Cheryl, Gary, Stu -
I would repeat Enrique's request for some
specific examples. Vague reference to "lying, cheating, misappropriating funds, almost losing AROC non-profit status with the IRS, character assassination, wedge driving between publisher, contributors, and AROC, exclusive copyright demands, exclusive intellectual property rights demands, kingship and private domains, etc." are not specific examples.
I think some of these responses could develop to be the type of 'constructive criticism' Brian is asking for, and would probably be helpful for the rest of the
existing board (none of which served prior to 1998 according to my collection of 'Alfa Owners').
Most sensible and intelligent leaders utilize recognition of past mistakes (some call that 'experience')
and couple that with their enthusiasm for the future to achieve a balance.
So, once again....Let's talk specifics and move on with some ideas that can make the club more stable and successful.
Respectfully...
Unlike some others, I am not afraid to issue an apology or clarify facts when I'm in error, nor am I afraid of taking the fallout and flack from stirring the pot and actually getting something accomplished as far as "open" communication between the general membership and the board of directors on issues that are important to them. In other words, pot-stirring and tree shaking, no matter how rude an awakening it seems, it does get results. I do and have always had the best interest of AROC and the Alfa community at heart, whether it appears that way or not.
Gordy and Enrique,
Between the three of us we can do exactly what Brian Shorey has asked not be done, name names with specific examples of all the dirty laundry that will do more damage to the club than good. I will be more than happy to give specific examples and names if that is what you want, but I doubt seriously that Brian or any other board member would consider that "constructive criticism" or helpful. Or I could give you enough clues that you can figure it out or do the research on your own.
As far as Enrique's original post about giving an example that fits his questions; first off you might consider the Alfa Owner. The format is horrible: lack of design is evident, it's boring, non-creative, glaring white space on every page with two wide columns to a page except the classified and sponsor page, which in itself is an eyesore, regular columns lack luster and content, when they're there, and are less than informative, there is no real content that indicates that the publisher knows anything historical about the marque or its history, much of the material is regurgitated from chapter newsletters and if you don't race, go to the convention, use the tech lines or the library --- that is your benefit from the National AROC club for $60 a year. Certainly, a subscription to any other car magazine, even low end is a better value.
FTR, the thoughts above are a compilation of my thoughts and the e-mails that I have received regarding the problems with
The Alfa Owner.
I've decided to post this quote from an e-mail that I received regarding The Owner since I was given permission to use it anonymously and it pretty well gives a synopsis of all the e-mails that I've received regarding the topic: "It is not representative of a National Club, especially one that charges a minimum of $60. for annual dues. There are chapter newsletters with more informative content, better photos, material that has not been regurgitated and staff who understand the marque and the club."
Understandably, the $30,000 they saved on this last bid to the current publisher is more than evident.
I am more than willing to give credit where credit is due and apologize for recalling incorrectly what I had read in The Owner regarding the $30,000 that was saved. The $30,000 that was saved was due to a change in the printing process not from the publisher, moving from half color to full color in one run of black and white and a second run of color, which is now done in one run instead of two for full color. Casey, the publisher, into the second year of his current contract, assisted AROC, primarily Brewster, the Director/Liaison to the publisher and Chip, the president in implementing the change and saving the money.
It takes a budget to induce contributions that are not the same repeats of years past or reprints from the newsletter exchange. It is not further helped when the publisher either errors in giving proper credit where it's due or doesn't bother to follow-up on it until the complaints start rolling in. Not a good way to do business or attract contributors.
It should be noted that Casey did apologize for the errors or oversights and did give proper credit when it was brought to his attention as did Director, Brian Shorey. The recipients were gracious in receiving the apology and credit due.
I know that the publisher is young, I have no idea of his experience that qualified him to win the contract, but just off hand from the bids and proposals that I've dealt with over the years, I'd say AROC selected an inexperienced publisher; you get what you pay for.
For anyone that the above statement was not clear to, it was my opinion. I have since been informed that Casey is not "young," although that is a relative term, young by my standards and in contrast to my age. Having said that, he is an experienced automotive publisher but still learning the Alfa marque. To show his enthusiasm for the club and his interest in learning the marque, he has a Giulia spider.
I have no idea how they're handling the budget now, in the past Pat was told to keep his mouth shut about what the club was paying him to fill
The Alfa Owner every month, and not just his column, there were months when he had to fill the entire magazine or large portions of it because there was nothing else to run.
It has been indicated that the publisher still tries to fill as much of the magazine as he can with contributions, however, he does pay for certain articles at his discretion. So this has not changed over the years as far as the way it is done. There are those that will write simply because they love the club and consider it a donation or gift to AROC by foregoing or not requesting payment for their contributions. The publisher does not have a sufficient budget to pay for all contributions, therein is his discretion. All reprints of articles in The Owner are run by the AROC/liaison prior to publishing and the liaison helps in the selection of the articles used.
The liaison has indicated that he is receiving positive feedback from the AROC community on The Owner and respectively disagrees with my assessment and the e-mails that I've been receiving, so out of this may come a very valuable discussion of what others see where improvement or change could be instituted.
On top of that there was a particular editor, The Owner liaison from AROC, that would edit Pat's copy and completely change the meaning of what he had written. After the publisher went to AROC and told them that was not acceptable and could not be tolerated because of all the corrections that were having to be printed and the letters to the editors that were being received about how could Braden make a mistake like that, he should certainly know better, when in fact he did and what he wrote was not properly reflected due to poor editing.
Then when the magazine changed publishers the club did not disclose to the new publisher that Pat was, in fact, being paid and the new publisher expected him to do it for free, which was simply not going to happen. You will find a gap, where Pat quit and did not write for several issues, until AROC notified the publisher to get him back on board at whatever it took to do the job. The club over time has not been upfront with the membership about what fees were being paid, who they were being paid to, when they were switched from the club as pass-through to the publisher to the publisher side totally. AROC absolutely, drove a wedge between contributors, the publisher, and the club as far as loyalties and where they were as a result of AROC's actions and by not being upfront in the beginning about the process, more lies on top of lies, trying to cover their tracks. And they wonder why they are short on things to run and contributions. I certainly have no clue with history like this.
Recently, Craig Morningstar,
at the invitation of Casey, has stepped up to write a monthly column. I found the first one entertaining...I don't have my board minutes in front of me so I don't remember if the publisher is paying him or not. But Craig was around and working for Alfa and Mercedes, as I recall, and was certainly aware of previous Alfa Owner problems. I applaud him for giving it a try with what he knows about past experiences. We can only hope that it improves the content of the current owner.
When the Alfa Owner went from print to electronic where it was posted to the website AROC or more specifically, a particular board member, demanded that AROC owned the copyright on all materials submitted and used, whether it was print, photograph, artwork etc. and that it could be used in multiple places, when it had always been understood that anything submitted was the property of the contributor, who owned copyright on the material, and that it was on a one-time use basis. This was an infringement of intellectual property rights as well as the contributors copyright on his product and violated the law. At this point, all of the main contributors walked and refused to furnish anything further in all of the above categories. The unnamed board member was called to court with the rest of the board and told that he would have to apologize and that the form he sent to all contributors was not Board authorized, was against the law, and contributors would not be forced to sign it, which none of them would have anyway made clear by their actions of withdrawing all work and watching closely to make sure that other submissions were not used in duplicate publications.
There's a start on a couple of the "vague" issues. With the current complaints about the Alfa Owner I can see many of these problems and issues arising again. Let's hope that someone pays attention and does a better job of dealing with them this time around.
