OSTA Meeting - Delegate Blair mentions CC should put in bid for Grand?

A comment was made by OSTA Delegate Blair (meeting) that the CC should have a bid for the Grand. According to ATA minutes, the Executive Committee voted to renew at Sparta. No word from the Board of Directors.

Could it be Blair is that far out of the loop? Why wouldn’t he know? Is there an issue in Sparta? Who has the explanation for this one?

I report. You decide.
merlo out

 

Merlo
It doesn’t look like the BOD was informed about the decision and that may have been embarrassing to the OSTA Delegate. I would have thought he would be one of the first to know. Or could be there is a problem at Sparta, like anti gun laws.

I hope they stay out of the CC. But that’s just me.

 

Merlo, I think we went thru part of this before. The ATA EC is fully empowered to extend / renew the lease at Sparta without consulting with the BOD. The BOD members can moan but it is not in their hands.

To go a bit further back in history, the CC did make a pitch to the EC to host the GA. The proposal is on file at the ATA office in Sparta. At that time, the shot curtain was up and the proposal was for an opposing line. (The good guys get to face north and the rest get to face south.)

I read the Jan 2024 minutes and it seems to me, as a total outsider, that the OSTA and the CC have somewhat of an adversarial relationship - but that is just my opinion based on reading the minutes of one meeting. Those minutes also indicate the CC Management has no interest in hosting the GA.

 

Earth to Gary….

The BOD has the ultimate say in anything! The EC only has duties that are permitted by the BOD. The EC has day to day responsibilities. All decisions rest on the BOD. That is why there is a word there “Directors”.

 

No you've got it backwards. The EC has the authority to do ALL things on behalf of the ATA, unless specifically prohibited.

ATA Bylaws
Article V – Executive Committee
Section 4: Powers
(a) The Executive Committee Shall have he power to do any and all things on behalf of this Corporation not specifically denied them by the Board of Directors.

 

That’s right….unless specifically denied by the BOD!

The BOD are the final say. They tell the EC what they can or cannot do.

I will spin it another way. The BOD can limit the powers of the EC at any time. The only powers the EC has are the powers granted by the Board of Directors.

The BOD is the Board of Directors. They are the DIRECTORS. They BOD is not a committee. They are the Directors.

I don’t know how else to re-explain a statement a sixth grader could understand. But….very few Delegates even know they make up the Board of Directors.

 

Got it. So that still doesn’t explain why the Delegate would tell the CC to put in a bid 5 months later. Maybe the Ohio Delegate did his job and told the ATA not so fast. I admit it’s a long shot.

 

wow - Deja Vu all over again. in another thread regarding the power of the EC to sign the lease extension or renewal at Sparta, I provided you my direct and documented experience questioning the power of the EC. If you go to the March 2019 EC minutes, line 160, the story is there and it does not agree with or support your POV.

 

Wrong again. The bylaws tell the EC what they can do, and the bylaws says they can do "any and all things on behalf of" the ATA. The BOD can prohibit the EC from doing specific things, but I am not aware of anything the BOD has specifically prohibited.

 

I certainly can’t talk about what you are aware of….

I can’t tell you what the BOD told the EC. But, I will bet you $20 the BOD doesn’t know they control what the EC can do. They know they get a parking space and travel expenses.

 

Do you remember when the EC was giving themselves free guns without the approval from the BOD? The AG from Illinois stepped in and said not so fast. He forced the ATA BOD to vote on the issue. He didn’t tell the EC to vote.

And if you look at the past IRS statements. It says the Gipson bonuses are approved by the BOD whether true or not.

 

Merlo, perhaps you are not considering the actual timeline. The OSTA Meeting was Jan 27, the IDNR lease was done on 1 Feb. As the current IDNR lease was dwindling down, it makes sense to me that some of the other shooting venues might have been seeking an opportunity to host the GA. So at the time of the OSTA meeting, it makes sense to me for Mr. Blair to "ask" if the CC was putting a proposal together to host the GA.

I will add that Mr. Blair did not make a comment, he asked a question of the CC Management. "Michael Blair asked Jake if Cardinal Center would be putting a proposal together for the A.T.A. Grand. His reply was “no - they want all the money and none of the work.”

 

Merlo, you are not considering the actual timeline. The OSTA Meeting was Jan 27, the IDNR lease was done on 1 Feb. As the current IDNR lease was dwindling down, it makes sense to me that some of the other shooting venues might have been seeking an opportunity to host the GA. So at the time of the OSTA meeting, it makes sense to me for Mr. Blair to "ask" if the CC was putting a proposal together to host the GA.

I will add that Mr. Blair did not make a comment, he asked a question of the CC Management. "Michael Blair asked Jake if Cardinal Center would be putting a proposal together for the A.T.A. Grand. His reply was “no - they want all the money and none of the work.”

 

You are incorrect when you are talking about the Presidential Honorarium. The Illinois AG (office) did NOT force the BOD to vote on the issue. That office "suggested" that the ATA By-Laws be amended to provide for the award of the Presidential Gun. As this suggestion involved amending the bylaws it had to be voted on by the BOD. And that is what happened according to the 2016 BOD Minutes. Those minutes say that your story is wrong.

 

Earth to Gary….

Whar are you talking about? Get your facts straight. The lease was voted on in August! It was voted on by the EC. SMH

Below are the minutes of the meeting from August

 

You mean the EC can’t change the By Laws?

That’s because they are only the EC! They are not the Board of Directors! And the “Honorarium” was no more than the freebies handed out by the EC to each other.

 

Butterly, I appreciate the information. Yes, clearly the ATA EC voted their desire to extend the IDNR lease last summer but the IDNR did not agree until Feb 1 of this year. Not many folks would know about the EC vote to extend until the minutes were approved and that happened at the following meeting (December).

past that, perhaps you want to discuss the 2016 BOD minutes and also the 2019 EC minutes.

 

It doesn’t matter when Illinois agreed. Fact is the ATA EC voted to renew in the gun hate state. So, the OP question is unanswered. Why would the OSTA Delegate ask the question when the decision had already been made?

I don’t think he knew.

The EC doesn’t respect the BOD.

 

So, are you aware of any action by the BOD that would prohibit the EC of executing lease agreements on behalf of the ATA? Or, any other actions by the BOD that would preclude the EC from taking any other actions on behalf of the ATA as specified in the bylaws?

 

If the EC actually did this, the by laws clearly state they needed written authorization from the Board of Directors. I don’t see that in the minutes. The by-laws are clear. The BOD has the final say.


My opinion. Anything that keeps these guys out of Ohio is good with me.

I do not see anywhere in the minutes where there is consent given by the BOD. And most of the BOD are as clueless as a few of these posters.

 

Jim/Canton, you are misreading this paragraph. The paragraph is referring to the ATA being able to sell, lease, etc., the assets of the Corporation. So the paragraph is about leasing and selling ATA assets, not the ability to lease from another party.

 

The EC makes day to day decisions in the absences of the Board of Directors. Long term contracts are not everyday decisions. The only authority the EC has is the authority bestowed upon them. They represent the will of the Directors.

 

You are certainly entitled to hold your Point of View. However, the actual bylaws of the ATA do not support your POV. If you go to the March 2019 EC minutes, line 160, there is a story about a complaint I made regarding the Power of the EC. Here is a quote from the March 2019 ATA EC minutes :

"Secretary and In-House Council Galloway sent Mr. Waalkes a letter stating that Article V of the ATA By-Laws states that the Executive Committee has the power to do any and all things on behalf of the ATA not specifically denied them by the Board of Directors."

 

That puts the Board of Directors in charge.

 

That Deputy AG that made the ATA quit giving away free guns to each other could settle the argument. I heard his name was Pasquale. Was Galloway there for that one? And who told the BOD the HOF Museum was owned by the State of Illinois? I am not sure I would trust anyone at the ATA EC meetings. But that’s just my opinion.

 

Union Strong, yes, the BOD is in charge but I don't think exercise the power. In the case of the IDNR Lease - this lease has been extended once before and following that, the BOD should have been aware they could do so again. Knowing the EC could do this again, the BOD could have passed a rule stating they want a majority vote the next time. But they did not take any action and that left the EC free to act on its own (and they did).

Rocketfan, As I stated earlier in this thread, the story about the Illinois AG office making the ATA stop giving the presidential gun is inaccurate. That office reviewed the ATA and "suggested" that the ATA By-Laws be amended to provide for the award of the Presidential Gun. As this suggestion involved amending the bylaws it had to be voted on by the BOD. The BOD voted and passed putting the Presidential Honorarium into the By Laws. And that is what happened according to the 2016 BOD Minutes. I don't understand your statement about the ATA HOF. Although I feel there is an incestuous relationship between the ATA EC and the HOF, on paper, they are separate corporations and as such are under no obligation to discuss HOF Business with the ATA BOD. It would be fun to hear everything that happens at an EC meeting. We only see the results, none of the discussions.

 

Honorarium? I heard Neil Winston paid for his own gun as he knew the free guns were against the bylaws. You want to use the word “suggested”? That’s laughable. Yeah….the AG only suggested it.

You didn’t deny the ATA gave money to the state of Illinois. But, one item not mentioned is it was voted on by the BOD. They did not know the building was owned by Illinois. The EC did not have the authority to give the Illinois money for the HOF.

How many of the guns previously given away were returned?

 

For some reason as noted by the OP the BOD didn’t vote on this lease. Why not? It isn’t even discussed in the minutes.

As per the “free guns” now called “honorarium”, at least the BOD was forced to do their duty. Was there a roll call vote? Did everyone vote to give themselves a free gun?

 

Rocketfan - I only provided the information that was captured in the ATA BOD minutes from 2016 - those minutes use the word suggested. Those minutes are readily available for anyone to read. I also never heard about anyone (or Neil Winston specifically) paying for his Presidential Gun.

On your statement of the ATA giving $$ to the State of Illinois, I would enjoy reading those meeting minutes as I never heard of it. Please provide the month and year this meeting occurred. I am completely unaware of the ATA giving $$ to the state of Illinois for the HOF.

 

Hi butterly, I urge you to write a complaint to the ATA with your concern that the EC overstepped and did not have the power to renew / extend the IDNR Lease and the issue should have been decided by the BOD. I have a dollar that says you will get the same letter (or similar) to the one I got in 2019 when I complained and told them they did not have the power to assess a $1/100 fee on the shooters at the GA and US Open and then fork the money over to the HOF for their debt on the overpriced pole barn they call the HOF Museum.

Going back to the 2016 issue and amending the By Laws to account for awarding the Presidential Gun - all of that information is captured in the 2016 BOD Minutes. The blow by blow discussion is not captured but this is normal in meeting minutes. The vote was a simple show of hands. (At least now they give the #s of yes / no or approve / disapprove.)

 

[QUOTE="Gary W, post:

Going back to the 2016 issue and amending the By Laws to account for awarding the Presidential Gun - all of that information is captured in the 2016 BOD Minutes. The blow by blow discussion is not captured but this is normal in meeting minutes. The vote was a simple show of hands. (At least now they give the #s of yes / no or approve / disapprove.)[/QUOTE]

“A simple show of hands” ? To change the by laws to now legalize the free guns the EC was giving to themselves. Numbers and names matter. A second voted should have been taken to get back the guns. I will give you 5 to 1 odds the vote would have been different if there was a legitimate roll call vote.

BTW. I know some of the folks and attorneys that pursued this. They are all from this forum.

 

“A simple show of hands” ? To change the by laws to now legalize the free guns the EC was giving to themselves. Numbers and names matter. A second voted should have been taken to get back the guns. I will give you 5 to 1 odds the vote would have been different if there was a legitimate roll call vote.

BTW. I know some of the folks and attorneys that pursued this. They are all from this forum.[/QUOTE]

Stat man -I really do not know why you (and others) are getting on me. I have not taken or expressed any opinion on the Presidential Honorarium (Gun). I have only responded to posts that are NOT supported by meeting minutes. Butterly asked questions that he could have easily looked up himself. So I gave him the information that was captured in the 2016 BOD Meeting. It is not my fault if you do not like the information.

When you write that this was pursued by folks and attorneys, how did that go and is there any documentation? 2016 was a long time ago (to me) and I don't have a clue what makes it relevant now. 1099s have been issued since like 2006 and the By Laws were changed in 2016. Was it right before - no. Do I care one way or the other - no. I just want and hope for another season in the sun shooting targets.