|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2007 16:10:36 GMT -6
Diane,
I've only just spotted this thread. Please let me echo all of the other supportive messages on the preceeding 4 pages. I find it hard to believe that the LBHA board could show so little consideration for your efforts or foresight for the long term future of the association.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Aug 3, 2007 12:31:01 GMT -6
Diane - you and Chuck have thoroughly earned the support and affection I read in this thread. You also have our respect and admiration for the way in which you have made the study of the 1876 Sioux Campaign not just interesting and lively but also fun. As I have conveyed to you elsewhere, for me, YOU have been the LBHA since 2003 and I have little doubt that therein lies a big part of the problem, the green-eye of jealousy.
I am delighted that you have so many fierce fighters at your back. Fred of course, comes as no surprise, as in my duel with him, he has wielded a mighty sword. The others I don't know yet, but if they are for you then they must be worth knowing.
As for the Gang of Four, they are obviously unaware that 'we are the boys (and girls) that no Board dare dun' and whilst they may escape with a whole skin, we are far too late to rescue whatever passes for their brains.
So Mighty Huntress, you will note my name change but I remain the same white haired old duffer you met last year whilst you remain the hottest hugger in the business. Easy, Chuck, easy!!
"Hunk"
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 3, 2007 13:23:58 GMT -6
Diane... I am delighted that you have so many fierce fighters at your back. Fred of course, comes as no surprise, as in my duel with him, he has wielded a mighty sword. The others I don't know yet, but if they are for you then they must be worth knowing. Me thinks he doth protest too much! The Isles must be beautiful this time of year. Give our love to Queen Mary. And I have not forgotten. To quote yet another famous line, "I shall return." Very best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 5, 2007 13:11:14 GMT -6
Thank you all. I am both thrilled and humbled by the support I've received from both sides of the Big Pond as well as from Down Under! P.S. "Hunk" Papa, indeed!  |
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Aug 7, 2007 16:22:36 GMT -6
Diane, you only have to say the word, I'll fit scythes to my zimmer frame and charge like a demented Boudicca through the ranks of your enemies, but I must ask you not to be scathing about my board name. Just think, it might have been 'Ogle Ala', 'Mini Con Job' 'Creme Brule' or even 'Shy Anne' all of which I am sure you realiseare no where near as apt!
Hunk
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Aug 7, 2007 16:44:54 GMT -6
Hi Big Red Fred, I guessed 'white haired old duffer' would not escape your eagle (Warbler?) eye. I was going with handsome young hearthrob originally, but like Alfred Terry, I changed my plan at the last minute with the same dismal result.
I think that as members of the LBHA we have not protested enough over the years and we haver ended up with the Board we deserve for that complacency. I hold my own hands up to that sin of ommission and I hope that the fighting talk I have seen on this thread will not end up as so much rhetoric. There are principals at stake here such as the Boards apparent attempt to dictate what is acceptable as history. They should heed the words of T.H. Huxley "Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."
So you will return eh? Just remember 'I have not yet begun to fight.'
Queen Mary send her best wishes and hopes you realise that she can always be re-launched with a bottle of vintage French champagne.
Warm regards to you and Lisa.
Hunk (You better believe it)
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 7, 2007 22:03:06 GMT -6
Diane,
Adding my voice of support to the others, my enjoyment of LBHA was solely through the forum and members here. I would be glad to support their other activities on the side, and would have considered joining. I think Pohanka at one time had encouraged me to.
But my energy and interest goes into your activity here, and I want to tell you that I appreciate what you are putting up with.
I look forward to reading the information and perspectives that the serious students of this battle continue to post on this forum, wherever it ends up and what it is called or affiliated with.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 7, 2007 22:39:48 GMT -6
Thank you, Clair. I appreciate your note more than you know.
The truth is trickling out, Hunk. You are absolutely correct about the board. There needs to be a big change but that will only happen if enough members care.
Diane
|
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 8, 2007 4:15:45 GMT -6
Diane,
I'd just like to add my support from this side of the pond, you are one great commander of this particular ship,
shan
|
|
|
|
Post by bradandlaurie on Aug 8, 2007 19:22:05 GMT -6
This whole discussion has brought up a couple questions in my mind:
Are the actions of the board in regards to the funds potentially endangering the LBHA's 501c status?
If the 501c status was revoked how would it effect the LBHA?
I'm a relatively new member of the LBHA compared to many of you but have gotten very fond of the discussions online. I see evidence of a lot of good historical research being done here. Now my wife and I prefer to donate to 501c's that we like and taxes, being what they are in Minnesota, I would rather see my money go where I want it to go than some political hack in Saint Paul. It all just leads me wonder if I should contribute to the LBHA when there are so many other secure 501c's available?
By the way Diane, Laurie and I are both a little pissed off with the board after their general conduct at the conference. Please count on our support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 9, 2007 6:38:30 GMT -6
Thank you, Shan and Brad!
Brad, the former treasurer and the two board members who also resigned believe that such actions are endangering the non-profit status of LBHA. If so, I believe the main impact would be corporate taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Aug 12, 2007 8:31:07 GMT -6
I've been expecting a meltdown/implosion of the LBHA for some time now. When I first joined in 1993 or so I remarked that there was far too much dead wood in the organization. That it needed to open up on Custer, et al, and take in the entire era and everything involved with it. And if it didn't, it wouldn't get "new blood" and any organization that can't get new blood (younger blood) WILL die.
I've seen it happen in media fandoms. And what is the LBHA if not a "Fan" Club for Custer?
And the death throes can get damn ugly.
alfuso
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 12, 2007 9:29:17 GMT -6
Right you were and are. The same "dead wood" running things in 1993 is still there, dictating to the puppets.
If LBHA is to survive much longer, it has to get younger people, and they need to start turning over some of the duties to the new people. For example, there is one man on the Site Selection Committee who, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been to a conference in over ten years! Why is he on the committee that decides where the conferences will be? Stupid, absolutely stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Aug 14, 2007 15:46:42 GMT -6
Diane & Alfuso whilst I echo the sentiments in your posts, I think we need to be realistic here. The biggest problem that groups like the LBHA face is one of apathy. There are around 900 members, with roughly 14% to 15% who attend each annual conference. There are some overseas members like myself who find the travel costs alone prohibitive, so let's say that is another 10%. That leaves 75% of the membership who don't attend the annual gathering by choice. My experience in such situations is that this, very silent, majority, only want to read what they regard as the informed views of others in the publications of the group they belong to, as well as other relevant literature on the core subject of their group.
They don't want to stand for office, many don't vote when elections arise and they don't much care who runs the group just so long as they are not asked to help. Indeed, I doubt if all the membership is even aware of the current contretemps. You speak of an injection of new blood but where is it coming from? If the more strident of the younger members among us really want change are they prepared to stand for office? The same would apply if a new association were to be formed. With so many of our leading lights pursuing their own research, novel writing etc., who would take on the responsibility for running the association?
In the circumstances, I believe that the most urgent matter is to consider whether or not the BOD has outreached its authority and if there is a strong belief that this is so, to consider what steps need to be taken to redress the situation.
What with concerns about a possible breach of the LBHA's status under 501c and the arbitary decision concerning the message boards, the BOD, who are after all just members like the rest of us, can have their membership revoked under Article II, Section 5, of the LBHA Constitution, for conduct disruptive to the purposes and goals of the Association.
So come on you legal eagles out there, study the possibilities and see what can be done. We can save the old girl yet.
Hunk
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 14, 2007 15:58:56 GMT -6
I think everything you said is true.
Unfortunately, I'm convinced we have to wait until a few key people are placed in their neighborhood Shady Nook Retirement Home before anything happens. Why would anyone want to run for the board and be subjected to the constant nagging by the over-75 crowd?
I believe there should be term limits for every position except perhaps the attorney and the woman who puts together the journal. Otherwise, these people will never move over to make room for the next generation. I guess they have nothing else in their pathetic little lives.
|
|
