LBHA Chairman's Message in Newsletter

[Diane Merkel]

The following is an excerpt from the September 2007 issue of the Little Big Horn Associates Newsletter, page 2, written by Bill Blake, chair of the board of directors of the Little Big Horn Associates.

The next issue was a very strong and critical subject regarding the Message Boards on the LBHA website which are moderated by Diane Merkel. The board's attitude was to temporarily close down the boards in order to determine a more secure direction. Members were complaining about the heated rhetoric and strong opinions being generated with a certain level of bias being injected by the moderator. All of these points led the board to start thinking about potential liability concerns and the need for internet liability insurance.

However, since Diane did not attend the North Platte conference, she was immediately notified by an informant of the board's decision. Diane, in turn, and without any discussion whatsoever, elected to redirect the message boards to a different website and to completely eliminate the content of the LBHA website except for a link to her own. Such behayior can be construed in only one way. As Diane posted on her message board, "Since the Associates wanted a divorce. I divorced it". Because Diane has taken her action, please be assured the LBHA will have a new internet presence with message boards that will be protected for anyone to have discourse without feeling intimidated.

The third and final issue, held for a vote, centered on the Tenth Amendment to the LBHA Constitution. By a vote of 26-8, with one abstention, the amendment was passed. This was necessary to protect the credibility and composition of the LBHA Board of Directors. Basically, this measure negates the possibility of a husband and wife, or other family members, from being elected to the board at the same time, which could potentially dilute the vote of other board members.

Also, during the conference, two board members and the Treasurer resigned due to differences related to my execution of the investment process. A special meeting of the LBHA Board of Directors was held on Saturday, whereby Bill Boyes and Bill Serritella were unanimously voted to succeed Chuck Merkel and David Evans on the board. Both Bill Boyes and Bill Serritella bring solid experience and stability to the board and are welcomed for their practical wisdom. Joan Croy, after a year's absence, is resuming her duties as Treasurer. She was elected to the position to succeed Kevin Connelly and also brings a wealth of knowledge and involvement to the organization that can't be matched.

Before I close, I must delve into another topic that needs serious discussion. There are, unfortunately, a lot of passionate postings, by a few, on our message boards that are totally misguided and some are downright false. These postings, pertaining to the LBHA's investments and 501(c)(3) status, show a complete lack of intelligent dialogue, research, and logical understanding. The thought of the LBHA investing its excess funds wildly in the stock market is completely preposterous. Our funds are invested wisely in mutual funds, money market funds and certificates of deposit as outlined in the LBHA Investment Procedure adopted in 2005. For nearly 9 months, the previous administration felt comfortable with our funds in a checking account earning 1 % interest.

Now comes the ridiculous theory that we are about to lose our nonprofit status because of high investment returns. If certain individuals had bothered to research the IRS Regulations as it relates to investment income, they would know that if a 501(c)(3) organization passes the one third support test for a period covering the four tax years immediately preceding the current tax year, it achieves publicly supported status for the current tax year as well as the following tax year. Aggregate support over the four-year period is determinative. Support in each individual year is not. There is also a facts and circumstances test that could be met in any case that an organization not meeting the one-third support test may qualify as being publicly supported. In conclusion, the LBHA is in absolutely NO danger of losing its 501(c)(3) status under any circumstances!

As you have read, this is not just an attack on me but on others who have expressed their concerns about LBHA matters on these boards. I intend to comment on his allegations and, since Bill Blake apparently reads these boards, I invite him to join the discussion rather than lurk in the shadows.

Diane

[Diane Merkel]

My response to the first paragraph of Blake's message as quoted above:

I am not and have never been a moderator for these boards. I am the administrator. There is a big difference. A moderator is supposed to be unbiased and let both sides of an issue have equal time, such as in a debate. As the administrator, I control the boards and I express my opinions whenever I want to, just as any other registered member can do.

How many members complained about the message boards? I know of one. I believe Blake combined two separate issues in his next allegation, thereby creating a deliberate falsehood. The one member who complained about "the heated rhetoric and strong opinions being generated" was complaining about CusterStillStands/CSS, not me. The "certain level of bias being injected by the moderator" is apparently an allegation made to Blake by none other than CSS. My understanding -- and I admit I don't have the facts because I was never consulted about this -- is that CSS wrote to Blake because I banned him for three days. CSS alleged my husband -- who has NEVER posted on these boards-- and I hate Custer. That was the directors' basis for wanting to shut down the boards: The proposterous allegation of a trouble-making non-member who was sending photos of decapitated American citizens to some people on the message boards.

I would like to have someone cite me a single successful case of one person suing an organization for something that was posted on a message board. I'm not saying it has never happened, but I have never heard of one. In any event, their concerns were frivilous because I protected them from potential liability four years ago with a disclaimer and the copyright in my name. LBHA had no potential liability for anything. Once again, if they had bothered to consult me, I could have explained all of this. Tom Bookwalter, the LBHA attorney, readily admits that such matters are not his area of expertise.

Enough for now! More coming soon.

[bradandlaurie]

Diane,

I just got the newsletter in my mail today. I did sit down and read it quite carefully. I was there at North Platte and still find a few things a bit of an enigma. The only thing I can really comment on is that they were trying to decide if they wanted to just take down the message boards and seemed very concerned about potential liability issues with the message board. I've spent a lot of time on numerous message boards over the years, going right back to the good old BBS days, and never heard of the sort of situation they were concerned about taking place.

Did somebody actually threaten some sort of legal action on the basis of what they saw on these boards?

It is kind of a core principle of my life to encourage the freedom of speech. This does not mean I endorse slander or personal attacks. It does mean I support people to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they are. I also believe that there should be community standards for conduct on any given board. I do not believe shutting down discussion is any good way of solving a problem.

Enough said for now. I will probably have more to say later after I've rolled the facts around a bit more...

[Diane Merkel]

Thanks, Brad. With your background, I would think you would know if such a suit had been successful. There was no mention of a potential lawsuit, so I doubt there was such a threat. On the other hand, I have banned a personna who was slandering an individual because I need to protect myself. My personal concern isn't a lawsuit -- although the target of the slander is known to be very litigious -- as much as the hassle of it all. I have absolutely no doubt that the target would have threatened LBHA with a lawsuit because it's been done before. I also have no doubt it would have been dismissed, but why put myself and others through that? I know some people think I was wrong to do so but, if I'm the one who has her neck out there, I have to do what I believe is best.

[Tricia]

I find it quite interesting that Chairman Blake continues to call this forum "our message boards" when this place is--and has been--under no obligation to the Little Big Horn Associates. I guess he finds it difficult to divest himself of power over (and threats towards) this community ... a frightening trait, indeed.

I am also quite horrified that he chose to gloss over the reasons for the resignations--as if those board members were afraid of making money through wise investments. I was under the impression that said actions were due more to Blake's secrecy and obstinancy in regards to the specifics of said investments and their locations. Once again, I think it is a gesture of smart and transparent leadership to notate such accounts and yields in an annual financial statement that should be sent with the LBHA Newsletter at the end of the organisation's fiscal year ...

Speaking for myself, I am unafraid of receiving a nice return on our monies. I am, however, frustrated that it is done in secret.

[Vern Smalley]

I was outraged at Bill Blake's complete lack of ethics in publishing as he did, and knowing that Diane would not be allowed to reply.

An open letter to Bill Blake, President of the Little Big Horn Associates, with a copy to all Board members:

Dear Bill:

Here are a few thoughts regarding your statements in the September 2007 LBHA Newsletter.

Diane Merkel’s role as an LBHA message board moderator is, I believe, to facilitate the smooth running of the boards. She has assisted me several times in posting photographs, and I’ve seen no evidence of her injecting any sort of bias, contrary to your allegation. To do as you are claiming means that she would have to say "Believe it is my way or I will not let you post here." Only your buddy Bill Boyes pulls that type of unethical crap for the LBHA’s Research Review, but I see that you have lauded his appointment to the LBHA Board. You seem to condone what Bill Boyes does as editor, but you condemn Diane for doing something she has not done.

Diane is a very intelligent lady and has a right to express her opinion about the Little Bighorn Battle. Being a moderator doesn’t mean she abrogates her right to express her own opinion. She has a lot to offer and I want to hear her views.

Your next statement that "All of these points led the board to start thinking about potential liability concern and the need for internet liability insurance" is so ludicrous that you should be embarrassed for putting it into print. Anyone with any savvy will recognize it as fallacious and pretentious. It appears as though you invented that fool idea so as to have another reason to criticize Diane.

Your notion that the LBHA should have message boards where people can post "without feeling intimidated" is naive and hypocritical. It is naive to think that a moderator can control passions without inserting his or her own bias. Do you think that a moderator is going to edit every entry word-for-word to ensure feelings are not bruised? Are the message boards supposed to be bland discussions that no one has interest in? Bill, you need to rethink that idea. One must follow Teddy Roosevelt’s advice: "If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." More directly, if you don't have the guts or knowledge to be on the message boards, stay away from them. If you just want to learn history, read the messages and keep quiet.

The notion that passion can be controlled is also hypocritical because you are saying do as we say, not as we do. I take for example the vicious, blistering writings penned by a coward using the pseudonym Emmitt Fitzhumme, and whom you hold in high esteem. I invited Bruce Liddic to debate the Battle openly, in your presence, and he didn’t have the courage (or knowledge) to do it. His only ability is to send sneaky, surreptitious letters with phoney return addresses to people whose writings he doesn’t understand. It is hypocritical for you to condone his behavior, yet criticize Diane Merkel for not being able to do an impossible task to your liking.

You are incorrect that Diane’s behavior in divorcing the message boards from you can be construed in only one way. It can also be construed that she recognizes the value of the message boards which the LBHA neither owns nor pays for in any way, and she intends to protect them from the LBHA Board’s ineptness in the history of the Battle and managing the discussions. I say "good for her!" Someone needs to stand up to the old guard with its erroneous consensus, and the discussions on the message boards bring out new points. I’ve learned a lot from visiting there, and you and the others should do the same. A little fresh thinking would do you all some good.

I would enjoy debating any aspect of the Battle with any number of you and your Associates, especially Bill Boyes (inept editor and co-builder of a misplaced monument) and Bruce Liddic (collector of unread first editions and purveyor of anonymous, nasty letters). My only condition is that you must come to me, here in Bozeman. This is a fine place for a meeting, and I offer my personal welcome.

Vern Smalley

Bozeman, Montana

["Hunk" Papa]

Vern Smalley's open letter is exactly the right kind of response to Bill Blake's cowardly personal attack on Diane under the guise of 'Chairman's Message', as indeed are his perceptive comments on the nature of our message boards.
Vern's remarks regarding Messrs Boyes and Liddic, if accurate, would be a further indication of how narrow perspective of the Board of Directors' policies have become, policies which I should add, are never openly conveyed to the membership. For example, I know from personal experience that the 'policy' on acceptance of articles for the RR is a word length of 2,500 to 4,000 words. Have any of you who are members, ever seen that 'policy' clearly stated in either the RR or NL?
But I digress. Vern's letter is a superb defense of Diane's integrity, not that any of us doubted it, but it does not address some other important issues. Without knowing just how U.S. law caters for bodies like the LBHA I can only use the example of U.K. law where elected officials of such Associations hold the Association IN TRUST for the members, owing those members a duty of care and if requested, FULL disclosure of the policies they adopt and all decisions they take on behalf of the membership.
If the same situation prevails in the U.S.A., then the LBHA Board, including Mr. Blake, MUST provide full and frank answers to the following questions either on these message boards or by a circular letter to all the members:-

1. As Chuck and Diane Merkel are the only married couple I know of who have had any connection with LBHA official positions, the Tenth Amendment appears to have been dreamed up and implemented for the sole purpose of preventing the two of them being on the Board together. Can Mr. Blake deny this and if he can in a convincing way, then reveal to us what other PRACTICAL rather than theoretical purpose the Tenth Amendment serves in furthering the best interests of the LBHA?

2. Mr. Blake states that two board members and the Treasurer resigned due to differences with HIS execution of the investment process. That people as sensible as Kevin Connelly and two Board colleagues resign for such a reason fills me with apprehension and we are entitled to see copies of the letters of resignation either reproduced on these boards or circulated to all members. In addition Mr. Blake must tell us, a) is he solely responsible for the execution of the LBHA investment policy and if so, what investment experience does he have that qualifies him to dictate that policy?, b) if the investment policy is joint and several, then who else carries the responsibility, other Board members or independent people and in either case, what qualifications do they have to decide on what investments are best for the LBHA funds?, c) what investments are presently held in the name of the LBHA, what if any other investments have been held in the last year and how often are such investments bought and sold?, and d) the membership is entitled to have full disclosure of the Association's finances, so why are detailed statements of the LBHA's financial position together with full details of the investments held at the date of the statement not printed annually, either as part of or as an insert in the first Newsletter published after each annual conference?

3. Mr. Blake states that these boards have been responsible for the 'ridiculous theory' that the LBHA is about to lose its nonprofit status. That is just not so as what has been discussed are our concerns, in the light of the present covert investment policy and the three resignations already mentioned, that this unknown investment policy COULD, if disapproved of by the IRS, possibly jeopardize our nonprofit status. If Mr. Blake is so certain that such a possibility does not exist, is he prepared to guarantee in writing to make good any diminution of the Association's funds if our nonprofit status is lost as a result of HIS execution of the LBHA's investment poliy?

Only by openly responding to Vern Smalley's letter and the questions I have raised can Mr. Blake and the other Board members either provide answers that might allay our fears. If they cannot, then their positions are untenable and they should do the honorable thing by resigning en bloc to allow the LBHA to thrive under more enlightened leadership.

As I have no wish to hide behind my board name, should any or all of the Board of Directors wish to contact me direct, Diane has my permission to furnish them with all the details they need for that purpose.

"Hunk" Papa

[markland]

While I agree in principle with both Vern and Hunk, my main concern is that as a 503 (a, b, or c-I don't remember) organization, all information concerning such has to be available to the public. I have yet to see the LBHA Constitution or their financial statements. John McIntosh, if you are monitoring the boards, perhaps you could clarify the responsibilities of the governing body of a non-profit organization.

As far as the Prez, he is simply a coward. Personal opinions do not constitute slander by the way.

Billy

[jfk]

Dear Diane, I found the newsletter this morning and I was very surprised. I don't know if it can be useful, but I am totally in agreement with you. I know you now after years, and you never acted less than properly. You was always gentle, and always gave your best here and supporting others. So I refuse the Blake words and I really condemn his behavior towards you.
God bless you Diane.
JFK ex Michigander

[Diane Merkel]

Hello, my friend! I'm glad you gave me that clue. Thank you very much.

I should have mentioned the most important events listed in the NL, the deaths of Jay Kanitz and Stanley Neidermeier.

Jay started the LBHA.org website years ago. He is the one who typed all of the treaties, agreements, and other official documents that can be found in the articles section of the website. He used to call me occasionally to compliment the website, which I really appreciated.

Stan was the official LBHA Historian. I'm not quite sure what that entailed, but he was a very sweet man. Those of you on the Louisville field trip may remember Stan as the man who was left behind.

Two more volunteers who were never recognized for their service. . . . I find it interesting that the board agreed to have the Distinguished Service Award when last year those very same people practically laughed in Jim Dunphy's face when he first proposed it. Don Horn looked at Blake and said, "I don't know who would want that award. Would you want an award like that? I wouldn't want that award." Never mind that in Rapid City they passed out awards to the past chairmen (with one notable exception) so the Good Old Boys could feel loved. It's encouraging that the committee will be Jim, Sandy Barnard, and Ed Hallett, but I'm betting it will become another way for the GOB to congratulate themselves.

[Scout]

Diane...yea, I kinda thought that new Tenth amendment should be called the "Merkel amendment" I was also fairly certain it was named in honor of you and Dr. Chuck. You people are dangerous!

["Hunk" Papa]

Billy, you have considerably strengthened one of the points I was making. If the public are entitled to sight of the financial affairs of a 501 (c) (3) organisation, then the membership must have equal or better rights to see that information. I have only ever seen two simple statements of the LBHA's financial position and those were back when Bill Serritella was the Treasurer. The members should see a full and comprehensive accounting for the Association's finances ANNUALLY. If any of the people that post to or simply scan these boards has expertise in U.S. tax law as applied to organisations like the LBHA, can they clarify for us what the Board of Directors' should be doing to comply with those tax laws and in what circumstances the nonprofit status of the LBHA could be removed by the IRS? If such experts do not want to provide the information publicly, I am sure that Diane Merkel would be happy to receive it via email and pass it on.
Also, whilst rallying in support of Diane is both understandable and laudable, the LBHA members who interact with these boards have an equally important matter to consider. Do we want to ensure that the future of the LBHA is more forward looking and enterprising than the present? If so we must all strive to do everything possible to improve the leadership of our Association. The alternative is to indulge in mere rhetoric, in which case nothing will change. Perhaps we should start a poll to see what the majority feeling is?

Any thoughts ladies and gentlemen?

Hunk

[bradandlaurie]

I thought it was extremely odd that at the same meeting in North Platte when they discussed taking down the message boards they also wanted to figure out a way of improving membership numbers. The message boards are probably one of the best ways they have to reach out to potential new members! As I am certain I have said before there was even one fellow at the meeting who stood up to say the only reason he joined was the message boards!

If this organization really is thinking to the future it need to improve public outreach. Taking down the message boards will not do this.

[kenny]

The mean reason I join is the message board. To learn what knew about the battle of the little big horn and the officer and troops that fought in that battle. Plus put my two cent into the tread that is being discuss.

[harpskiddie]

I am not a member of LBHA, although I once was. I stopped fopr no particular reason, except that I didn't feel I was getting my money's worth. I was also a member of CBHMA, until they allowed a "review" of Greg Michno's Mystery of E Troop, which criticized his theory and presented the reviewer's own. In any event, I have no standing with the LBHA membership or board, unlike those of you who are members.

I'm not sure if Vern Smalley's open letter was actually sent to the Chairman or the Directors, or if it only appears here, where one or more of them might or might not ever see it. Same goes for the comments of others who are members.

My suggestion to you all is to write directly to the chairman, with copies to the other directors, either via snailmail or Electronic means. If you know any other LBHA members who are not members of this board or who do not read postings here, you might include them in your circle of new correspondents. Gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands wont accomplish much, nor will limiting your efforts to this venue.

As to the requirement of the LBHA to make its finances public, a 'phone call to your local IRS office might give you a quick answer. In my own experience, any organization or corporation which receives monies from any source is required to keep bona fide financial records. If it is publicly-held, it is required to publish an Annual Statement. I once made my living [such as it was] writing Annual Reports for corporations who did not have the expertise internally [you'd be surprised]. I also did a few for Non-Profits, but whether they were legally required I know not.

Maybe I'll join and run posthumously for the board, since joining anything would be certain death for me. Or worse.

Gordie,
in a gadda da vida honey, don't you know that I looooooove you.......................................