BRS Leaders

Status
Not open for further replies.
>I assume the current BOD members are willing to stay on or be re-elected (however you want to word it, I hope to offend no one). How many seats are there on the BOD? <

The at-large directors are composed of a maximum of 5 members, there are no provisions in the bylaws which perscribe exactly how many at-large members there are supposed to be. We had 4 members for a while, but one of them very rarely came to any meetings (I personally never met the guy). We decided to reduce the number to 3, partly so that it was easier to get enough folks together to form a quorem, necessary to make descisions on club business. This was done my unanimous decision by the officers and remaining board members. The bylaws require that open at-large positions (or officers positions) be filled at the next club meeting provided that members are notified of the upcoming election 10 days prior to the election.

Marvin's question about the nominating committee. This was discussed at the BOD meeting last night, seems to me that as the two most recent resignations occured only in the last 3 days I think we are on top of things, sheesh! Please remember, the nominating committee is no big deal. The committee is choosen from the membership by the president. The committee comes up with a slate of recommended officers (basically people that can commit to making it to club meetings and BOD meetings and seem to be responsible). ANYONE can run for ANY office at the elections meeting. You do not need to be on the slate that is put forward.

The official elections are supposed to be in December. The election that is going to take place on Oct 2nd (saturday) is only supposed to be for the 3 open positions, however, I'm going to post a poll in a few minutes which will allow the membership to choose to move the December elections forward to Oct. 2nd so that we don't have to have folks in positions for just two months and then be voted on again.

If you have more questions about the election process etc. please read the bylaws. If you are serious about running for an office (Sherry I wasn't kidding) please understand that it is a significant commitment. If you cannot make regular meetings, and are not into doing a lot of work for zero $ (only occasional thanks) then please do not run.
 
Tstone said:
Dave your opinion is based on hearsay.

I know the facts intimately. I have over 100 emails from Anthony Calfo from as far back as a year ago trying to change what we were doing. We did not acquiesce to him and he created this whole thing. Him and him alone. Not Ron. You would have done the same thing as Ron under the same circumstances.

Anthony Calfo is a weasel.

QUOTE]

Marvin please post some proof of your claims, Anthony has already posted proof (elsewhere) that contradicts your claims 100%.

Personal insults are childish, unprofessional, and totally uncalled for. I used to think you were better then that.
 
So how bout that weather. Nice day out today, isn't it?

Buddy is coming over shortly and we are going to install our new snowplows on our trucks. Getting ready for the snow!

Hmm i wonder what I should have for lunch.
 
Jon - Regardless of the hearsay there is irrefutable proof that Anthony tried to organize a speaker boycott of MACNA because he didnt like our terms. As I said before I heard from many speakers about the boycott email despite having never seen it myself. Im sure I could get a copy if i tried. Up to that point we did nothing except say that if he couldnt agree to our terms he wouldnt be speaking.
 
Rob, FWIW since we're airing all of the laundry I will be completely honest with you.
I never sent Jeremy anything. I haven't checked the times of his posts over on RC
or here, but the last time I touched a computer was yesterday afternoon, over on RC
to write the "Anything else" post. He got his information from someone other than me.
Greg Hiller and I went over to Joe's house last night, I got home late and never logged
on until this morning.

It's absolultely unequivocally true that Rob, Ron and Emily are 100% responsible
for making MACNA 16 a success. I attended, and had a good time, as I'd guess did a
majority of attendees - it's extremely sad that your work in putting on this successful
centerpiece show has been washed over in this morass of negativity (yes, I listen to
WEEI). It should be the BRS finest hour, instead we're here slinging mud.

I'll be the first to admit that besides attending a few meetings regarding the
event, I didn't do any work to help carrying out the show. I tried to be supportive
and look out for the best interests of the club. I shook your hand and I shook Rons
hand in congratulations when I saw what you pulled off. I know and everyone should
acknowledge that it was the three of you that are responsible for allowing us to put
on the caliber of show put on last weekend. The people who worked tirelessly from
Thursday morning to Sunday night - you folks also deserve a huge amount of thanks.

Now on to the questions about integrity. My own personal opinion is that Ron has a
management style and some personality traits that most reasonable people cannot
tolerate. Aside from a few expletive filled rants at the BRS officers and BOD, I never
had a real disagreement with him. Maybe I should have taken a stronger stand and
maybe we should have removed him and taken control of MACNA. Would we have had
the same show we had, I don't know. I was party to those that let things get to
where they are now and I take responsibility for that.

From a BRS BOD perspective, we started out planning MACNA with
subcommittees staffed with people who really wanted to help. As MACNA drew
closer, the people staffing those committees were either no longer interested or they
were alienated from helping out because they weren't completing their tasks to the
satisfaction of the chairman. We had a few early warning signs, chose to let
them go. Part of the reasoning for letting them go , again imho, was Ron was very
polished and he definitely had the connections, with Preferred Travel and he had a
vision for making this MACNA bigger than any previous. If you attended the show,
you can make the call on whether that was a good or bad decision at this point.

Berating people, belittling people is no way to work when you expect/require someone
who is volunteering to perform important tasks. Part of the reason why you had to
work so hard and complete many tasks yourself was simply because people had
enough of being dealt with in a condescending manner. Part of the reason, was a
large amount of apathy, people (myself included) figured that things would get done
and didn't give a great deal of thought as to how they would be done or by who.
You and Ron picked up the ball and ran with it. Along with picking up the ball, it
seems to me that you also picked up the thought that MACNA didn't belong to the
BRS, but it was yours. It certainly seems to me that the lengths you've gone to to
defend the show from the subsequent fallout should tell everyone the level of
commitment you've given.

Re: Ron
Give the man all of the credit for pulling off the show. He does deserve it. He got the
insurance policy to protect the officers from any liability at the last minute after many
attempts to get the bod and officers off their asses and get it done. Losing Jim
Nguyen, our former treasurer and advisor so close to MACNA didn't help. I don't fault
Jim one bit for any of this, and neither should anyone else. His leaving brought to light
how much he was doing for the BRS and left a huge hole. Ron picked up on those
things and took care of them. I am appreciative, but not enough to forget how he's
treated people this past year, so I won't go over to RC and defend him. He wanted to
be the bad guy, well at this point it seems he's gotten his way.

Regarding this end-run, what else can you call a threat to the BOD to challenge it's
existence/legality/legitimacy ?

In my opinion, Ron was so incensed about receiving the email from the BRS BOD
stating that we would not support the banning of anyone from attending MACNA,
he saw it as a threat great enough to attack the legitimacy of the BOD via language
in the bylaws. This occurred within the past two weeks. You Rob, brought it up
first, jokingly and then Ron followed up by plainly stating that according to the BRS
bylaws, there wasn't any BRS BOD, so he could disregard anything stated in the
letter.

I love the BRS. Prior to the formation of the group, in order to attend a
speaker session or even talk reefs, Joe V. and I had to drive to Coney Island NY and
attend Brooklyn Aquarium Society events, as they were the closest organization that
brought in name speakers and had members like Terry Siegel, Joe Yaiullo and Greg
Schiemer. The BRS brought those speakers to New England, it was great fun to
go to a meeting and talk reefs.

That fun is long gone for me. I won't miss the sleepless nights and grief for one
second.

Marvin/Rob, please let it go.

If you're mission is to torch and burn this club to the ground so be it.

It's stronger than you think.

I accept my share of blame in this, it's really not all the bad guys fault we are where
we are now.
 
Mike - thank you for being so forthright in your response. that comment was based on your statement of "are we done now", his request for an apology, and his subsequent thanking someone named Mike for clearing things up. im glad it wasnt you who talked to Jeremy.

Yes this is a volunteer organization but we all agreed to make the committement to a show that would pass a huge amount of money through this organization and put us in a financial position that could potentially ruin the BRS if people didnnt follow through. So when people repeatedly failed to meet objectives for which they volunteered despite numerous attempts to help them through things, the chairmen (there were two at the beginning) got frustrated. Ron didnt fly off the handle at people right off the bat. He offered to meet with people, he drove all over to make it as convenient as possible and when things still didnt get done he got angry (this is my opinion folks so dont take this as me speaking for Ron). People dont like Ron when he's angry, I dont like Ron when he's angry. He and I did have it out once or twice as some of you may recall. I dont like me when Im angry, I say things I dont mean, I can be hurtful, its not pretty. I get over it though and move on to the work at hand.

The reason I like Ron is that I know he's got my back. I thought I had more people there than I thought. Thats the reason for my anger.

As for Ron and the email about banning I just wanted to clear up that Ron and I were informed that this "banning letter" was coming via certified mail about a week before the show. The certified letter was never received. A draft version of it was emailed in response to a long barrage of emails on the subject with statements from the BOD saying that the letter really is no big deal because the letter said nothing about Calfo or DTs specifically.

The draft version would allow the banning of anyone who was violating federal, state or local laws. I may be wrong but attempting to arrange a boycott by email may not be illegal but subsequently showing up at said event when it is known you intend to boycott it certainly interferes with our ability to conduct business. I expect that this is illegal. I can certainly protest about a place all I want but when I take that protest inside that place its tresspassing. A business does not have to allow people in its door that would do things that hurt the business. I can't handout "Home Depot Sucks" pamphlets in the plumbing aisle nor can I stand in the electrical section and tell people where they should really be shopping. Nobody told Anthony he couldnt come to Boston, just not into the Hyatt. Would you have allowed a ban on a vendor that wanted to put up a booth touting the benefits of cyanide caught fish?
 
RobboT said:
Jon - Regardless of the hearsay there is irrefutable proof that Anthony tried to organize a speaker boycott of MACNA because he didnt like our terms. As I said before I heard from many speakers about the boycott email despite having never seen it myself. Im sure I could get a copy if i tried. Up to that point we did nothing except say that if he couldnt agree to our terms he wouldnt be speaking.


Again please provide proof of your claims. Once again you say you know it happened, but that you never actually saw anything to prove it to you. How can you be so sure yourself?
 
I don't think anybody sent any messages to Jeremy. I think he just read the thread here and the thread on RC, and put two and two together. That's my thinking but I don't know.
 
And I will say one last time Jon that I spoke personally to many speakers who told me about the email. I sat with two of them on Friday night and we talked about it over beer, bbq and cigars. Even if I had the email I will not post it, if Anthony wants to own up to what he did he can post it.
 
Its obviously my word against yours but since you failed to get the website done in time for our visit to MACNA XV and bailed on us when Ron yelled at you for it you werent privy to any conversations with any speakers were you? Oh but thats right somehow you got a copy of the "confidential" email about banning people even though you are neither an officer nor a BOD member so that makes your word better then mine.
 
And with that folks I have lost my passion for this club. If the status quo is good for all of you then go on with it. I have tried to help some of you see what has been going on but Im tired of beating my head against the wall.
 
Shhhhhh Can you hear that ?
It's the sound of members flocking out the door in shame!

ONCE AGAIN I BEG OF YOU GUYS TAKE IT PRIVATE!

Get rid of this train wreck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Upcoming Events

April 21, 2024
Paul B
Club Meeting

Back
Top