Subject: Discussions with the RD's

March 7, 1998
To: BOD
From: Pidge
Subject: Discussions with the RD's

Thursday morning Greg Salisbury, RG #1 Director on behalf of all 13 of the Regional Directors, contacted me. He asked if I would agree to a conference call between Mike McCluney and the two of us so that they could explain to me the RD's position regarding 4 areas of concern. I agreed to this request (I'll listen to anyone).
The call took place Thursday evening at 8:00. The ground rules were:

• A. We all acknowledged that none of us had the authority to make any binding agreements.
• B. We would work and listen to each other to try and find common areas of agreement to build on. The goal being to restore and strengthen the trust of the two groups with each other and with the membership. As Greg put it a "win, win, win situation".
• C. To write down any common areas of agreement in words that we feel would be acceptable to our respective groups.
• D. Any common areas of agreement would have to be taken to our respective groups for ratification. Me to the BOD, Greg to the Eastern RD's, and Mike to the Western RD's.
• E. To have the BOD's approval of any agreements PRIOR to releasing the proposed agreement to the RD's.

1. The change to RCP #65. All of the hullabaloo aside, the two groups are basically in agreement. All 13 Regional Directors feel:

• a. Simply stated, they feel that the BOD HAS the authority and right to change Grands PROCEDURES and to amend or change the Grands contract with the agreement of the host clubs. This would not require that the RD's be involved at all, other then to get the word out after the fact.
• b. Even though RCP#65 may have been mistakenly accepted as a rule change it is still a rule change.
• c. The BOD can not change a rule for any reason. (Except possibly in safety issues and then only temporarily until it can be voted on.)
• d. If we (the BOD) felt that the timing order needed to be changed this year we had the authority to do it AS A PROCEDURE CHANGE with NO mention of RCP #65.
• e. That even though they all don't agree with the need for the change, they will support our right to make it, IF it is done according to "d" above. My proposed response is attached and in Mike and Greg's opinion it will have the support and approval of all 13 RD's.

2. The QMA Membership Database, Mailing List etc. They all feel that this issue is the #1 issue bothering the membership. We discussed this issue and I told them that it was an important issue and that even though I felt it was solved I certainly would support a confirmation of this opinion. We agreed that between Myself, Denise and a few of the more organized regions we would attempt to verify the databases accuracy. We will attempt this in the near future and report to you all our findings. If necessary we will verify it again towards the end of the summer when everyone's name should be in the database. I don't feel anyone will have a problem with this process. I know I look forward to the help and the resolution of this nagging problem!

3. The appointment of a different Elections Auditor. The impression of the general membership is that there "is something funny" about the relationship of Bill Wilson and QMA. Right or wrong they (the membership) want a change. All of us that have dealt with Bill know that his dealings with QMA and his character are both beyond reproach. The RD's suggestion is to put the job of election audit, managing and supervision out for bid. The lowest or best bidder could then be selected. Bill would be welcome to bid. (Something tells me he won't!) This suggestion has merit and the BOD should discuss it. I agreed to get back to the RD's with the BOD's thoughts at a latter date.

4. The existence of a QMA Asset list. I had to plead ignorance. I do agree that if we have one it should be made available to the RD's. If not we should have one. I will work with Karen on this issue and report back to the BOD and the RD's.

In closing I would like to state that at no time was the process confrontational or belligerent in nature. Both groups had our respective positions on the varied issues. Unfortunately, as so often is the case through miscommunication we each had a distorted view of the others position. I feel that the three of us corrected this distorted view. To the RD's credit, and particularly Mike and Greg they opted to talk rather then act. We need more of this interaction. Please give me your views and opinions on this. I will be in touch with all of you between now and Monday.

Sincerely,

Pidge