AFM Board

wmontoya at wmontoya at
Fri Mar 21 23:39:23 PDT 2008

Quoting Ernest Montague <afm199 at>:
> I owe you an apology for the remark.  I know you and Joe worked very
> hard for years to improve the club and did a tremendous amount of work.
> I know you brought a lot to the club.  I don't think I have ever said
> differently. I don't in any way want to make a negative remark about
> your work.
> I also believe that a family dynasty influenced the way the club ran.
> Nothing wrong with that, illegal, or anything else. Just a fact of
> life.
> A really good reason board members should be limited to six years total.


   absolutely no need for an apology at all. i certainly wasn't offended and
whatever amount of time i (or that pinche Joe) put in for the Club shouldn't
change anyone's opinion on whether that net or specific-issue contribution
was positive or negative... the former really has no bearing on the latter.

   i totally believe everyone has a right to have and state their
opinion... but i also strongly believe that when one's stated opinion
deviates sufficiently from a factual basis or leaves out relevant or
contrary data/details, somone should comment and share that contrary info
or opinion so the discussion is honest, comprehensive and (hopefully) mostly

   anyone who knows Jomo and i know we are quite different in many aspects
of nature, beliefs and motivations... which is why the AFM voting
record showed me as being no more likely to vote as Joe did as most any
other Board member when we were both on the Board.
   we may share the same last name and some genes, but that's pretty much
where any factual claim of "family dynasty" influence ends... i know this
from prior tabulations of meeting minutes, comparing my voting record vs
Jo-E's vs other Board members. we agreed on some stuff and disagreed on
other stuff, just like many other unrelated Board folk.

   so i totally disagree w/ the inferred justification for term limits in an
entity like the AFM... over the years i definitely would have liked to see
certain elected people "taken out of the running" (for different specific
reasons) but i strongly believe that Board members that represent the
membership positively and honestly should be allowed to serve as long as
that membership's voting majority deems them "their choice".
   there is a huge benefit in having some fraction of well experienced Board
folk (for some level of consistency, stability, and precedent-influences)
just like there is a huge benefit in having some significant fraction of
"new blood" and official turnover (for new approaches, new member
representation and "core contributor" replenishment)... too much of one or
the other could lead to stagnation or instability... it all has to do w/
balance & compromise.

   by the same token, i've long argued that AFM's current "one active
chapter" situation should have the Inc By-laws modified to have everyone on
that one chapter's Board has a voice on key "Inc. Board" decisions... that
means there would be 10-11 different elected people deciding stuff (like
650P rules) instead of just the current 6... the increased elected
representatives voting should mean better overall member representation.
   if the members aren't happy w/ the decisions, the majority can vote out
those they disagree w/. but it does take a somewhat interested membership
and decent intra-club communication of issues, opinions and decisions.

regards...   WM

p.s. anyone have some SV stock stuff (F-R turn signal, maybe master cyl,
maybe gas tank, maybe other) they'd sell? i crashed my '99/00 SV a couple
of days ago and have some damaged stuff to fix. also if anyon's willing to
screw my F-R collarbone together, i'll pay going rate ($250, half a bottle
of Tequila and a used teeth-marked leather "bite 'cuz this is gonna' hurt"
chew toy.)

More information about the SV650 mailing list