Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hill
Julie, my scanner doesn't work but I will just copy it here.
February 17, 1981
Dear NHRA member:
Since it's origin in 1951, the National Hot Rod Association has been operated as a non-profit organization, incorporated in California.
Recent changes in California's corporation laws require modifications to our by laws, and further require that modifications to our by laws be circulated to the membership for review and ratification.
In order to comply with this new law, we need your cooperation. A copy of the bylaws is enclosed, along with a self mailer ballot which we would like you to fill out and return.
In order to be counted, your ballot must be received by March 25, 1981. Further the law requires that 7,000 NHRA members vote on these bylaws, and at least three-fourths of those voting must vote favorably for the adoption of the bylaws.
We will appreciate your prompt response and we thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Wally Parks
President.
|
Ok i just can't let this go ,because i hate injustice. Caveat : I am not a bar assoc. lawyer but i have a pretty good legal mind, and have represented my own interests in court a number of times. So heres the 1st problem i see with this : full disclosure - vs. deception
Quote :Further the law requires that 7,000 NHRA members vote on these bylaws, and at least three-fourths of those voting
must vote favorably for the adoption of the bylaws. Or what? They conveniently left out the part concerning the
consequences. They basically decieved the membership into thinking that they must ratify or vote favorably [yes] in order for nhra to continue in business. This was most likely not the case but perhaps a condition to continue the non profit status.Or maybe not even that- since i have not seen the documents. It appears and i say appears that a fraud was perpetrated on the membership some 30yrs ago to get the membership to give up its say in how the corp. was operated.
If one could prove that a fraud was committed ,then there may be remedy,because it is negatively impacting members even today. But it would take a good Calif. attorney and some guts.
After all it does not state anywhere in that letter that the consequences of approving these changes would cause all of the members to lose any say in how the company was run. We all got screwed 30 years ago , butt [ha] we are just now feeling the pain. So either fight back or shut up and take it.