1. Welcome to Taxidermy.net, Guest!
    We have put together a brief tutorial to help you with the site, click here to access it.

NTA President's Final Update

Discussion in 'The Taxidermy Industry' started by NTAHQ, Sep 30, 2013.

  1. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    We'll George, I guess that's as close to an apology as it gets without really giving one so I will accept your apology. I have answered questions that were REAL questions and not attacks on me personally but an attack on me personally precipitates a elevated response and I will continue to do just that. Just look at Bryan's post where he mentioned getting the money back for the NTA like Fred and I were trying to get ours reimbursed but leaving the rest up for grabs and not think about the membership. YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IS JUST STUPID!! What the hell George?? You attack me, you know what you'll get. You want to talk facts, I'm willing and I will be civil.. And that's a fact!

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  2. bmdakk

    bmdakk Report to moderator

    Harry, this is like a bad Car crash, Just cant stop looking.. All seriousness now. Let me ask you one question.

    You say that all the money is gone, I forgot the total, as so much has been posted. But lets just say for sh its and giggles its $100,000
    That is what is missing and was stolen, embezzled, whatever it is missing, Ok now you and fred are trying to get that money back for the NTA, Correct?

    Ok now you say that you have spent ,between you and fred, almost $30000 of your Money to get the info needed to fight the crains, and whoever to get the money back. If you succed and the crains say ok you got us here is your Money we took from the NTA, and pay the $100000 back. Where is your money gonna come from? Im sure you can sue them for it, but this is where i get lost, they didnt Steal anything from you and fred personnally, now if the NTA wants to sue them for Damages, and pay you then I guess that is fine, But Im not sure if a NON Profit can Sue for Damages other than what is taken. Im not a lawyer and IM JUST STUPID! so please give me a crash course in how it all works, Cause Im really getting tired of being called STUPID. Call me IGNORANT if you want Cause I dont know, But back off with the STUPID remarks.

  3. antlerman

    antlerman NTA Life Member #0118

    George is spot on imo on most everything he posted. Harry, I knew where your papers came from, but I couldn't remember your attorney's name. I don't have a problem in that you have them...I just have a problem that the board itself does not have them also.
  4. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    George, just for discussion sake, in your dissertation you seemed to address me as if I was running the show OR had a mainline to administration. Well, I am not running anything or neither talking to Board members or to the President. I did speak with John C this evening (no collusion) about the past president but that has been it. Your assumption that the current president is speaking through either Fred or myself is simply false. I just wanted to clear up that point.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  5. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    Antlerman, yes, I have to agree that it was an oversight not getting the information from Pat Patrick when they had a chance. Nobody had a chance in getting the documents from our attorney except us. If the NTA didn't release the documents then our attorney would have destroyed the documents since the were our property. Same goes true for trying to subpoena the information from us. Can't do it. Discovery would fall on getting copies of the originals which would fall on the Crains or Pat Patrick, not us....! Individuals do not have the power to subpoena.... Only the court... Just sayin...

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  6. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    Just to aggravate!!! SUSHI!!!! Who wants some????

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

    Attached Files:

  7. bmdakk

    bmdakk Report to moderator

    ;D See I knew something was Fishy!!!! ;D ;D ;D
  8. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    Bryan, honestly, you really don't understand. I'll tell you what, call me tomorrow and I will enlighten you. 100k, drop in the bucket....

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  9. bmdakk

    bmdakk Report to moderator

    I figure it is I was just using that figure as an example.
  10. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    No Harry. All that's a non-issue with me. The issue is THE PRESIDENT is not providing us with any information or entering this discourse. You and John C ARE speaking for him if you're (I have no reason to doubt this) telling us the truth. Remember, I addressed this in my post where JJ assured us "the president" would be active on this forum? Mitch has never come here PERSONALLY to tell us that policy has been eliminated. I'm staying out of any and all those legal machinations.
  11. Harry Whitehead

    Harry Whitehead I love to hunt Buffalos!!!!!

    NTA President's Final Update

    George, one thing for sure, if JJ said it, that information is suspect. Why don't we ALL do this, give these people some time. Mitch is an honest man with no other agenda than to ATTEMPT to right the ship but he is just one man, one that doesn't even have a vote!!!!

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  12. Therein is the main sticking point of all my posts. I can't speak for others, but I KNOW that I and another former board member advised the "new regime" that once the former ED was dismissed, ALL operations should cease. At that time, I suggested that 4 to 5 trusted individuals who possessed good business skills be selected to form a REORGANZATION COMMITTEE.

    No George this did not happen and the person whom told you is wrong or they made up the story.


    AT THAT TIME, COMMITTE MEMBER DUTIES should have been defined and assigned with a SHORT SUSPENSE DATE. That way, the financial issues could have been resolved and satisfied while explicit instruction were set to prevent overlapping responsibilitie.

    That did happen, but the short suspense date on certain things cannot as they must be cleared thru legal.

    . (John C says you're on the phone, but that doesn't assuage curiosity.

    What to hell ?? Maybe I dont understand this, expound please

    Once the new system was in place, John Janelli got on here and stated that the new operations would entail full disclosure. OK, he's the president, he sets policy, that's the new policy. It was commendable so that every member here who was an NTA member would have immediate access and prospective members would have an idea of transparancy.

    Yep and that stopped immediately at the convention as per JJ. So try blaming that on some other than the former Pres.

    Mitch does not have to get on here at your say so, who died and left you in charge George. It is his choice, not yours not anyone else. If he said what you suggest you would just turn on him like you have everyone else.


    For the NTA to succeed NOW, you need to start over PERIOD. Stop trying to continue business as normal since nothing IS normal now. MY suggestion remains. Do not appoint anyone to any permanent position. HIRE a private contractor to conduct day-to-day operations until you can SELECT a Chief ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER who has a specific contract with a specific term and specific duties and responsibilities.

    With what money???

    One unauthorized payment screwed the pooch.


    Then schedule an election. (Sorry John C, you don't HAVE 12 to 24 months. A reasonable reorganization should have the basics worked out within 90 days at most and be instituted within 6 months.

    Bold talk George and that would have and could have happened had it not been for the law suit. We were advised to stay in place until the lawsuit is settled. So sorry ole man you are wrong again. plus it takes money to run an honest election and you blonde buddy had bought 50 family memberships to insure their candidate won.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ New bylaws may (HOPEFULLY) eliminate half of the current number and resort to geographical representatives. (I suggested this almost 10 years ago if some of you can remember back that far. So don't say it was a UTA idea. It was my idea and the UTA utilized it. Shame on the NTA for lagging behind.)

    Yes and this was also part of the changes we talked about on the forums. after which many many weeks later I and the board received a copy of your draft of new bylaws.

    I see there's already encouragement being given for a convention next year. I'm sure that could be done, but it damned sure should be at the bottom of the priority list right now. We need to get the house in order before we open the doors to the public.

    As already mentioned GEORGE pay attention, I though you said you were a college grad. a few words here. CONTRACT was already signed!!! If we have to pay for the place we should go ahead and have a convention. There will be a huge briefing, questions and answers at the general meeting.


    All the above George and all would be fine, and would work and that is exactly what was planned until the lawsuit. That changes the whole status Que.
  13. michael p.

    michael p. Getting better with age :)

    Re: NTA President's Final Update


    You can show naked fish but not my buns... this is all Taxi.nets fault!!! I want to feel free as Kim Kardashian on Twitter!!!
  14. I never said one stinking word about speaking for Mitch. If you think I did well you are wrong again.

    JJ may have assured you and all the president would be active on this forum, well that was HIM BEING PRESIDENT. again I am sure he was not speaking for Mitch. Mitch is a quiet no conflict type of person.

    Now have you even bothered to call him or send him an email. My bet is no. You just want to stir stuff with suspect information.

    You so readily love to attack anyone that does not do things your way Mr. Roof. If someone is not your personal friend they are wrong. At this point you would not know the truth if it was laid out in black and white in front of you. Harry has told you the truth. I have told you the truth. But you readily attack and make false statements you lack the knowledge of.

    When all comes out in the wash, you will see who is telling the truth.

    I will not argue with you over this but again you made accusations from suspected half truths.

    While you may have stayed up late when you were sec. and did the minutes, it did not happen in July and the meeting the other night we had two people taking minutes, so there will be a comparison I would hope.

    Did your informant tell you I recommended a professional stenographer for the July meeting? and that was rejected exclusively by your source.

    The books will be setup with a separate treasurer and separate bookkeeper and the treasurer will in the future be bonded, something else I recommended and was refused.

    But its all ok your source is nolonger on the board or an officer, so finally we can move forward and not be blocked as we have the last 65-70 days.
  15. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    John your reading comprehension needs serious work. I know what I and another former board member did. There's nothing "made up". And I never said you spoke to Mitch. I said you WERE speaking FOR HIM. You can't relay any information without speaking FOR HIM. He's president and everything for public consumption should be approved by him. If your information was flawed, it's his responsibility to correct. This is why my first post addressed "Lone Rangers". If you have a personal opinion, you have to preface it with a disclaimer as to such. If not, you are speaking as a director for the board. Even the old bylaws state what is the president' s responsibility so don't tell me what is Mitch' s responsibility. I may not know everything but I know what the bylaws state. Once a president MAKES a declaration, the only way to negate it is by the replacement to state it. Under Robert's Rules of Order that's considered a "standing rule".

    Now I suggest you thicken your skin and look for someone who doesn't know Parliamentary procedure. None of anything I've said or say has Jack to do with it being "my way". It's the way professional endeavors have always been done. And I don't have to look up most words used on this forum. I know their definition and I choose them intentionally.
  16. George I dont need anything from you. I dont have to ask anyones permission of preface it with anything. I responded to exactly what you posted with the correct answer.

    Once again you are still using half truths. Understand we are not in a meeting. So back to yuou saying JJ said the President will post here. Again that was JJ and not mitch saying it.

    Go take you nyquill and go to bed. If its not your way its the highway and yes you are wrong on many counts. end of story.

    I seem to remember a quote for a movie. " You want the truth, You cant handle the truth!."

    I also want to say just one more thing. We did away with the bs standing rules, that no one ever recorded. They should have been recorded and properly indexed, but so many people just seem to remember a standing rule that in truth never existed.

    There are no standing rules and that was voted on. unanimously carried too.
  17. DeeCee

    DeeCee New Member

    John, standing rules are common in an organization. They do help, it's just too hard to have the by laws cover every nit picky situation that comes up. Not having them written down is asking for trouble. The secretary should have a ledger and record the standing rule, and the dates of adoption, suspension or rescindment.
  18. George

    George The older I get, the better I was.

    John there you go again. You can't cure stupid but you can educate the uninformed. Obviously you don't know Robert's Rules of Order. Your bluster aside, Standing Rules exist whether you understand it or not. For those of you who don't know, here is an explanation. Note however, there currently are no new/modified Charter nor Bylaws yet.

    Robert's Rules
    When Rules Conflict: Robert's Rules for Precedence
    By C. Alan Jennings, PRP
    When you're using Robert's Rules to deal with different types of rules, you need to know when to follow which rule. Among the more fundamental rules, then, are those that define the order of precedence of the different rules that an organization creates:

    Charter: The charter, if you have one, reigns supreme. Nothing except a judge or the law of the land supersedes it. Fortunately, a charter is usually pretty succinct and operates like a franchise. It's a grant of authority by the state (if your group is incorporated) or a superior organization (if your group is a constituent unit of a larger body). A charter usually lists the few conditions under which you must operate, but it usually provides for your organization to be subject to bylaws specifically tailored to your organization but which may not conflict with provisions of the charter.

    Bylaws: Even though the bylaws contain the most important single set of rules for defining your organization and its governance, the content of the bylaws remains binding and enforceable only to the extent it doesn't conflict with your charter. If your group is not incorporated or not subject to a charter, then the bylaws are the highest-ranking rules of your organization. No matter what, no rules of order or standing rules can ever be enforced if they conflict in any way with your bylaws.

    Because bylaws define specific characteristics of the organization itself — including (in most cases) which parliamentary authority will be used by the organization — bylaws are of such importance that they can't be changed without previous notice and the consent of a large majority of your members.

    Special rules of order and standing rules: Special rules of order and standing rules have completely different applications and uses, but they rank together as immediately subordinate to bylaws because they have one particular thing in common: They contain individual rules (each of which is usually adopted separately from the other rules in the class) based on the specific need of the organization to accomplish a specific purpose for which the rule is adopted.

    Robert's Rules (parliamentary authority): Robert's Rules is a parliamentary manual, and if your organization has adopted it as your parliamentary authority, then Robert's Rules is binding on your group. But it's binding only to the extent that it isn't in conflict with the charter, bylaws, special rules of order, or standing rules.

    Custom: Custom is basically procedures that aren't written anywhere but are followed in actual practice just as if they were written rules.

    Custom is as binding as actual rules with one exception: If a written rule exists to the contrary, even in the parliamentary authority, then the custom must yield as soon as the conflict is pointed out to the membership through a point of order. The only way around this exception is if a special rule of order is adopted to place the custom formally in the body of written rules.

    Buy the Book
    Robert's Rules For Dummies, 2nd Edition (1118294041) cover image
    Robert's Rules For Dummies, 2nd Edition
  19. George. Blah blah blah. I know exactly what they say.

    What you dont understand and you were part of the problem. RRO maybe say it. I sat in on many board meeting and sat on board of greater importance than the NTA in its current form.

    Everyone of them recorded the standing rules and cataloged them. and indexed those same rules, other wise people make things up, the older board members pull so called rules out of the ear.

    This is the first board I have sat on that you did not receive a packet with several booklets explaining SRO that are in effect, membership list etc. and as time allows we will develop those missing items.

    So calling me or anyone else stupid just shows your air of [ insert any nasty word ]. There was no need in you calling anyone stupid. You are not any more intelligent than anyone here. You may know certain things, but you dont know everything, despite your insisting you do.

    As mentioned above SR SRO etc were never recorded so they don't exist and we the board to vote to abolish the so called former standing rules. a past President cannot make an unwritten rule that no one on the board has voted on or is even known to the board.

    Say let me ask you, since you sat on the board and are Mr. Know it all. How much was your donation at the board meetings. I did receive word for the former Ex Dir. that stated all board members are expected to make substantial donation to the NTA at the board meetings. So how much was your donation?

    "about 3:00 AM in Sioux Fall?"
  20. Exactly my point Donnie, none of the standing rules were or are accessible. If the exist at all they would be in the minutes of the board meetings. Thats one reason we the board voted to disallow the past So, SROas no one knows what when or where. They will be recorded in the future and published for the board members and new board members. No more made up BS.