Setting the record straight SCLR

D

discobuddy

Guest
I have decided to post here since EE will not let me post on their site to comment on an issue that seems to keep going over a year later. Also, many who view EE BBS also post and red here. It is truly unbelievable to me that this issue has been going on that long. Unfortunately, only one side of the story continues to get played.

For those interested, please read on as this is the accurate account of why SCLR?s BOD came to the ruling we did regarding alcohol on the trail.

As many of you know there was an issue of alcohol and noise on the trail at RR7. After that the question of whether SCLR as a club should allow individuals to consume alcoholic beverages on the trail came up. During this time I was serving as president of SCLR. Many felt that all runs should be ?dry runs? to which I did not disagree. I had many conversations with those who felt strongly about this. Because one is operating a motor vehicle on public lands, motor vehicle laws apply. It was my feeling that we as a club may incur increased liability. In addition, the trail leaders would also incur increased liability in their efforts to enforce this rule. To protect the clubs best interest, I contacted my attorney who researched this in depth.

During this research time, I had several lengthy conversations with John Lee and several others. At one point I even invited John to run for a position on the board since his passion for the clubs well being seemed so great. During these conversations, John had said that he wanted to see whatever is best for the club. He did state that he preferred a no alcohol policy, but whatever was in the best interest of the club he would support. This was the tune of others as well. Some made it clear that they would not support anything other than a no alcohol policy, and others were in support of whatever we decided and deemed best for the club.

A few weeks later, I received the findings from my attorney. There were five pages of research as to why we should not try to enforce a policy above and beyond that of federal and state law. There were cases sited where clubs and associations were sued and subsequently lost in court. I personally subsidized the cost of this research as well. The club only had to pay $500 for this in depth research.

After the presentation of these findings to the board, a decision was made to make the policy the same as the law. As expected, many did not agree. Specifically John. He chose to step away from the club and not run for the empty board position as the policy did not fit what he felt was right. I have no issue with that. As a matter of fact, I respect his decision to step up and demonstrate his stance on the position. I also respected the others who did same.

What I do not agree with are the continued negative comments regarding the club and the direction it is going. When the new election was held, the biggest noise makers were gone. Unwilling to step up and make their voice heard. Rather they have decided to stay behind the keyboard and take pot shots at the club they no longer belong to. There is an issue with Joe being a BoD. The fact that he ran against another candidate and won is never brought up. Joe may not be the best BoD, but he felt that he had something to offer to the club, wanted his voice heard, stepped up, and was elected. Do I condone Joe?s past behavior; do I condone some of his current comments? No. I do, however, respect the fact that he ran even though he thought he wouldn?t win. He has also stepped up and lead trips that have gone smoothly. These are trips that most likely would have never been on the calendar.

Up until yesterday, I was going to leave the club like so many others. I thought that the club was no longer a place that supported families and was not the right atmosphere to have my children in. I even toyed with the idea of starting a family outdoor club. However, after reading some comments today, I realize that I was going to do what so many others have done. Pick up my toys and go home pouting. If I want to see the club change, I don?t think I have given it a fair chance. I have not put in enough to see it change. I realized that SCLR has a lot to offer and has more good people than not within its membership.



I truly hope this lays to rest the issue that SCLR supports drinking on the trail. It is actually quite to the contrary.
 
D

discobuddy

Guest
It wasn't for him to tell us to obey the law, it was to research if having a policy above and beyond the law would create more liability for the club and its members.
The policy had always been to obey the law.
 
Last edited:

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,617
838
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Rob - I can see the issue:
- DWI is illegal, having a drink or several while stopped is not.
- a club may elect prohibiting alcohol consumption during stops, if it feels the road conditions warrant zero tolerance (or simply doesn't trust its members to behave), and in doing that the club will go beyond the common law.

IMHO, SCLR's problem is that of average market value of a used Land Rover.
 

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
key word ...club

clubs get to decide what level members need to maintain to stay members.

the fact that you as a leader felt that a policy needed to be put in place and then backed away from what your own convictions told you shows that your not really right for the job.

the high road isnt always the easy one to walk , it sometimes comes with risk. The fact that your research showed that someone might file suit is laughable.

come on lets be real...do you really think a court would find a automotive club liable for anything if they had a policy that said no drinking at club events?

this is a joke right?
 
D

discobuddy

Guest
MUSKYMAN, your comments prove to me that you have never been in a position to make decisions that could affect hundreds of people.
You say I backed down, however, I made a decision based on fact, not opinion and continue to stand by that.
You want to be real? Lawsuits are filed everyday for absurd reasons. These lawsuit, ridiculous as they may be, costs the defendant thousands.
I find your comments purely a reckless abandonment of responsibility to members of a club or organization.
 

MUSKYMAN

Well-known member
Apr 19, 2004
8,277
0
OverBarrington IL
discobuddy said:
MUSKYMAN, your comments prove to me that you have never been in a position to make decisions that could affect hundreds of people.
You say I backed down, however, I made a decision based on fact, not opinion and continue to stand by that.
You want to be real? Lawsuits are filed everyday for absurd reasons. These lawsuit, ridiculous as they may be, costs the defendant thousands.
I find your comments purely a reckless abandonment of responsibility to members of a club or organization.


first off...you are wrong I have.

second ...a lawsuit because you have a set policy that allows drinking at events compared to a lawsuit that your private club has a policy a member disagrees with are two different animals.

you may find my comments reckless I find you posting your dirty laundry here kinda silly, let alone stupid seeing as this will be archived and some day when a drunk member coming from a event kills someone your personal decision and public display of that decision will come back to haunt you.

from the view of all this you have given I think you shoulda listened to John Lee...he's a pretty smart fellow.
 
D

D Chapman

Guest
I can totally understand John's position in not wanting to run for a officer seat. I'm not speaking for John in any way, shape, or form; but with his business, it's probably not the best idea. And really, I'm not sure that John's law license would play a card here.....can he even serve on a BOD and give advice pertaining to code-of-conduct or By-Laws?

I think the whole argument is dumb. Common sense tells you what to do as far as an alcohol policy. If people break that rule, who the fuck cares. If people abuse, or take advantage of the lax rules, then maybe something needs to be done. I don't see too much of a problem with having a beer with lunch or on the side of the trail. But damn, put it in a coffee cup or something - and if you get hammered, then fuck you, go home.

I have not followed the EE thread on this as I really don't give a shit. So, there very well may be more to it than a few dumbasses trying to turn a Rover club into a Jeep club. But I do remember the beer thing from a while back.
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,617
838
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
D Chapman said:
Common sense tells you what to do as far as an alcohol policy. If people break that rule, who the fuck cares. If people abuse, or take advantage of the lax rules, then maybe something needs to be done. I don't see too much of a problem with having a beer with lunch or on the side of the trail. But damn, put it in a coffee cup or something - and if you get hammered, then fuck you, go home.
SCLR should use that quote as a rule, verbatim.
:bigok:
 
D

discobuddy

Guest
MUSKYMAN, you might be right about me airing my ?dirty laundry? here. Unfortunately, I felt this was the best medium to get to my intended audience. This was truly for those taking potshots at the club without knowing the full story.

p m, I think I may take it to the board. D Chapman may actually be on to something here. (That?s a joke. I wouldn?t want that public display to come back and haunt me later;) )

ALL, thank you for letting me ?air? here and reading this old dug up issue. This is a free forum and appreciate the opportunity to post here.
 

Matt Kendrick

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2005
561
4
Garden Grove, CA
discobuddy said:
...It is truly unbelievable to me that this issue has been going on that long.......

really? well to me that says a lot about your opinion of the issue. to me it's very much relevant, because of the policy that's STILL in place.

you made your decision, fine, you shouldn't need to come in here with a bunch of reasoning on how you arrived at it. it is what it is. i suspect moreso you're posting to stick up for your friend joe, who's taking a beating over there.
 

john

Well-known member
discobuddy said:
I have decided to post here since EE will not let me post on their site to comment on an issue that seems to keep going over a year later.


Ho and I will not let you post on our BBS? That's an interesting way to frame it.

Can you post on our BBS? No, you cannot. But the reason is not because we've banned you or are trying to keep you silent. Keeping people silent is your thing, not ours. The reason you cannot post on our BBS is simple. The reason is because you're not a registered user. Try registering first. It really is that simple. Once you register, you can post whatever you like. In fact, I encourage you to post. It would be nice to have discussions on this SCLR alcohol topic without the posts getting deleted and edited they are on the SCLR BBS.

Because you've posted here on DiscoWeb, I'll reply to you here. But don't start crying about how EE will not let you post on the EE BBS.


discobuddy said:
It is truly unbelievable to me that this issue has been going on that long. Unfortunately, only one side of the story continues to get played.


You just don't get it, do you? The reason this issue is still discussed is because it's such an important issue. Do you understand that? It's the same way the issue kept getting discussed on the SCLR BBS even after you deleted the threads concerning alcohol on the trail. The SCLR Board of Directors may have been finished discussing the issue. But that doesn't mean everybody else was done discussing the issue.

You seem to have the belief that because the Board of Directors made its decision, that the issue is now closed and swept under the rug. Not so. The condoning of drinking alcohol on the trails is a big issue. No matter how you try to sweep it under the rug, people are going to talk about it.

I also notice that you don't seem to like people talking about it. You refer to these discussions as pot shots. That's a very revealing statement. Somehow, these discussions in your mind are hitting below the belt or something. They're uncalled for. They're dirty shots. They're cheap shots. Interesting.

Just because you and the rest of the Board of Directors made your decision, don't think that decision closes the door to further discussions. That's reality. You might as well try to accept it.


discobuddy said:
During this research time, I had several lengthy conversations with John Lee and several others. At one point I even invited John to run for a position on the board since his passion for the clubs well being seemed so great.


Whoa there. Let's clear up the record here.

You didn't invite me to "run for a position on the board". You invited me to be on the board. Meaning, I would have been on the board had I accepted your invitation.

Do you remember our conversations? Do you remember when you invited me to join the Board of Directors and my response was, "you don't want me on your Board"? Do you remember when I said that I didn't want to be on the Board because I felt it was an inherent conflict of interest for a vendor to be on the Board? Do you remember when I told you that I was agreeing to be on the Board only because I had made such a stink about the alcohol at RR7 that I felt I had no other choice but to be on the Board? Do you remember these things? If you do remember these things, you conveniently omitted them from your post.


discobuddy said:
During these conversations, John had said that he wanted to see whatever is best for the club. He did state that he preferred a no alcohol policy, but whatever was in the best interest of the club he would support. This was the tune of others as well. Some made it clear that they would not support anything other than a no alcohol policy, and others were in support of whatever we decided and deemed best for the club.


I think your memory is off.

I never said that I preferred a no-alcohol policy but that I would support whatever was in the best interests of the club. First of all, I don't even talk like that. That's chump talk. Anyone who knows me knows I don't talk like that. "Best interests of the club". Such words are not even in my vernacular.

Don't you remember when, after you invited me to be on the Board, I warned you that I would be posting on the public sections of the SCLR BBS about my feelings that SCLR should adopt a no-alcohol policy? Do you remember when I also told you that I would post publicly what other Board members said to me about their positions on the alcohol question?

Clearly, I was against the club adopting any kind of policy that permitted drinking on the trails. That goal was singular. I would not support "whatever was in the best interests of the club". That's ridiculous. Do you think I'm such a moron that I would allow myself to get into such an untenable position? That is:

(1) John is against a club policy of permitting the drinking of alcohol on the trails, but he will support whatever is in the best interests of the club.
(2) The Board of Directors has voted and found that the policy of permitting the drinking of alcohol on the trails is in the best interests of the club.
(3) Therefore, John will support the club policy of permitting the drinking of alcohol on the trails.

You and several other Board members may be that stupid but I'm not. I'm no genius by any means but I'm far from being that stupid.


discobuddy said:
After the presentation of these findings to the board, a decision was made to make the policy the same as the law. As expected, many did not agree. Specifically John. He chose to step away from the club and not run for the empty board position as the policy did not fit what he felt was right. I have no issue with that. As a matter of fact, I respect his decision to step up and demonstrate his stance on the position. I also respected the others who did same.


Again, I did not choose not to run for the empty board position. Once you told me the Board's decision, I told you that I refused to be on the Board of a club that condones drinking on the trail.

Furthermore, I didn't "step away from the club" after the Board made its decision. Rather, I stayed a member of SCLR until my membership expired at the end of the year. I never renounced my membership of SCLR. I stayed a member. I even voted on the year-end elections (more on that below).

Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.


discobuddy said:
What I do not agree with are the continued negative comments regarding the club and the direction it is going.


You say you "do not agree" with the negative comments. This is interesting. Do you not agree with the content of the negative comments? Or, do you not agree with the very existence of the negative comments? I think the latter. I think you have a beef with the very fact that people are airing their views (because they are negative) about SCLR.

So you don't agree with the continued negative comments regarding the club and where it's going. So what? What are you going to do about it? You don't have deletion and editing powers on the EE board and here on DiscoWeb. So you can't make the criticisms disappear the way you did on the SCLR BBS. I daresay if these same negative comments you alluded to were aired by SCLR members on the SCLR BBS, they would disappear.

You want such negative comments to stop or something? I'm sure that you do. Unfortunately, you don't have that power. People will say what they will. I will tell you the same thing I told Nathan. When someone posts something that you disagree with, your remedy is not to silence that person or edit his posts or delete his posts. Rather, your remedy is to post why you think that person is wrong. It really is that simple.

If you don't like the continued negative comments regarding the club and the direction it is going, then post why you think these people are wrong. Don't complain that the negative comments are being posted. Don't complain that the comments are negative in nature. You are free to post yourself and say that the negative comments are wrong.


discobuddy said:
When the new election was held, the biggest noise makers were gone. Unwilling to step up and make their voice heard.


Unwilling to step up and make their voice heard? You're kidding me, right? Unwilling to step up. You said that. Are you for real?

We made our voices heard. The club membership was overwhelmingly in favor of no alcohol on the trail. Where are those comments today? They're gone. Poof. Disappeared. Your only response is that comments still exist; they're just in the private Board of Directors section of the BBS (which club members and the public cannot read). So they're not truly deleted. Yeah. Those comments you silenced were the "noise makers" stepping up and making their voices heard. Those comments are gone.

Do you remember when you shut down the SCLR BBS all together? I remember it. It was right at that time when Nathan Woods claimed he was acting with the authority of the Board of Directors when he was editing and deleting others' posts. Then I called bullshit on him too and posted that Gerry and Jim told me he never had such powers, that nobody had such powers. I also posted that you personally told me on the phone that Nathan never had such powers. Then the entire board went TILT like some pinball machine.

The way you frame it, those of us who didn't like the club's alcohol policy bailed on the club and now we're taking pot shots at the club. That's one way of looking at it. However, there is often more than one way to look at things. The way I look at it, those of us who didn't like the alcohol policy left the club and we're articulating why we left the club. This isn't sugar-coating by any means. We were prohibited from airing our views on the club board. When we did post, those posts disappeared. So we're airing our views on other boards where posts do not disappear.


discobuddy said:
Rather they have decided to stay behind the keyboard and take pot shots at the club they no longer belong to.


Pot shots. Nice. We're posting in a public forum that anyone can read and these are what you refer to as "pot shots". You and the rest of the Board of Directors make decisions behind closed doors, discuss club issues in a closed forum that club members cannot read, and edit/delete postings by club members when you disagree with them. And yet we're the dirt bags and you're Mr. High Road? Yeah.


discobuddy said:
There is an issue with Joe being a BoD. The fact that he ran against another candidate and won is never brought up. Joe may not be the best BoD, but he felt that he had something to offer to the club, wanted his voice heard, stepped up, and was elected. Do I condone Joe?s past behavior; do I condone some of his current comments? No. I do, however, respect the fact that he ran even though he thought he wouldn?t win. He has also stepped up and lead trips that have gone smoothly. These are trips that most likely would have never been on the calendar.


For the record, I have zero problem with Joe being a Board member. In fact, you might want to check your voting records. I voted for Joe. In fact, I voted for him several different times. The club's site is such a cluster, it allowed me to vote multiple times. So I voted for Joe several times. I'd like to think that I helped to tip the balance in his favor and won him the election, but I'll never know. Check the voting records. Hovik knows that I voted for Joe several times and we even joked about. So it's no secret that that voted for Joe. I also voted for Nathan Woods. I think both are perfect for the way the club is going.


discobuddy said:
Up until yesterday, I was going to leave the club like so many others. I thought that the club was no longer a place that supported families and was not the right atmosphere to have my children in. I even toyed with the idea of starting a family outdoor club. However, after reading some comments today, I realize that I was going to do what so many others have done. Pick up my toys and go home pouting. If I want to see the club change, I don?t think I have given it a fair chance. I have not put in enough to see it change. I realized that SCLR has a lot to offer and has more good people than not within its membership.


So you re-upped with the club? Good for you. I'm sure it was a tortured decision on your part. Congratulations on your moral and spiritual courage. It takes courage to do the right thing in the face of adversity, and I you're struggling with living life to the fullest and trying to be the best person you can be. I'm sure that you wholly support whatever is in the best interests of the club. Good for you.


discobuddy said:
I truly hope this lays to rest the issue that SCLR supports drinking on the trail. It is actually quite to the contrary.


Lays to rest? That's wishful thinking on your part. This alcohol issue is not going to go away. It's going to haunt the club so long as the club permits drinking on the trails. You guys in the club can pat one another on the backs as much as you like. You can talk all you like about how the club has X number of new members and X number of trail runs and X number of events.

But the reality of the club is quite different. You know it and I know it. Hovik called me and asked Ho and me to re-join the club and said that the older members are not renewing. I can see why. Who in his right mind would want to be a member of a club that condones drinking on the trails? I certainly don't. Who in his right mind wants to be a member of a club where members' input is deleted? I certainly don't. Who in his right mind wants to be a member of a club where directors vote in secret? I certainly don't.

Reasonable people no longer want to be a part of SCLR. You call this refusal "unwilling to step up and make their voice heard". Whatever.
 

Matt Kendrick

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2005
561
4
Garden Grove, CA
budddy, why didn't you post this on the SCLR BBS? i would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of people on this board do not belong to SCLR, why post here?

as i mentioned before, i believe it was because you were sticking up for your friends. now that i just came back from the SCLR BBS and saw no such identical thread, i believe now you're just trying to drum up support and make yourself feel better about the boards decision.

i say you put this over at SCLR and see where it goes, see what the majority of members truly think. appears pretty narrow minded of you to post here and not there.

i would also guess that many of the members who didn't agree with the decision are no longer there, myself included, that being said, the SCLR board is still where this belongs.
 
Last edited:

az_max

1
Apr 22, 2005
7,463
2
Even if you're off-road you can still be cited for a DUI. If you have to call for medical assistance while on the trail or private land and the authorities believe alcohol is a contributing factor to the accident, you can be charged with a DUI. Save the alcohol for around the campfire at night.

This is a private club problem. If you don't want alcohol on the trail, make it part of the rules. Those who don't like it will move on to jeep clubs who like to drink on the trails.
 

skippy3k

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2005
1,483
0
Northern California
discobuddy said:
Rather they have decided to stay behind the keyboard and take pot shots at the club they no longer belong to.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Why should you care what people say if they don't belong to the club? You should only care what your fellow club members say.
 

Durda

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2007
169
0
AZ
Q:
Matt Kendrick said:
budddy, why didn't you post this on the SCLR BBS? i would hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of people on this board do not belong to SCLR, why post here?
A::popcorn: