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.
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.