11:44:48 PM »
I would be careful about calling us the "lunatic fringe" as Alida did.
All of us that are trying to expose what is going on have all been on the board recently!--myself, Don Mahan, Susan Ivy and Jerry Brewster. We know about what we speaketh.
I testified in a court of law under oath and so did Don Mahan. And there will be more court cases coming soon.
Kathleen

Soooo...continuing my soliloquy...

after reading many of the TR Yahoo groups last night, I have changed my mind  :icon_rolleyes: again  :icon_rolleyes:

seems that (at best) the BOD has presented a flawed ambiguous plan of action for selling the TR assets. And it seems that they can't even do that without getting this proxy vote passed.

So I guess the TR landowners have the leverage here. By voting no to the proxy amendment it will (I guess) force the BOD to come up with a better plan.

And, why do they say the road maintenance contract with Porter is "temporary?" How temporary is it likely to be if they sell off the road maintenance equipment? And why is the ex-ranch mgr suddenly working for Porter? Coincidence?  Who knows...

I am beginning to see the [warped] logic behind not paying one's assessment fees. I suspect I will not pay them next year...at this rate POATRI will implode & cease to exist long before they come after a relatively recent non-payer like me. I suspect I will be like number #742 on the 'collections' list or something like that.

Do I agree with some of the lunatic-fringe black-helicopters cries that the BOD is corrupt? Don't know, probably not. But, at best, the BOD is certainly inept.

And I think financially starving them into non-existence is looking like a pretty good plan right about now...

So, umm...I'm voting "NO" to the proxy amendment.  :icon_smile:

 -- monologue off --

*

Offline trtlrock

  • Mountain Lion
  • *
  • 1263
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 12:48:59 AM »
I would be careful about calling us the "lunatic fringe" as Alida did.

My apologies; the phrase was chosen carelessly, and only after the post did I remember that it was recently used bitingly by Alida. To be more clear, I was referring to a group of several posters whose recurring 'contributions' to the TR Yahoo groups consist almost entirely of unproductive, paranoid, and often inflammatory posts. This does not include you Kathleen, nor any other BBC members as far as I know. I am also not referring to the Mahans, who I often find myself in agreement with, although they can certainly fan the flames when it seems least productive to do so. It really doesn't matter who I was referring to specifically, all one needs to do is read these Yahoo groups to see there is a lunatic fringe..but it's not the people Alida was apparently referring to.

I also didn't mention earlier that it certainly does appear as if several recent BOD members have worked diligently to change TR into something better, only (imho) to be out-gunned, out-maneuvered, and, in some cases, apparently nudged off the BOD. Unfortunately, I believe none of these well-meaning people are still BOD members, and I question that any significant progress has been made, and could ever be made, given the current TR, TRMA, & POATRI structure. The increasing decline of MIGS in favor of MNIGS certainly doesn't help when it comes to voting, although I can certainly see the argument to lapse into MNIGS status. It's also been disheartening to read about the upcoming TR bike-ride. Despite being illegal (apparently), and even knowing in advance that an obnoxious minority of the participants are likely to literally ride roughshod over private property, specifically off road, there appears to be no means to stop it. Certainly some TR-entity (BOD, ranch mgr, ?) could have & should have done something proactive in an serious attempt to scuttle this apparently illegal ride.

Speaking of the BOD, the application on the POATRI website to become a BOD member is quite interesting, as there are no pledges or mission-statements to 'protect the landowners of TR,' but several clumsily phrased statements which could be loosely translated [by a cynic like myself] as "serve the BOD," "protect the BOD," and "do what the long-term good-ole boy (or girl) BOD-network tells you to do." Perhaps whoever wrote that application should read it with fresh eyes. Maybe they could add a heart-warming blurb about each BOD member, with a smiling picture, telling us how much they love their dog Ralphie, and how they will faithfully protect & serve the interests of the TR landowners?  :eusa_whistle:

Again, my apologies to anyone I offended.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 04:28:42 AM by trtlrock »
John & Tess

"...and I'll face each day with a smile, for the time that I've been given's such a little while..." - Arthur Lee

*

Offline Kathleen

  • Jack Rabbit
  • *
  • 42
Re: voting question for TR owners
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2009, 02:33:01 PM »
Apology Accepted ;-)

I think that whomever wrote the application has it written exactly how they want it :-(
BUT the good news is that it is actually just an outline/suggestion of what they would like a candidate to say.
However, a candidate can say/address whatever they would like and can skip one or more questions if they would like.

Kathleen

 


©COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All photographs and content posted by members are to be considered copyrighted by their respective owners and may not be used for any purposes, commercial or otherwise, without permission.

+-Calendar For Sale

 2019 BigBendChat Calendar on sale now!

Powered by EzPortal

Facebook Comments