- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good day all, I have a question on the minutes of the last meeting. if I recall correctly someone stated that we could have non shooters be WTA members such as snow mobile riders or cross country skiers . Is it not in the ATA By-laws that if you are any state member, like the WTA, that you must be an ATA member also. just asking because I remember that from a discussion in Sparta. thank you… Bill Boyd
Bill I don’t know about the ATA rule but I feel that it would NOT be a good idea to have non trapshooters as members of the WTA as it could lead to a takeover of our organization. just thinlk about it you get a number of non shooters ( liberals ) that want an end to guns and shooting. They get enough members to join and take control of the board. Need I say more?
So lets keep membership to the WTA as shooters and members of the ATA. They can be from another state as long as they are shooters and ATA members.
If a non shooter wants to be a member of the WTA not a real challenge for it to happen. For $30 (ATA membership and $10 WTA membership) and your good to go.
Along the same lines is this garbage a couple of BOD’s are trying. This BS “open meeting”. This is going to allow a few, and I mean a few, Director’s and a couple of members to change the bylaws, and a few other things. Major things like these should be voted on by the general membership at the annual meeting. Not a meeting where someone could bring a hand full of people and change everything. Including selling off all of the homegrounds. Ten or fifteen people could conceivably do this. All they have to do is have it on the agenda a few times and they can do what ever they want. This needs to be stopped. When asked why they are doing it this way they (the BOD) said they are trying to get more people to volunteer. That won’t help. All it is going to do is piss off the majority of the membership.
<p style=”text-align: left;”>First off Don, to change the bylaws it has to be voted on at the annual meeting, second off do you really think the bod wants to sell off the home grounds!!!! I would say the bod has done a pretty damn good job of trying to keep it above water as this is the first year we made it to spring without beg borrowing or stealing money to pay the mortgage. The open meetings are to try to get more people involved not to try to overtake the wta or whatever crazy ideas you have of it feel free to call me 608-334-0585</p>
Nate. With open meetings everyone gets to vote. If that is the case I could come up to a meeting with 20 or so people and vote in most any thing we want. Including selling any or all of the Homegrounds.
The way it was written in the minutes the bylaws could be voted on at open meetings. Not necessarily the annual meeting.
Can you imagine what a “Chinese Fire Drill” is would be if our government meetings were “open” to all visitors? What an asinine suggestion!! The way things are designed to work in our democracy is the people elect representatives to govern on their behalf. The elected officers are to act on behalf of the people they represent to run the government. IF the people feel those elected representatives are not acting on their behalf, they show their dissatisfaction with letters, and with their votes at the next election. If you feel, as a number concerned posters on this website (myself included), do, you show your feelings at the State Shoot annual meeting and cast your vote “NAY” when the motion to approve a change is made. This is the way we react to any suggested Constitutional change, or changes, we feel are not in the best interests of the WTA. Some of the other changes suggested I know of, ought to receive the same treatment as that of the “open” BOD meetings! ATTEND the WTA Annual meeting at the 2017 State Shoot to make your opinions known.
I’m with Dick. I attend a lot of government meetings and I have to sit and keep my mouth shut. I have no place to vote on anything. If the meeting has a public comment area on the agenda I can voice my opinion there and by law they do not have to have public comment at these meetings. Just like Dick stated if we don’t like how things are done we will vote you out, (BOD ).
I don’t understand…..you want an open meeting to be able to voice your opinion against what the board decides, but yet you want it closed so you can’t say anything!!! Hmmm….. Not really seeing it yet.
Dick, are you saying our meetings shouldn’t be open to all, should the board then decide who’s welcome at the meeting??? I don’t have a dog in this fight and it makes me no difference, remember you don’t have any N/W zone directors now!! Wonder how much longer until there is no bod at all!!!
Tate. I think you are missing the definition of what a open meeting was a year ago and what it means now. For the last hundred years the BOD meetings were open to the membership. Just as Dick, Ken and I have been saying all along. BUT. In the past up until this last Oct 8th at the Sherwood Lodge the general membership was not allowed to vote on a issue. They could voice a opinion but not vote. The only time the general membership could vote was at the annual meeting held during the state shoot. At no time in recent history (like at least 40 years) was the membership ever blocked from going to a meeting. Never. Once in awhile when the BOD went into Executive session we were asked to leave but only briefly. Even when the meetings were held at the Otto residence there were always some non BOD people there. Just like now. How do I know this? For a lot of years, like maybe 7 or 8 or more years, I attended almost every meeting. I really liked Arlene’s deserts.
So to make a long story even longer this is my, and I think Dick’s and Ken’s, complaint. We want the membership to attend meetings and have a say at the meetings but they should not have a vote in the day to day actions of the BOD. If the board could ask for a show of hands to see what the general feelings are of those in attendance but that should be it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.