Guys, here is my take on this- I'm not telling anyone what to do, just a perspective from what I feel is in our individual best interests as OHV users.
I know many of you have no patience or tolerance for details, so I'll be brief:
The main issue is how many TMTC member representatives will there be, and who will be represented.
There are 5 choices to vote for- I will outline them and then discuss them.
(For the purposes of discussion, all boards will include 4 officers: President, Vice President, Treasurer & Secretary... the issue is the representatives)
12 member board serving 3 regions
2 general representatives (1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle/ATV)
6 regional reps (2 from each region: 1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle/ATV)
12 member board serving 4 regions
8 regional reps (2 from each region: 1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle/ATV)
13 member board serving 3 regions
9 regional reps (3 from each region: 1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle, 1 ATV)
14 member board serving 5 regions
10 regional reps (2 from each region: 1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle/ATV)
16 member board serving 4 regions
12 regional reps (3 from each region: 1 OHV, 1 Motorcycle, 1 ATV)
1. Representing the user disciplines (OHV, M/C, ATV)- I get the feeling that many handlebar users do not want the split to be "steering wheel v. handlebar", which from their perspective is understandable. From our perspective, however, representing all 3 user groups separately will almost surely result in Motorcycle and ATV users voting together often.
I do not think that is fair.
If you ask any TMTC board member, they will tell you that it is the OHV members (us) that contribute the most to BMRA, they participate more and they take greater responsibility for the cleaning and maintenance of the park as a whole. Those who truly contribute more should have at the leastequal representation.
So I eliminated option C and option E.
2. Regional splits and number of board members- I think, that for how the population in general and the population of the users in particular are distributed, 5 regions would be unnecessary bureaucracy. That eliminates option D.
So 3 regions or 4? I voted for 4 for no other reason than that it provides for future growth by seperating the west from the panhandle, as well as providing equal representation without using a "Super-Representative".
Therefore, I emailed my vote to Gary (email: [email protected]) as such: Gary, I vote yes for Section 5.01. -- VERSION “B”.
I would encourage everyone to strongly consider either version A or Version B, and I implore you to please vote- it takes no more time to email Gary than it does to make your next post or to click on the next topic on this forum.
I wish I had seen your post before I spent 30 minutes reading all of that.
I haven't e-mailed yet, but I got the same feeling of us being at a disadvantage by seperating the representatives into 3 groups.