Proposed Changes in By-Laws

[Norwood]

I would like some discussion or maybe a few answers to the proposed change in By-Laws....

Membership:
The following criteria will be met for consideration for membership:

1. Ownership of BMW motorcycle.

Question: How many present members will we lose if this is passed?

6. Membership may be continued at no annual charge after a member (principal or secondary) in continuous good standing for the past ten (10) years has obtained the age of 75. In such case, ownership of a BMW motorcycle is not mandatory and the member is entitled to have one vote in club decisions.

Question: Are any of members life long members or charter members that may no longer own or able to ride a motorcycle under the age of 75?

[Vance]

Hi Norwood...let me answer and maybe try to explain the implications as I understand them. I think it is likely there are many others that might not understand fully the implications of the upcoming vote.

First not sure how many people we would lose on this as regular members but passage of this amendment will discontinue the Friends of Beemers program. There are a number of people that would effect immediately. I do not believe this should happen.

What if we made an exception to "grandfather" in those currently enrolled as Friends of Beemers? The current amendment #1 as it is written makes no provision for this. Unless the amendment is to be re-written, passage would end the program and all those currently in it. And even if we did Grandfather the current FOB's in I cannot see the difference in those that are FOB's now and those that would be eligible as FOB's in the future.

Second Question...I do not know the answer to this either but I think the point you make may in fact affect some current members.

Beyond your two questions, I have reservations...real reservations about the passage of amendment #1 and here's why...

Make no mistake folks this is a very important meeting. For those who read this but will not be in attendance it is important…very important for you to take the time to vote.

As written in the latest newsletter there are two proposed amendments to the club by-laws that will be voted upon at Montevallo meeting in a couple weeks. Those members that are not regular meeting attendees may or may not realize the importance and implications of these amendments primarily Amendment #1.

Clearly, I believe the incidents that prompted this to be put forth were real and should be dealt with but it is not necessary to change the club by-laws to effectively deal with it.

Further, as an active member and the only candidate at this point for President, I feel it is only reasonable that the membership know my position on these amendments.

In my opinion the club should be a place where members and their guests as well as prospective members should feel welcomed. I do not feel that the wording of Amendment #1 if passed will project this image and only serves to project the “if you are not one of us, you are not welcomed here” attitude that we already face as owners of the “premium” brand of motorcycle.

I want all persons to feel welcome at our meetings, rally and events. I would hope that our members would be accepting of other riders and marques and work with me to show them how we as BMW riders do it… from gear to riding in groups or whatever. Not that we are necessarily better than anyone else…but rather that we choose to approach our sport differently from most typical riders outside our BMW community.

It is my belief that if we work to close the loop tighter on our membership requirements that we will face serious problems going forward. Let’s face it folks, we are getting older and we are not adding “younger” members or many members of any age to the club roles. So what you may ask? Well, that can only mean that the momentum of the club will grow slower and slower as we go forward. Not adding members means negative growth. The MOA and the RA certainly recognize this fact and are working feverously to grow their membership roles with a heavy emphasis on younger riders. BMW as a company recognizes this as well and therefore has introduced models that appeal to the younger crowd in recent years. We are talking about survival going forward!

Remember, BMW has a very small piece of the American motorcycle pie. That means our group could only be so big anyway. Let me be perfectly clear…I do not want this club to become a cruiser group, or just an “eatin” group. Rather, I want it to grow and become more active. That means more active with opportunities for all members to enjoy their motorcycles and the camaraderie of fellow club members…and most of all ride!

The club can achieve these goals through holding more events other than just the monthly meetings we are currently accustomed to. Rides and small events held around the state and region that provide chances for more of our members to attend and therefore become more active. I would like to see the club be more involved in innovative and fun events designed to support worthy charities and have a higher public profile. There is a lot more we can do to have fun, serve our community and ride. Isn’t that what we all want…more riding time?

The bottom line is if we do the same old thing…or less…we will get the same old thing…and less. This club is a great group of folks with a common interest in BMW motorcycles. We have an envied position nationally with both of our charter affiliates the BMW MOA and BMW RA. Now is not the time to limit membership or participation but in fact now is the time to expand it!

Again, let me be clear. I care about the club…deeply. I care about my friendship and association with each and every member of this club. I will work to make the club better and with the help of all the officers on the incoming slate we can make it better!

I ask all of you to consider the Amendments and consider their real impact on the club going forward. Changing the by-laws of an organization is serious and should be taken that way. As for me, I am ready to move forward and build the club into and even greater club than we and our founders ever imagined.

My sincere belief is that the amendment #1 has far reaching effects that are not in the best interest of building the club as mentioned above so I will vote no on it.

Amendment #2 is a good idea to give ample time to consider any future change proposals. I will vote yes on this amendment.

Please understand the reason for this entirety of this post is to explain my position and the reasons for that position. I am not one to promote controversy but in fact prefer to promote harmony in the family. I realize that some will disagree with my beliefs and position on this issue and that is OK too. My sincere desire is to see this club move forward and not backward and I believe the above stated position supports that desire.

Most of all we need you to vote. Understand the details and vote. I understand if you cannot make the meeting in Montevallo. But you can make your vote count by sending your vote via email to president@bmwmoal.org and Ron will bring them to the meeting.

Thanks for caring about your club and your support. I am looking forward to a great 2010 for us!

[Norwood]

Thanks Vance.

While I am limited with my personal knowledge of all the membership and the brand of bikes they own, the vast majority of the membership do own the BMW motorcycle that would be required for membership should #1 amendment pass. Having said that, I scanned the membership booklet and I see several present members ...that I do know ...that do not own the required BMW bike. Many of these have been members longer than my 10 years or so.

While I wouldn't dare begin to guess ages...I think we would have a few to fall within the 75 years and younger that do not presently own a bike of any kind, but have been members for 10 years or longer...therefore under the amendment they would be out as well.

I would like to borrow a saying from a BMW group that I was associated with for several years...the group started as a K1200LT group, then as the GT and GS came on...many switched to those and other BMW bikes but the friendship remained....therefore someone once said "It was the bike that brought us together....but the friendships will keep us together." I believe the same can be said about our club.

As written, I would have to vote NO on Amendment One. I just feel that some of those folks have been member longer than I and I wouldn't want to be placed in their situation, muchless having to be the one to tell them good-bye.

[Wrong Way]

I agree with what both of you have said. I still own 3 BMW's but my primary ride is now a Harley and I like it very much. I will vote "NO" on both amendments. I think it makes more sense to provide for "some" non BMW riders. I also agree that BMW motorcycles and their owners should always control the club. I propose that the By Laws provide for no more than 20% of the membership can own non BMW motorcycles as their only owned motorcycle. These members should pay full dues and have full voting rights, but can't become an officer of the club.

Just my 2 cents.

[Gail]

I am in favor of the proposed amendments. I think they will make a clear and concise improvement in the operation and the future of our club. Simply stated, they mean you must own a BMW Motorcycle to be a member. Anyone who wishes to attend our functions would be more than welcome as a guest of a club member.
This IS a BMW Club and why would it be out of the ordinary to expect the members to own a BMW motorcycle? This club has prospered for many years because of this "exclusiveness", NOT IN SPITE OF IT.
On the subject of Friends of Beemers, I was told that the proposed changes would allow for the current FOB's to be GRANDFATHERED IN... NOT REMOVED.This was not clear in the newsletter.
For these reasons, I will be voting "yes" for both proposals. Gail Thorne

[Norwood]

I was told that the proposed changes would allow for the current FOB's to be GRANDFATHERED IN... NOT REMOVED.This was not clear in the newsletter.

The grandfather clause should be a part of the amendment and so stated that the Friends of Beemers will be "grandfathered in" as members.

As written, I would have to vote NO on Amendment One.

Therefore the reason for a no vote.

[Gator]

I know that Wanda and I have not been members for nearly as long as many of you have and I do not wish to ruffle any feathers but I wholeheartedly agree with Vance and Don on their positions on the proposed amendments. I think that we should try to promote growth and keep the club moving forward. We should promote comraderie without regard to what you ride. I feel that any situations that may arise from members or their guests on a ride or other event can and should be dealt with on a case by case basis and we should not punish good members based on a few isolated instances. I plan on voting No on #1 and yes on #2. I do have one question on amemdment #1. The proposed amendment states that membership dues are $3.00 per year for an additional secondary member within the same household NEW (family member and/or companion who is a rider/owner). Does this mean that a family member must also own or drive a BMW motorcycle or can they still be a member if they just ride as a passenger on a member's bike? This will not influence how I vote but just curious.

Gator

[RonR1200ST]

Here are some answers as I understand them.

6. Membership may be continued at no annual charge after a member (principal or secondary) in continuous good standing for the past ten (10) years has obtained the age of 75. In such case, ownership of a BMW motorcycle is not mandatory and the member is entitled to have one vote in club decisions.

Question: Are any of members life long members or charter members that may no longer own or able to ride a motorcycle under the age of 75?

The provision doesn’t change with the proposed amendment. Although there may be an unintended consequence.
Today, if a current member no longer owns a BMW they have the option of becoming a “Friend of Beemer” member.
If the proposed amendment passes, the membership terminates after 6 months of not owning a BMW.
We probably have some members who should be FOB’s right now, I’d guess we’re not aware of their current BMW ownership situation. So this may have some affect in the future.

On the subject of Friends of Beemers, I was told that the proposed changes would allow for the current FOB's to be GRANDFATHERED IN... NOT REMOVED.This was not clear in the newsletter.

The amendment was entered as written. There is no Grandfathering wording. I’m sure this will be a topic of discussion now and at the meeting before the vote.

I do have one question on amendment #1. The proposed amendment states that membership dues are $3.00 per year for an additional secondary member within the same household NEW (family member and/or companion who is a rider/owner). Does this mean that a family member must also own or drive a BMW motorcycle or can they still be a member if they just ride as a passenger on a member's bike?

It will be the same as today except companion is added.

Bottom line…I don’t support this proposed membership amendment. Should we make any changes to solve member concerns, probably so. Is this amendment the way to do it…not in my opinion.

As I read the BMWMOA, BMWRA, and many other club’s membership requirements it’s clear that they make room for interested riders of other makes just as we have. Passing this amendment goes way too far the other direction. I’m very concerned about the possible unintended consequences in the future.

I’d really like to see us reach a happy medium that might solve the concerns many have without going overboard.
I’m convinced that everyone has the best interests of the club at heart. Whatever you do vote at the meeting or send to me at president@bmwmoal.org
I’m looking forward to our club getting focused on other issues. Thanks, Ron

[Wrong Way]

Ron, I couldn't agree more. Some of the FOB's that are being considered as "Grand Fathered" have been in this club a long time and done a lot of work for the club. To charge them full dues and not let them vote isn't right. I personally think the hole FOB thing should go away. Pass By Laws that allow a certain percentage of non BMW's. Then every year have them report what they ride and the officers of the club do what is necessary. I'm betting if you set that number at 20% you will never see it get there. These By Law amendments are addressing a problem that doesn't exist, or can be handled differently.

There you go! Now I'm up to 4 cents.

[jdubeemer]

The way I see it.

THE NAME OF THIS CLUB IS "BMW MOTORCYCLE OWNERS OF ALABAMA". I DON'T SEE WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT. IF I HAD NEVER PURCHACED A BMW I WOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED BEING A MEMBER. I HAVE INVITED FRIENDS AND MY BROTHER TO COME TO CLUB FUNCTIONS AND THEY HAD A GOOD TIME AND WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT HURTING SOMEONE'S FEELINGS IF THEY DON'T RIDE A BMW. I TELL MY FRIENDS THAT THEY ARE MISSING A LOT BY RIDING THE CRAP THAT THEY RIDE. MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS A BMW MOTORCYCLE CLUB OR A POLITICALLY CORRECT SCHMOOZY GET TOGETHER.

[johnhvbmw]

proposed changes in By-Laws

Hi folks this is my first ever post on this website. I have noted very passionet view points in the proposed changes in the club By-Laws.
In 1971 before this club was founded or the BMWOA the predicessor of both the BMW MOA and the BMW RA, I attended two Rallies one at the Four Winds in Eastern Penna., the other in Dan Deigo Calif. I was much impressed, I noted that the Rallies and club meets were for BMWs only. When I returned to Anniston I set out to start the BMW club of Anniston, I met no inthusiasum but having a BMW dealer here from 1952 to the mid 1980s there were plenty of BMWs in the area, I could generate no interest at first. I contacted 10 BMW riders and offered to pay each ones $ 2.50 per dues if they would give me the needed 10 members, they all said no they would pay and join we met at my home got the 10 names, submitted the application and became chater number 5. I said we need a ele,ction, they said no your it. So I became the President and monthly newsletter editor. So there were no founders just a founder the rest were considered Charter members. Not trying to set my self on a pedistal, just stating the facts. I talked with the few clubs that existed at that time all required BMW motorcycle ownership, nothing else and the rallies were for BMWs only so I proposed and the members excepted, that by law, as by law # 1. If you think BMW is a small segment of the motorcycle population go back 39 years. I doubt there are many members today that knew what a BMW was back in those years, this was before the yuppies descovered the BMW 320I in 1979. I remember because I drove 2002s then and still do today only. The bikes in popularity back then were Hondas, Yamahas and Kawsakis, HDs were troublesome and undependable, I know I owned 4 during this time. BMWs were looked down on as ugly ungainly bikes that were 98% black. So we were quite proud to set our self apart, not better but apart. In 1986 I went through a nasty divorce as they all must be and had to sell my 12 vintage BMW bikes and my Munich purchased R 90S. I dropped out of the club untill I could purchase one about 6 years later, rules were rules.
So the heat can be put on me for that by-law, I liked it then and I still do today.
I hope this does not cause a rip in this club as it did in the Houston BMW Club. Iam not disturbed by the others opinions and will abide by the majority rule. That is what is great about this country we are free to decide for ourselves. Forgive my spelling I dont know how to do the spellcheck on this website.

Looking forward to seeeing you ALL at the upcoming meet.

GOD bless all.

John Harper

[Vance]

Hi John thanks for your input and explanation. This issue has struck a very prickly nerve indeed. For me and I suspect the others that have voiced their opposition to Amendment #1 the real issue is the wording of the Amendment itself and what would be required to enforce the way it is written going forward.

First and foremost everyone should note that Paragraph #1 currently states that ownership of a BMW motorcycle is required for membership. The Proposed Amendment #1 makes no change to this paragraph. And in fact I believe that ownership of a BMW motorcycle should be required.

Now comes the “Friends of Beemers” option that currently provides for a “secondary” level of membership. This level of membership has been available for as long as I have been a member of the club. I joined in 2001. It is true that since this was in place when I became a member I do not know the origin of this membership option. However I imagine that this was established to allow a member or members in good standing that for whatever reason no longer owned a BMW to remain a “member” of the group. Or provide a way for people that are willing to give their time and promote the club to be a part of it.

The proposed Amendment #1 as it is written abolishes the Friends of Beemers program entirely. This is one place that I have trouble with it. Namely as Norwood pointed out the amendment as it is written may in fact void the memberships of some current members, I don’t know. In addition this would definitely void the membership of all the current Friends of Beemers and I personally do not want to see that happen. The talk of Grandfathering in all current Friends of Beemers does not seem reasonable to me.

The proposed amendment also requires the completion of a liability waiver for guest participants in club activities. Currently there is no such document in existence that I know of. Could we get one? Sure we could. My questions about this are:

Who are we protecting with such a document? The club is not incorporated and therefore is not an entity and therefore has no liability that I know of. Members and guests alike participate at their own risk.

So we are proposing to make a rule that requires the execution of a document that does not exist and that the club members themselves have never signed? This does not sound reasonable to me..sorry.

Next, who would be in charge of “Policing” these new rules?

Who is going to tell the members affected by these changes goodbye?

I believe that we are proposing major changes to the basic foundation of the club…a club that has functioned really really well all these years.

There have been some issues no doubt. Issues that need to be addressed. But there is no need to try and kill a fly with a whole box of dynamite. As I said above changing long standing by-laws is a serious thing. By-laws are just that…laws of the organization that must be adhered to by all members. If we have rules, we have to enforce them. Ours is a group that has grown quite large and since there is no “Administrative Personnel” I don’t think we should create a monster that requires enforcement especially since… we have no enforcement.

Further I believe that there will members be unintentionally affected by this change that have devoted many hours of service to this club. I do not want to be a club that tells them they got to go…nor do I want to be a club that makes exceptions for some and not for others in the future. If we have by-laws we should abide by them…I believe we are.

As Ron pointed out and in my opinion this issue has stopped the forward momentum of the club in the past six months. I would like to see it settled and for us to focus our attention on the real business of the club…and maybe a little riding too!

[Wrong Way]

This is my last comment on the matter.

There are people that belong to this club because of the people, and the way they conduct themselves. They aren't into the Tavern to Tavern mentality of some of the other folks who ride bikes.

I moved to Atlanta in 1989 and lived there until I retired in 2007. They had a BMW club that was founded like ours in the early 70's. They had never gone to the trouble of generating By Laws. The President at the time was a Harley Rider that had been attracted to the club for the reasons stated above. He literally begged me to run for President. I agreed if they would become more formal about their organization. We set about forming By Laws and forming an executive committee to make the decisions for the club. We started the GMR in in 2 years grew our membership from 30 to over 300. Our By Laws read that 80 % of the Club must ride or own a BMW motorcycle. The reasoning was if they didn't own one now they would in the near future. I was President of that club 5 different times in the 17 years I lived there. When I wasn't, I was on there Executive Committee and was serving in another capacity. Those By Laws served us very well over the years. And I dare say most of those non BMW riders did buy BMW's. But with that said, Atlanta has very good BMW dealer support and this club doesn't. Some people in South Alabama have drifted away from BMW because of the lack of dealer support. And that in my opinion is the only reason. I agree with Vance, if you stick to the BMW motorcycle only membership clause in your By Laws, it "may" lead to the slow decline of this club.

[jdubeemer]

What Tim is saying is that we should eliminate FOB membership and just not make motorcycle brand ownership a prerequisite for membership. We already do not have to prove ownership to renew and, as I see it, I have never had to prove BMW ownership to the MOA. Just send in the dues. But that does not address what started all this in the first place which was a bunch at a meeting that didn't ride like us and fouled up a scenic ride. I'm not trying to open a new can of worms here but to show how futile this whole discussion has become. John put it best, let the majority rule. I will still be a member..I am coming to the meeting prepared for what ever the outcome is. See attached photo.

http://picasaweb.google.com/jdubick/2010_01_15?authkey=Gv1sRgCKGkg5LggJmb8wE

[Vance]

[QUOTE=jdubeemer;6568] We already do not have to prove ownership to renew and, as I see it, I have never had to prove BMW ownership to the MOA. Just send in the dues.

But that does not address what started all this in the first place which was a bunch at a meeting that didn't ride like us and fouled up a scenic ride.


Jim, you are right indeed. I too believe this whole issue has arisen from the incident you mentioned. I wasn't there but I certainly heard about it. As referenced this issue and others like it in the future should be dealt with. The story as I heard it...well I certainly didn't think the actions of those guests were appropriate either. But to rearrange the by-laws (laws) of the club to try to keep that from happening in the future all the while creating ill will and work on someone to make sure that the membership abides by those laws seems like overkill.
The basic premise of the amendment I understand and I do not disagree with. I just don't think this is the way to go about it.

But as Tim put it...this is my last comment on this matter too. I too am prepared to come to the meeting and let the majority rule by their vote.