Submitted by R.J. Meyer II on 4/29/05 at 9:39 AM. ( )

George....all things aside I again ask why not allow a vote. As a board member two years ago while you were a board member, I received a letter from headquarters asking me to vote on a motion to allow for the withdrawl of a motion and then vote on a new motion, all by mail.

You can all talk and write and spin but the bottom line is this.

The board should be allowed to vote on the question of "should Tom and Gail be crapcanned by a few board members, especially the president who really has no vote unless a tie is voted.

Yes I have made mistakes along with others and may be a bad person, who knows? But that is a whole nother post....

THE QUESTION HERE IS THE NTA IS FORCING OUT SOME VERY GOOD PEOPLE WITHOUT EVEN ALLOWING THE BOARD THAT REPRESENTS THE MEMBERS TO VOTE ON IT. Nice ....very nice way to run a board......hey why even have a board if they aren't allowed to vote on important issues which affect the NTA as whole.

George....PLEASE do not write anything except an answer to this question .......Why can"t the board vote on this ? As you know a fax, email of postal mail is fully legal in everyday buisness and is certainly within the rules and bylaws of the NTA. If not than the whole Rinehart thing was a mute vote.

Again how about a simple answer to the question !

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

I have a question-

This response submitted by Kim Owens on 4/29/05 at 9:41 AM. ( )

I'll probably get slammed for this- but- My question is why all the questions directed at George- he is not a board member?


This response submitted by R.J. on 4/29/05 at 10:24 AM. ( )

Hey Kim how you doing? I am asking george because he seems to have the answers to all questions! NO...really Mark will not answer questions of the baord members or the members in general, istead preferring to ignore the questions of his own board members. I beleive George is running for president and would like to get his take on this as it will help myself and others understand his thinking on the way he will run the board if elected. Give my best to Danny and Michelle.....R.J.

R.J. you seem intelligent enough to understand English

This response submitted by George on 4/29/05 at 12:28 PM. ( georoof@aol.com )

What part of my original answer didn't you understand. The data entry person falls under contractural labor for the convention. Contractural labor is spelled out under a written and accepted contract currently under the control of the Convention Chairman. Greg Crain, NTA Executive Director, also holds the title of Convention Chairman. He receives incentive pay from the success of the convention so he and he alone is CONTRACTED to make those decisions. You've probably never sat in on contract meetings for the NTA, but I have -three times-and unfortunately because I have been asked to act as the seminar chairman this year (EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT A BOARD MEMBER, Kim), I will be there again. All those contracted labor expenditures are systematically and methodically tracked and documented so that Greg is paid precisely by NTA contact for those services he provides. He has never, to my knowlege, argued with any such charges , but he does have that right if he thinks a CONTRACT is inflated, unfair, OR includes provisions not under his control. Had he been presented with such a contract, I'm sure this discussion would not be happening and no one, including those board members who suddenly have discovered that there's actually a set of written by-laws to operate under, wouldn't need to be looking for a loophole in them.

Now, R.J., If you'd like for the NTA Board to vote on modifying the signed contract with the NTA Convention Chairman so that the Board of Directors could micromanage day to day operations, I suggest you contact an ACTIVE (that being an operative word) Board Member and have those modifications to the contract brought up at the board meeting. They need to be cleared, in advance, with NTA President Mark Wilson so that they can be added to the business agenda. (I really don't need to tell you that as you already know, but I'm sure you have some soapbox groupies who'd ask why we do that.)

NOW, I know you only wanted to hear the answer, but when you imply integrity issues on an open forum, you have to swallow that whole spittoon. The Dan "Rinehart thing" has nothing to do with this case with Tom McNeal. Dan's proposal WAS directed at the board and the interpretation of the motions, coupled with an ill advised "executive session" made that issue a moot point. Thankfully, Dan was above that fray and agreed to drop the issue. It's a shame you don't have Dan's humility.


This response submitted by George on 4/29/05 at 12:39 PM. ( )

Please stop using cliches like "the NTA forced out." The NTA had nothing to do with this issue but rather reacted to a set of demands being placed upon it. The NTA didn't write up that contract proposal with those extraneous demands. The trouble rears its ugly head again in the form of some people being unable to separate personal opinions from professional decisions. An organization should not, and cannot, if they ever expect to survive, be subjected to the personal demands of a single member. No man is an island and one monkey still don't make the circus.

Lets try to put this issue aside for now

This response submitted by Tony Finazzo on 4/29/05 at 1:29 PM. ( )

A new data entry/ record keeper has been interviewed, and tentatively hired. contract and board approval pending. I tried the best I could to find a way to hire Tom and Gail McNeal. Tom was even willing to amend his original proposal, so that Mark Wilson would not have to apologize, but the board would have to apologize. Which I think would be a good gesture by the board anyway. I even made the motion to accept Tom's contract. The motion was seconded and To the best of my knowledge only myself and two board members voted to accept his proposal. The motion was declared illegal and no body else voted.
The motion was sent to all board members and only three responded.
Now, I'm not the sharpest tack in the box but I figured out that if the board wanted to support that motion they would have done so.
So, I have a job to do and I'm going to do it the best I can with what resources are available to me. We now have a data entry person and we should move on. I think this whole thing about declaring a board members motion and second illegal should be addressed at another time.


This response submitted by ETCC on 4/29/05 at 3:02 PM. ( getrichkwik@webtv.net )

When I grows up...I'm gonna be like 'George'.
George Roof Fur Presidente'.


Time to end this

This response submitted by Bill Haynes, NTA Vice President on 4/29/05 at 3:32 PM. ( )

think the discussions on this matter has progressed to the
point of absurdity. Tom and Gail are dear friends , and I am
sorry that this did not work out.
Tom presented to the NTA a new data entry contract which
included six demands. I say demands, as these were
not requests nor suggestions. The first demanded an apology
from Mark for the dismissal of Mr. Kish relating to his judging
duties, and the second demanded an apology for
"inconsiderate remarks" to another person who took it
upon themselves to become involved.
The third demand was for Mark to RESIGN if the first two
demands were not met.The other three demands can
only be handled by the Board, and there are no reason to
discuss them here.
In my opinion, to tie the data entry contract to his
"demands" was presumptous on Tom' part. If he really
wanted to do the data entry, he should have sent in his
contract,sans the demands, and then attended the Board
meeting or Tuesday or Wednesday and brought his
"demands " before the entire Board. The Board would have
listened to him, and I am sure, arrived at some conclusion
that would hav satisified all parties involved without
all the noteriety and publicity it is now receiving from people
who were not at the convention and base their opinions
on rumors and really know nothing first hand of what transpired.
Mark made his decision based on facts and consultation with
several other past and present officials who were there. His
decision was not a spur of the moment thing, nor on a whim.
I applaud Mark for the leadership he displayed then, and the
decisions he has made lately regarding this misfortune.
I think the book should be closed on this issue


This response submitted by danny kestrel on 4/29/05 at 3:56 PM. ( )

Why is it pending board approval if greg crain is the man who handles this. This is my question is it the boards job or gregs ?


This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 4/29/05 at 4:34 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway.net )

My question is why does the board have to vote if it's already a done deal. They didn't get to vote for who. Must be Crains or Mark just want the transaction to look ligit. Why not just eliminate the board and not have the bother and be what it is, a complete dictatorship.

Let me get this straight

This response submitted by George on 4/29/05 at 4:57 PM. ( )

It's not OK to tell the truth about one individual who attempted to taint the competition pool at the national convention and he deserves a formal apology, but it's OK to slander the Crains and Mark with no evidence that they either had anything to do with a decision or that they made illicit transactions. God Bless America. It's no wonder no one takes anything we do seriously.


This response submitted by Tony Finazzo on 4/29/05 at 5:13 PM. ( )

Just to answer your question without any embelishments. I said tentatively hired pending board aproval. The way I understand it the board must approve before it is official.

LOL: Continue using arsnic, it is showing

This response submitted by Kim on 4/29/05 at 5:51 PM. ( )

LMAO: Why not encourage those "other" taxidermist to continue using arsnic to preserve birds. The problems they pose to others will work them selves out. Know what I mean?


This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 4/29/05 at 7:28 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway.net )

I'm sorry, I still can't understand why the board has to OK this person when they have no control over who it is.

Sorry again

This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 4/29/05 at 7:34 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway,net )

I don't know what you mean, George. Who was it who attempted to taint the competition pool whatever that is, and how did they do it?

Maybe I should have used different wording

This response submitted by George on 4/30/05 at 12:22 AM. ( )

How about "destroy the integrity of judging a competitors work fairly and objectively"? That person would be Mr. Joe Kish.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu