texasvotebymail.info, line by line
I'm going to go through the whole front page text of http://www.texasvotebymail.info/, line by line, and answer all of the half-truths and outright lies. This will be long and involved. I'll quote the text from their site in a box (without their fancy formatting), and then put my comment below that. By the end, you'll wonder how you can believe a word they say. Guess what? That's what I've been wondering for a couple of years now.
Before I start in on their page, though, I'll say this about their domain name: Aren't they being just a little pretentious? They're not discussing voting by mail for the whole state of Texas. They're talking about one organization, and in the grand scale of things, not all that important a one, either. Nobody's going to get killed, or lose their liberty, if the Texas VHF-FM Society doesn't vote by mail, after all. It's not even about governmental elections in Texas, which is what I'd expect if I didn't know any better and saw that domain name.
Their page is really not at texasvotebymail.info, either. The page at that site is really just a little bitty snippet of HTML that calls in the real site, from http://www.dougfree.com/vbm. I have no idea why they went to all that trouble.
Update, 21 June 2005: The Gang of Three has updated their page. Since it's just an addition at the top, I've dissected the update on a separate page - this one is long enough already.
On to the page...
|
NEWS FLASH!! |
Well, I suppose it would be, if it were actually the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
|
On June 4 th, 2005 during a meeting of the Texas VHF FM Society Board of Directors held at Ham-Com, the following five directors announced their intentions to disobey changes to the Society bylaws adopted by members at the Society membership meeting held on January 15th, 2005. |
This is only true if you accept that the changes were, in fact, properly adopted. As I explain on this site, they were not, and are not in effect. Therefore, there's nothing to disobey.
|
Director and President, Paul Baumgardner |
You can't void what was never adopted.
|
The action taken by the above five Directors is a clear violation of the laws of the State of Texas that govern non-profit corporations |
Really? If so, then the Gang of Three should have no trouble getting the court in which the lawsuit is still pending to issue an injunction demanding that votes be conducted by mail. They've had a week to do it, after all, so why haven't they gone back to court? Maybe it's because they can't blind-side anyone this time, like they did in April.
|
and demonstrates their blatant disregard of the best interests of the members of the Texas VHF FM Society. |
Only if you define "best interests of the members", in the immortal words of Governor William J. LePetomaine, as "protecting our phoney-baloney jobs". That's the real effect of the amendment: to get the Dallas Amateur Radio Club to sweep the Gang of Three and their buddies in by a landslide.
|
The following Directors highly opposed the above actions and urged the other Directors to do the right thing and not violate the bylaws that were adopted by the membership. |
The bylaws were not adopted by the membership. The vote in Arlington in January violated the bylaws, and thus was invalid.
|
Director Don Stevenson |
Yup, these are the Gang of Three who will stop at nothing to protect their phoney-baloney jobs.
|
Don't Be Misled |
Indeed not. You can start by examining the Gang of Three's words critically.
|
Many of the "old school" entrenched board members, including Paul Baumgardner, have been highly opposed to vote by mail. |
Yup, and if you follow the link on the left, you'll see why it's a bad idea.
|
This may very well be the reason they continue to remain on the Board of Directors year after year. |
Or it could well be that they're the few willing to do a thankless, difficult job well, with integrity and honesty and without advancing their own personal agendas.
|
Now that vote by mail was passed |
No, it didn't.
|
they have done a quick spin on their story about how they are all in favor of vote by mail, |
Some of them support some form of vote by mail. Others, like me (even though I'm no longer a Director), have always opposed it and will always oppose it.
|
however, their actions clearly demonstrate that they still highly oppose the vote by mail. |
Even the ones who support some form of vote by mail all agree that the form proposed in January is fatally flawed, expensive, and unworkable.
|
Here is the real story that they DON'T want you to know: |
Oh, boy, accusations of hidden agendas. This should be entertaining. Of course, there are other parts of the story that they don't want you to know, but they're not gonna let little details like that stop them.
|
At the winter meeting of the Texas VHF FM Society held on January 15th, 2005 in Arlington, TX, Steve Agee, N5ZUA, made a motion to amend the bylaws to require that all future elections and amendments to bylaws, standards for frequency coordination and band plans to be conducted by mail ballot. |
Yes, he indeed did. However, the amendment itself wasn't written by Agee, but by Chris Hudgins (as an examination of the change history of the amendment document file in Microsoft Word will show).
|
The Society membership overwhelmingly approved the motion. |
No, they didn't. The people there - many of whom were new members, paid for with crisp new $10 bills (did anyone check to see if the serial numbers were consecutive?) - voted to pass the amendment, but they didn't follow the rules the Society adopted, and so that vote was meaningless.
|
After the winter meeting numerous board members were unhappy with these changes |
Yup. Not only Board members, but lots of other Society members as well.
|
and went on a campaign to discredit the vote by mail amendments. |
They didn't have to. The amendment discredited itself.
|
These board members astronomically inflated the costs of vote by mail |
They did a realistic assessment of the requirements of the amendment, without any handwaving about volunteer labor which may or may not ever turn up.
|
and even tried to claim it was "illegally" adopted. |
"Illegally" is an imprecise term, but understandable when used by a layman to discuss parlliamentary matters. It was most definitely improperly adopted, and thus is invalid.
|
This is very disrespectful to the membership who instructed the Society that they approved of the amendments. |
Considering the history of the Gang of Three, this is a remarkable claim, when you realize that one of their hallmarks is a total lack of respect for the rules and for other folks who have reasonably held opinions.
|
To further try to kill vote by mail, Paul Baumgardner, with only a few days notice, |
The bylaws require 30 days' notice. This was given: the meeting was held on 9 April, and the notice was mailed on 7 March.
|
called a "special meeting" to be held in Austin |
He did as the bylaws required. The meeting was requested by five directors, and the bylaws require that a special meeting be called when that happens.
|
to try to "rescind" and table the bylaws amendments based on an attendance vote. |
The motion to rescind is a well-defined parliamentary motion, described in section 35, pages 293-299, of the tenth edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the parliamentary authority adopted by the Society. This wasn't strictly necessary; it was scheduled to emphasize, by direct action of the membership, that the vote in January was invalid.
|
This is not allowed under the new bylaws. |
It would not be if the amendment had been validly adopted. It was not, and so it is allowed.
|
In order to modify the bylaws, they must be done by mail ballot. |
Wishful thinking. This will only be the case if the amendment is validly adopted at the summer meeting in Austin.
|
This is a right granted to all members on January 15, 2005. |
It could not have been granted in January. To do so would violate the bylaws as they existed at the time (and, indeed, still exist; check out the Society's bylaws page).
|
On March 22, 2005, after receipt of the notice of the planned "special meeting," Steve Agee sent the Board of Directors a certified letter informing them of default of the bylaws. |
Interesting. Why does the letter on their site (which is where I got the copy I have on this site) have a date of March 28th?
|
Mr. Baumgardner and other Board members ignored his letter. |
After Paul asked me to respond, which I did, examining the issue in detail and showing that the amendment was adopted improperly. I sent my response on March 25 to the entire Board, as well as Agee.
|
In an absolute last attempt to steer the organization from the wrong path, |
This should say "In an absolute last attempt to keep the organization from righting the wrong we had perpetrated".
|
on March 28, 2005 Directors Stevenson, Hudgins, and Rasmussen sent Mr. Baumgardner a certified letter expressing deep concern of the proposed illegal attempt to roll back the bylaws outside the legal amendment method. |
For someone who complains about others' use of the word "illegal", these folks sure throw it around freely, don't they? In any event, the amendment was not validly adopted, so what they call the "legal" (there's that word again) method would, in fact, have been invalid.
|
These Directors asked Mr. Baumgardner not to violate the bylaws and to honor the rights and wishes of the membership. |
Paul would have been violating the bylaws had he not held the meeting as requested, with the agenda as stated.
|
Mr. Baumgardner ignored this letter as well. |
As well he should have.
|
Because of the complete lack of response and refusal to honor the bylaws and respect the wishes and rights of the membership, |
This should read "Because Paul Baumgardner wouldn't surrender and do his job as we saw it, instead of doing it in accordance with the bylaws".
|
many members were forced to take legal action against Mr. Baumgardner and other dissidents, |
"Many members" means "Chris Hudgins, Don Stevenson, and eight of Chris's cronies that didn't have to do anything but sign their names". (I wonder why Ms. Rasmussen didn't join the suit? Didn't she want to "protect the rights of the members" too?) There were no "other dissidents"; the suit named Paul Baumgardner and the Society, period.
|
to preserve the rights of all of the membership. |
No, to enforce their invalid amendment in opposition to the rights of the people not at the meeting - which the rule they violated was specifically enacted to protect. Because that rule protects the rights of absentees, it cannot be waived or overridden, even by a unanimous vote.
|
Legal action in this matter was not taken lightheartedly. It was taken only as an absolute last resort so that the rights of the members would be preserved. |
What rights? The right to be trampled and ignored in violation of the rules? Thank you, but you can stop protecting my rights now.
|
On April 8, 2005, |
...less than 24 hours before the meeting, with only a half-hearted attempt to notify Paul Baumgardner, thus ensuring the judge would only hear one side of the case...
|
numerous members, |
Hudgins and his cronies.
|
on behalf of the Texas VHF-FM Society, |
Bwahahaha. The Gang of Three sued the Society, causing trouble and expense, on its own behalf? Please stop helping me. I can't afford any more. This is worse than the government.
|
filed action with the Dallas County District Court asking for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to preserve all member rights. |
There they go again, talking about rights when the only right they would preserve is the right to be ignored if you aren't at a meeting, in violation of the bylaws.
|
On April 8, 2005, after review of the evidence presented, |
By only one side. The Gang of Three made sure that no opposing evidence would be presented, by carefully timing the filing of the suit to prevent any response in time to hold the meeting as originally planned.
|
the District Judge of the 160th District court ruled that a Temporary Restraining order should be granted against Paul Baumgardner and others from taking any action that would modify the bylaws by other means than a vote by mail. |
Of course the judge ruled that way. He had no other evidence, because the whole thing was carefully planned to ensure that he would not hear any. When he heard all of the evidence, he threw the TRO out the window and refused to issue a restraining order.
|
Keep in mind that a TRO is VERY DIFFICULT to obtain. Courts do not issue TRO's lightheartedly and without substantial reason to do so. |
As we have seen, however, they can be obtained simply by timing things very carefully to prevent any evidence or argument from being presented in time by the other side.
|
If you look back, Terri Schiavo’s attorneys could not get the court to grant a TRO to have her feeding tube reinstated and save her life. |
That's because the judge heard both sides of the issue before ruling - something the judge could not do in this case.
|
However, the Judge did rule that a TRO was warranted in this case to protect member rights. |
Because he had no evidence to the contrary at the time, because the Society was not given an opportunity to present any.
|
This is a very big deal. |
Yes, it is. Courts take a very dim view of being led down the garden path.
|
Don't let Mr. Baumgardner and other people downplay the court's ruling. |
I'm not trying to. I am, however, telling the whole story, unlike the Gang of Three.
|
This TRO was valid for 14 days and then it expired. |
There was no point in fighting it once the meeting had been sabotaged - which, after all, was the whole point of the action.
|
Parties and cases desiring court restriction for more than 14 days must file what is called a Motion for Temporary Injunction. In this case, because it was hoped that Mr. Baumgardner and the others would listen to the membership and follow the bylaws, no Injunction was sought. |
Well, the Board has, by the reasoning of the Gang of Three, violated the bylaws. They have a clear cause to file a motion for a temporary injunction. Will they do so? Of course not, since they can't sabotage anything by filing at the last minute: court rules require that they give the Society's attorney three days' notice before any further hearings.
|
Because no motion for Temporary Injunction was filed, obviously no motion would be granted. |
After the Society's attorney filed his motion, I doubt any injunction would have been granted anyway. The reply and legal brief utterly shreds their case.
|
However, the TRO was granted. |
Only because they succeeeded in blind-siding the Society. In fact, the Gang of Three can't do anything except by blind-siding people. They're too cowardly to stand and fight face-to-face.
|
As a standard procedure, there was a hearing set for April, 22 2005 to review the situation right after the TRO expired. Because no Temporary Injunction motion was filed, the court did not grant one. |
They just said that. Are they so unsure of their position that they must repeat it at every opportunity?
|
The Judge signed a document drafted by Mr. Baumgardne's attorney that could be construed that there was finding of fact in favor for Mr. Baumgardner. |
The decree seems pretty clear to me.
|
Mr. Baumgardner has disseminated this document in attempt to sway members to believe he had a victory, when that is clearly not the case. |
What part of "Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief is hereby DENIED" don't they understand?
|
In an attempt to further the battle, Mr. Baumgardner and other Board Members hired an attorney to fight AGAINST vote by mail PAID FOR OUT OF SOCIETY FUNDS!!! |
Paul Baumgardner was personally sued for actions he took as President of the Texas VHF-FM Society. It's only fair that the Society defend him, for that's how corporations work. If the Society would not defend its officers against lawsuits for doing their jobs as they saw fit, pretty soon there wouldn't be anyone willing to hold office. Then again, maybe that's what the Gang of Three wants.
|
So now, Mr. Baumgardner and others see fit to spend your money to fight against the direction that you, the membership, has given. |
The membership did no such thing. The vote in Arlington in January was invalid. It does not mean a thing. It counts for nothing. It is not a valid expression of the will of the membership. Even if it were, the membership also, by a 40-16 vote, said that it did not believe the amendment was properly adopted. What makes that any less the direction of the membership than the vote in Arlington? I contend that it is more so, since it was validly adopted.
|
Now, as of June 4, 2005, the five Board Members have declared that they are just not going to do the vote by mail bylaw requirement. |
They decided that because there is no vote by mail bylaw requirement. Why spend a thousand bucks on something that has no effect and is not necessary?
|
Amazing, isn't it? |
I, for one, am truly amazed that someone would repeat the same lies, half-truths, innuendoes, and spin over and over and expect people to believe it.
|
STAY TUNED HERE FOR MORE DETAILS! |
Oh, goody. More lies, half-truths, innuendoes, and spin. Just what I wanted.
As the Gang of Three updates their site, I'll update this one. Stay tuned, and check out the "what you should do" page for more.