Tigers List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>

>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:21:28 -0800
>To: (email redacted)
>From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: Dr. No and C.A.T.
>
>Bruce:
>It is nice to at last hear who was voted in as President and VP of C.A.T.
Congratulations to you and our new prez Dan Walters.
>
>The only problem is that since the by-laws are very specific in stating
that office holders CANNOT be involved in any business regarding the marque.
I am afraid that by going against the by-laws, the club is opening itself up
to a number of disqualificatory points in regards to the club's charter and
tax status.
>
>I agree that when it comes time for "volunteerism", many run for the hills.
But that doesn't make it okay or give license to the club to vote in
disqualified members anyway.
>
>Why not go through the mechanics of getting the by-laws changed so that
well meaning, highly qualified individuals like Mr. Walters and others can
legally hold office and help the club grow?
>
>But what do I know. Thanks to the fact that I have a "hobby" business of
providing requested and needed parts to Tiger owners, I cannot have a voice
in C.A.T. (But thanks to whoever it was who threw MY name into the
nominating hat).
>
>Jeff the Tigerman
>At 12:17 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote:
>>Hello to all. I am gald a few of you were able to get the Dr. No Ser 2 (in
>>diguise as a ser5) Alpine, I need to get a couple more and repaint to my
>>colour.
>>Now onto CAT.
>>Yes, Dan Walters was elected to President to the club and Jeff Cushing was
>>also nominated for the position. I have heard of the reason for the by-law,
>>but I really can't recall why, it was before I was in the club. We get 10 - 20
>>people at meetings
>>and no one wants to be in the leadership, why? Those that show up have a good
>>time BSing and the like. I hope that those with concerns would show up to
>>voice them so we can iron out these potential problems instead of just airing
>>them out in cyberspace. I hope I did not offend anyone, that is not my bag, I
>>want to have a better club so we can continue keeping or Marque on the road.
>>thanks for listening.
>>Bruce Davis VP- C.A.T.
>>
>>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bob Palmer <(email redacted)>

Jeff, Bruce, et Listers,

They say those who forget history are destined to repeat it. So it may go
with the history behind the CAT bylaws regarding conflict-of-interest for
officers. I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger restoration
business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the almost universal
dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn reflected badly on CAT. Now
we all know that Dan is a true gentleman in every sense of the word and
there has never been, to my knowledge, any complaints regarding his work,
the money he charges, the promptness of his delivery, etc. However, once
the bylaws are changed, the door is again open for another Barry Greenberg
to pollute the same pool we all swim in. At the very least, I think this
issue needs some reasoned discussion. This particular by-law was written as
a result of a lesson painfully learned and to protect CAT from similar
problems in the future.

I understand that when Steve Alacala was president, he resigned his
position to allow him to work on Dick Barker's Le Mans Coupe. Perhaps Dan
has agreed not to work on Tigers for the duration of his term, I don't
know. However, to just ignore the by-laws in this regard would seem reckless.

Bob


At 11:22 AM 12/7/98 -0800, tiger technologies wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:21:28 -0800
>>To: (email redacted)
>>From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>
>>Subject: Re: Dr. No and C.A.T.
>>
>>Bruce:
>>It is nice to at last hear who was voted in as President and VP of C.A.T.
>Congratulations to you and our new prez Dan Walters.
>>
>>The only problem is that since the by-laws are very specific in stating
>that office holders CANNOT be involved in any business regarding the marque.
>I am afraid that by going against the by-laws, the club is opening itself up
>to a number of disqualificatory points in regards to the club's charter and
>tax status.
>>
>>I agree that when it comes time for "volunteerism", many run for the hills.
>But that doesn't make it okay or give license to the club to vote in
>disqualified members anyway.
>>
>>Why not go through the mechanics of getting the by-laws changed so that
>well meaning, highly qualified individuals like Mr. Walters and others can
>legally hold office and help the club grow?
>>
>>But what do I know. Thanks to the fact that I have a "hobby" business of
>providing requested and needed parts to Tiger owners, I cannot have a voice
>in C.A.T. (But thanks to whoever it was who threw MY name into the
>nominating hat).
>>
>>Jeff the Tigerman
>>At 12:17 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote:
>>>Hello to all. I am gald a few of you were able to get the Dr. No Ser 2 (in
>>>diguise as a ser5) Alpine, I need to get a couple more and repaint to my
>>>colour.
>>>Now onto CAT.
>>>Yes, Dan Walters was elected to President to the club and Jeff Cushing was
>>>also nominated for the position. I have heard of the reason for the by-law,
>>>but I really can't recall why, it was before I was in the club. We get
10 - 20
>>>people at meetings
>>>and no one wants to be in the leadership, why? Those that show up have a
good
>>>time BSing and the like. I hope that those with concerns would show up to
>>>voice them so we can iron out these potential problems instead of just
airing
>>>them out in cyberspace. I hope I did not offend anyone, that is not my
bag, I
>>>want to have a better club so we can continue keeping or Marque on the
road.
>>>thanks for listening.
>>>Bruce Davis VP- C.A.T.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
(email redacted)
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>

>Return-Path: <(email redacted)>
>X-Sender: (email redacted)
>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:36:57 -0800
>To: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>, (email redacted)
>From: Bob Palmer <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: elections
>
>Jeff, Bruce, et Listers,
>
>They say those who forget history are destined to repeat it. So it may go
>with the history behind the CAT bylaws regarding conflict-of-interest for
>officers. I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
>vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
>experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
>leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger restoration
>business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the almost universal
>dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn reflected badly on CAT. Now
>we all know that Dan is a true gentleman in every sense of the word and
>there has never been, to my knowledge, any complaints regarding his work,
>the money he charges, the promptness of his delivery, etc. However, once
>the bylaws are changed, the door is again open for another Barry Greenberg
>to pollute the same pool we all swim in. At the very least, I think this
>issue needs some reasoned discussion. This particular by-law was written as
>a result of a lesson painfully learned and to protect CAT from similar
>problems in the future.
>
>I understand that when Steve Alacala was president, he resigned his
>position to allow him to work on Dick Barker's Le Mans Coupe. Perhaps Dan
>has agreed not to work on Tigers for the duration of his term, I don't
>know. However, to just ignore the by-laws in this regard would seem reckless.
>
>Bob
>
>
>At 11:22 AM 12/7/98 -0800, tiger technologies wrote:
>>>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:21:28 -0800
>>>To: (email redacted)
>>>From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>
>>>Subject: Re: Dr. No and C.A.T.
>>>
>>>Bruce:
>>>It is nice to at last hear who was voted in as President and VP of C.A.T.
>>Congratulations to you and our new prez Dan Walters.
>>>
>>>The only problem is that since the by-laws are very specific in stating
>>that office holders CANNOT be involved in any business regarding the marque.
>>I am afraid that by going against the by-laws, the club is opening itself up
>>to a number of disqualificatory points in regards to the club's charter and
>>tax status.
>>>
>>>I agree that when it comes time for "volunteerism", many run for the hills.
>>But that doesn't make it okay or give license to the club to vote in
>>disqualified members anyway.
>>>
>>>Why not go through the mechanics of getting the by-laws changed so that
>>well meaning, highly qualified individuals like Mr. Walters and others can
>>legally hold office and help the club grow?
>>>
>>>But what do I know. Thanks to the fact that I have a "hobby" business of
>>providing requested and needed parts to Tiger owners, I cannot have a voice
>>in C.A.T. (But thanks to whoever it was who threw MY name into the
>>nominating hat).
>>>
>>>Jeff the Tigerman
>>>At 12:17 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote:
>>>>Hello to all. I am gald a few of you were able to get the Dr. No Ser 2 (in
>>>>diguise as a ser5) Alpine, I need to get a couple more and repaint to my
>>>>colour.
>>>>Now onto CAT.
>>>>Yes, Dan Walters was elected to President to the club and Jeff Cushing was
>>>>also nominated for the position. I have heard of the reason for the by-law,
>>>>but I really can't recall why, it was before I was in the club. We get
>10 - 20
>>>>people at meetings
>>>>and no one wants to be in the leadership, why? Those that show up have a
>good
>>>>time BSing and the like. I hope that those with concerns would show up to
>>>>voice them so we can iron out these potential problems instead of just
>airing
>>>>them out in cyberspace. I hope I did not offend anyone, that is not my
>bag, I
>>>>want to have a better club so we can continue keeping or Marque on the
>road.
>>>>thanks for listening.
>>>>Bruce Davis VP- C.A.T.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Robert L. Palmer
>Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
>(email redacted)
>(email redacted)
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>

>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:54:44 -0800
>To: Bob Palmer <(email redacted)>
>From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: elections
>
>Bob:
>I couldn't have said it better. One point, however, that I made was that
not only is the election of officers reckless, but it is illegal as per the
by-laws of C.A.T. And Mr. Alcala's abdication from his prez duties was in
name only. He did and has worked on Tigers and Alpines during his tenure.
And I think it's fine. So let's make it legal. The process is simple and the
results will be a better club for all.
>Jeff/TT
>At 12:36 PM 12/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>Jeff, Bruce, et Listers,
>>
>>They say those who forget history are destined to repeat it. So it may go
>>with the history behind the CAT bylaws regarding conflict-of-interest for
>>officers. I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
>>vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
>>experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
>>leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger restoration
>>business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the almost universal
>>dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn reflected badly on CAT. Now
>>we all know that Dan is a true gentleman in every sense of the word and
>>there has never been, to my knowledge, any complaints regarding his work,
>>the money he charges, the promptness of his delivery, etc. However, once
>>the bylaws are changed, the door is again open for another Barry Greenberg
>>to pollute the same pool we all swim in. At the very least, I think this
>>issue needs some reasoned discussion. This particular by-law was written as
>>a result of a lesson painfully learned and to protect CAT from similar
>>problems in the future.
>>
>>I understand that when Steve Alacala was president, he resigned his
>>position to allow him to work on Dick Barker's Le Mans Coupe. Perhaps Dan
>>has agreed not to work on Tigers for the duration of his term, I don't
>>know. However, to just ignore the by-laws in this regard would seem reckless.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>At 11:22 AM 12/7/98 -0800, tiger technologies wrote:
>>>>Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:21:28 -0800
>>>>To: (email redacted)
>>>>From: tiger technologies <(email redacted)>
>>>>Subject: Re: Dr. No and C.A.T.
>>>>
>>>>Bruce:
>>>>It is nice to at last hear who was voted in as President and VP of C.A.T.
>>>Congratulations to you and our new prez Dan Walters.
>>>>
>>>>The only problem is that since the by-laws are very specific in stating
>>>that office holders CANNOT be involved in any business regarding the marque.
>>>I am afraid that by going against the by-laws, the club is opening itself up
>>>to a number of disqualificatory points in regards to the club's charter and
>>>tax status.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that when it comes time for "volunteerism", many run for the hills.
>>>But that doesn't make it okay or give license to the club to vote in
>>>disqualified members anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Why not go through the mechanics of getting the by-laws changed so that
>>>well meaning, highly qualified individuals like Mr. Walters and others can
>>>legally hold office and help the club grow?
>>>>
>>>>But what do I know. Thanks to the fact that I have a "hobby" business of
>>>providing requested and needed parts to Tiger owners, I cannot have a voice
>>>in C.A.T. (But thanks to whoever it was who threw MY name into the
>>>nominating hat).
>>>>
>>>>Jeff the Tigerman
>>>>At 12:17 PM 12/7/98 EST, you wrote:
>>>>>Hello to all. I am gald a few of you were able to get the Dr. No Ser 2 (in
>>>>>diguise as a ser5) Alpine, I need to get a couple more and repaint to my
>>>>>colour.
>>>>>Now onto CAT.
>>>>>Yes, Dan Walters was elected to President to the club and Jeff Cushing was
>>>>>also nominated for the position. I have heard of the reason for the by-law,
>>>>>but I really can't recall why, it was before I was in the club. We get
>>10 - 20
>>>>>people at meetings
>>>>>and no one wants to be in the leadership, why? Those that show up have a
>>good
>>>>>time BSing and the like. I hope that those with concerns would show up to
>>>>>voice them so we can iron out these potential problems instead of just
>>airing
>>>>>them out in cyberspace. I hope I did not offend anyone, that is not my
>>bag, I
>>>>>want to have a better club so we can continue keeping or Marque on the
>>road.
>>>>>thanks for listening.
>>>>>Bruce Davis VP- C.A.T.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>Robert L. Palmer
>>Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
>>(email redacted)
>>(email redacted)
>>
>>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ramon Spontelli <(email redacted)>

> I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
> vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
> experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
> leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger
> restoration business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the
> almost universal dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn
> reflected badly on CAT.

That is exactly what you are supposed to believe, Bob. That's the pile
they fed us when they adopted the "conflict of interest" clause. In
reality, it was not needed then, as it is not needed now.

ARTICLE III -- DIRECORS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Director may resign, or may be removed with or without cause, by a vote
of the Board of Directors at any time . . .

ARTICLE IV -- OFFICERS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Officer may resign, or may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
the Board of Directors at any time . . .

The C.A.T Board of Directors could have removed Barry Greenberg "with or
without cause" and "at any time." That's the way it was then, and
that's the way it is now. The conflict of interest clause was
completely unnecessary, and it was implemented for reasons that were
unrelated to Mr. Greenberg, his restoration business, and his
association with C.A.T., which had ended long before the
conflict-of-interest-clause scam.

Ramon

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bob Palmer <(email redacted)>

Ramon, et Listers,

You may know much better than I what was in the minds and hearts of those
who adopted the "conflict of interest" by-law Ramon. However, I have been
witness to several people who sadly fell under Barry's spell, which was
aided in no small measure by the mantle of respectability that his position
in CAT bestowed. While all who knew him would probably agree that Barry was
"one of a kind", on the other hand I find it hard to believe that anyone
involved with Tigers as their livelihood would NOT be in a serious conflict
of interest situation as an officer of CAT. Certainly in particular with
respect to CAT's major involvement in replacement Tiger parts as well as
various policy decisions, it's hard to imagine anyone not putting their own
economic self interests above those of the CAT membership. Moreover, I feel
the problem is aggravated by the apathy that apparently exists among the
CAT membership in the L.A. area. A combination of apathy and greed would
seem a sure recipe for major mischief. I would hope there would be some way
for the CAT organization to benefit from the participation of those like
Steve and Dan and even draw in some of the other LA "Pros" like Dale A.
without having to hand over the reigns. Sort of like having a civilian in
charge of the armed forces you know. Kinda keeps things from going over the
top.

Bob



At 07:59 PM 12/7/98 -0800, Ramon Spontelli wrote:
>> I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
>> vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
>> experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
>> leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger
>> restoration business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the
>> almost universal dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn
>> reflected badly on CAT.
>
>That is exactly what you are supposed to believe, Bob. That's the pile
>they fed us when they adopted the "conflict of interest" clause. In
>reality, it was not needed then, as it is not needed now.
>
>ARTICLE III -- DIRECORS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
>Director may resign, or may be removed with or without cause, by a vote
>of the Board of Directors at any time . . .
>
>ARTICLE IV -- OFFICERS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
>Officer may resign, or may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
>the Board of Directors at any time . . .
>
>The C.A.T Board of Directors could have removed Barry Greenberg "with or
>without cause" and "at any time." That's the way it was then, and
>that's the way it is now. The conflict of interest clause was
>completely unnecessary, and it was implemented for reasons that were
>unrelated to Mr. Greenberg, his restoration business, and his
>association with C.A.T., which had ended long before the
>conflict-of-interest-clause scam.
>
>Ramon
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
(email redacted)
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Ramon Spontelli <(email redacted)>

> I find it hard to believe that anyone
> involved with Tigers as their livelihood would NOT be in a serious conflict
> of interest situation as an officer of CAT. Certainly in particular with
> respect to CAT's major involvement in replacement Tiger parts as well as
> various policy decisions, it's hard to imagine anyone not putting their own
> economic self interests above those of the CAT membership. Moreover, I feel
> the problem is aggravated by the apathy that apparently exists among the
> CAT membership in the L.A. area. A combination of apathy and greed would
> seem a sure recipe for major mischief. I would hope there would be some way
> for the CAT organization to benefit from the participation of those like
> Steve and Dan and even draw in some of the other LA "Pros" like Dale A.
> without having to hand over the reigns. Sort of like having a civilian in
> charge of the armed forces you know. Kinda keeps things from going over the
> top.

Exactly, Bob, which part of "may be removed, with or without cause" is
it that you don't understand? Or maybe it was the "at any time" that's
confusing?

Explain to me, please, why it is that if the Board of Directors can give
any officer or director the boot, at any time, with or without cause, we
need to have a conflict-of-interest clause?

And besides, they drafted the thing so poorly, that it does not prevent
anyone from running or being elected. According to the way they did it,
the Board of Directors still has to boot the person out.

Ramon

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Karen L Foster <(email redacted)>

Ramon -

Thanks for clearing up the muddy waters. Ed and I definately remember the
scam that created the "conflict of interest" clause, and as you said
implemented long after Mr. Greenbergs association with C.A.T.

Karen





(email redacted) on 12/07/98 06:53:00 PM
To: (email redacted)@Internet
cc: (email redacted)@Internet,
(email redacted)@Internet (bcc: Karen L Foster/West/Aerospace/US)
Subject: Re: elections

> I believe the by-law regarding running a Tiger related business
> vis-a-vis holding an office in CAT goes back to a very unfortunate
> experience with a gentleman by the name of Barry Greenberg (sp?) who
> leveraged his position as president of CAT to promote his Tiger
> restoration business. This conflict of interest was aggravated by the
> almost universal dissatisfaction of his customers, which in turn
> reflected badly on CAT.

That is exactly what you are supposed to believe, Bob. That's the pile
they fed us when they adopted the "conflict of interest" clause. In
reality, it was not needed then, as it is not needed now.

ARTICLE III -- DIRECORS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Director may resign, or may be removed with or without cause, by a vote
of the Board of Directors at any time . . .

ARTICLE IV -- OFFICERS, Section 3. REMOVAL AND RESIGNATION. Any
Officer may resign, or may be removed with or without cause by a vote of
the Board of Directors at any time . . .

The C.A.T Board of Directors could have removed Barry Greenberg "with or
without cause" and "at any time." That's the way it was then, and
that's the way it is now. The conflict of interest clause was
completely unnecessary, and it was implemented for reasons that were
unrelated to Mr. Greenberg, his restoration business, and his
association with C.A.T., which had ended long before the
conflict-of-interest-clause scam.

Ramon