Vegas P.R.O. Meeting (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dragracer
- Start date
Tim5636sc
Nitro Member
While I have no clue what Mr. Hartman means when he says “I was a sponsor/facilitator/consultant/researcher during the event,” I will not dispute his recollection of the makeup of quads during qualifying having been changed. What I absolutely dispute is his implied contention that Kenny Bernstein somehow managed to alter those quad make ups.
Way back when the Wayne County Dodge was supposed to have been caught with nitrous during an inspection in Gainesville the story was that a low-level tech inspector found it during a regular inspection and was told to keep quiet about it by NHRA That was the rumor that virtually everyone chose to believe because that’s what they wanted to believe. However, we’ve all had enough experience in working with groups of people to know that had some low-level tech guy found nitrous there is just no way that the story could have been kept quiet.
That same scenario is relevant here. There is no way that if Bernstein had manipulated the pairings or quads it would have been kept quiet. Some individual, at some point, would have blabbed about it.
If any of you remember the story of a racer who was alleged to have bribed a starter back in 1983, please also remember how that story broke. A third party witnessed the conversation and ultimately spilled the beans. Had that third party not been present it’s likely no one would have ever been able to prove anything.
Same scenario here. If Bernstein had “changed things” someone would have talked about it, and I have heard no one make the claim that it happened. Yes, quad make ups may have been changed, but to suggest Bernstein had it done without being able to back it up means it’s nothing more than rumor and speculation.
Chris Williams is right in that you don’t have to have been a racer to run NHRA, but it certainly helps if you’ve been there because you’re then in a better position to understand the problems facing the competitors.
Regarding Paul Titchener’s post I must respectfully suggest that after having spent a considerable amount of time discussing this issue with an individual who’s done extensive research into this area that much of what Mr. Titchener writes is incorrect. I am simply not competent, nor do I have the time, to write the long dissertation this issue demands. It’s sufficient to simply say that this is an extremely complicated issue that can’t be explained in a few paragraphs.
I’ve told this story before and will tell it again. Back in the early 80s, when I was at Car Craft Magazine, NHRA sent out proxy ballots to the membership asking the members for their votes on what appeared to be a very simple issue – the appointment and dismissal of NHRA board members without seeking the prior approval of the membership.
Our staff was filled with drag racers, including Rick Voegelin and Norman Mayersohn, who not only produced the idea, but one of the best cars ever in the Super Modified classes, Stevie Collison, who could successfully bracket race anything from a prepared car to one off a showroom floor, and I think John Diana was still on our staff, and Johnny had been racing everything from Stock to an AHRA Modified car for years. So the guys knew what they were doing.
When the proxies arrived the staff found an outside attorney to discuss it with because Petersen Publishing’s attorney at the time was also NHRA’s lawyer. We wouldn’t talk about the time of day with him, much less something like this.
“Our” attorney told us that with a simple majority of the RETURNED proxies NHRA would then be able to appoint and dismiss board members without consultation. More importantly, and certainly not explained with the proxies, NHRA could then make any decision it wanted to without interference from anyone. Remember, they didn’t need a majority of the total membership, just a majority of the returned ballots. So, if they only had 1,500 ballots returned and 1,400 of them were marked “yes,” it was a done deal.
We wanted to know how to overcome this. The attorney said that rather than a simple majority of the returned proxies we would need 75% of the proxies of the total NHRA membership to overcome the previous vote. Since the total membership at that time was somewhere around 55,000, that meant we’d need over 40,000 votes in our favor.
The attorney went further. The first thing we’d need would be a list of the membership, which he suggested NHRA would probably refuse to provide. We’d then need a court order to get it. After we got that list we’d have to spend our money in producing at least two mailings trying to convince the members to vote “our” way. Since we had already told the attorney that the vast majority of racers simply wanted to race and didn’t care very much about the politics of drag racing, he felt we’d have an almost impossible task convincing those racers to vote “against” NHRA management and Wally. Lastly, he also pointed out that while we were using our limited funds to mount this effort NHRA would be countering using their very effective propaganda arm, National Dragster, which was essentially “free” for them. Stymied as we were, we did nothing, NHRA got that simple majority of proxies, and that was the end of it.
The PRO isn’t about to pool it’s money to fight NHRA. They’d never collect enough unless the wealthier members tried to take something like this on on their own, an extremely unlikely and unprofitable (for them) scenario.
Jon Asher
Senior Editor
Competitionplus.com
Way back when the Wayne County Dodge was supposed to have been caught with nitrous during an inspection in Gainesville the story was that a low-level tech inspector found it during a regular inspection and was told to keep quiet about it by NHRA That was the rumor that virtually everyone chose to believe because that’s what they wanted to believe. However, we’ve all had enough experience in working with groups of people to know that had some low-level tech guy found nitrous there is just no way that the story could have been kept quiet.
That same scenario is relevant here. There is no way that if Bernstein had manipulated the pairings or quads it would have been kept quiet. Some individual, at some point, would have blabbed about it.
If any of you remember the story of a racer who was alleged to have bribed a starter back in 1983, please also remember how that story broke. A third party witnessed the conversation and ultimately spilled the beans. Had that third party not been present it’s likely no one would have ever been able to prove anything.
Same scenario here. If Bernstein had “changed things” someone would have talked about it, and I have heard no one make the claim that it happened. Yes, quad make ups may have been changed, but to suggest Bernstein had it done without being able to back it up means it’s nothing more than rumor and speculation.
Chris Williams is right in that you don’t have to have been a racer to run NHRA, but it certainly helps if you’ve been there because you’re then in a better position to understand the problems facing the competitors.
Regarding Paul Titchener’s post I must respectfully suggest that after having spent a considerable amount of time discussing this issue with an individual who’s done extensive research into this area that much of what Mr. Titchener writes is incorrect. I am simply not competent, nor do I have the time, to write the long dissertation this issue demands. It’s sufficient to simply say that this is an extremely complicated issue that can’t be explained in a few paragraphs.
I’ve told this story before and will tell it again. Back in the early 80s, when I was at Car Craft Magazine, NHRA sent out proxy ballots to the membership asking the members for their votes on what appeared to be a very simple issue – the appointment and dismissal of NHRA board members without seeking the prior approval of the membership.
Our staff was filled with drag racers, including Rick Voegelin and Norman Mayersohn, who not only produced the idea, but one of the best cars ever in the Super Modified classes, Stevie Collison, who could successfully bracket race anything from a prepared car to one off a showroom floor, and I think John Diana was still on our staff, and Johnny had been racing everything from Stock to an AHRA Modified car for years. So the guys knew what they were doing.
When the proxies arrived the staff found an outside attorney to discuss it with because Petersen Publishing’s attorney at the time was also NHRA’s lawyer. We wouldn’t talk about the time of day with him, much less something like this.
“Our” attorney told us that with a simple majority of the RETURNED proxies NHRA would then be able to appoint and dismiss board members without consultation. More importantly, and certainly not explained with the proxies, NHRA could then make any decision it wanted to without interference from anyone. Remember, they didn’t need a majority of the total membership, just a majority of the returned ballots. So, if they only had 1,500 ballots returned and 1,400 of them were marked “yes,” it was a done deal.
We wanted to know how to overcome this. The attorney said that rather than a simple majority of the returned proxies we would need 75% of the proxies of the total NHRA membership to overcome the previous vote. Since the total membership at that time was somewhere around 55,000, that meant we’d need over 40,000 votes in our favor.
The attorney went further. The first thing we’d need would be a list of the membership, which he suggested NHRA would probably refuse to provide. We’d then need a court order to get it. After we got that list we’d have to spend our money in producing at least two mailings trying to convince the members to vote “our” way. Since we had already told the attorney that the vast majority of racers simply wanted to race and didn’t care very much about the politics of drag racing, he felt we’d have an almost impossible task convincing those racers to vote “against” NHRA management and Wally. Lastly, he also pointed out that while we were using our limited funds to mount this effort NHRA would be countering using their very effective propaganda arm, National Dragster, which was essentially “free” for them. Stymied as we were, we did nothing, NHRA got that simple majority of proxies, and that was the end of it.
The PRO isn’t about to pool it’s money to fight NHRA. They’d never collect enough unless the wealthier members tried to take something like this on on their own, an extremely unlikely and unprofitable (for them) scenario.
Jon Asher
Senior Editor
Competitionplus.com
Paul
Nitro Member
Jon, thanks for taking the time to generate that detailed reply regarding the NHRA proxy vote by the members, that's the most detailed description I've seen of the vote.
I realize that by trying to get an understanding of the situation from the "outside in" that some of my conclusions may be incorrect, but its a pretty difficult issue to dig into as its very hard to find anyone with knowledge of the situation that is willing speak about it, so thanks for providing your comments.
But I agree with you that the most critical issue is likely this vote that occurred in the 80's that stripped the membership of their ability to elect NHRA board members.
Here's some background on this issue that I'm pretty confident is correct. The information is based on requesting and receiving copies of the NHRA's Articles of Incorporation, original bylaws and what was claimed to be all the amendments that had been made to the original articles of incorporation. These documents must be provided upon request by non-profit organizations.
The original articles of incorporation and bylaws for the NHRA as a non-profit organization had some strong and clear statements regarding members.
"The Board of Directors shall have the right to refuse membership to any applicant, but unless so refused, all applicants for Active Membership shall become members upon the receipt by the corporation of the annual dues and whatever information concerning the applicant of the Board of Directors may from time to time require".
"One of the purposes of the annual meeting shall be the election of a Board of Directors".
"Each Director shall hold office for the term for which he is elected and until a successor is elected".
So as is generally required by the federal laws governing non-profit organizations which require them to be "generally controlled" by their members, the NHRA was originally set up with members having the generally expected rights to elect the Board of Directors. In addition, the documents clearly state that these members consist of all the general participants that have joined the NHRA, there was no "special class" of members that were the only ones that had voting rights.
This is important because the NHRA is bound by California law, which has very specific requirements on how non-profits are run, and in particular member's voting rights in a non-profit organization are very controlled and protected.
The California laws regarding non-profits are available on line here, and it appears that the 7000 sections and the early parts of the 5000 sections are the ones that apply to the NHRA:
California Corporations Code - California Code - California Law - California Statutes :: Justia
Now these are dense to work through and my interpretations of them may be wrong, but there are specific clauses there that apply to the modification of members voting rights and it appears that any modification of these rights requires approval by a true majority of the membership, not the majority of returned votes that was described by your attorney. As I mentioned earlier, the California laws put a lot of emphasis on member's voting rights, and this true majority requirement for a change in these rights is not surprising.
In addition, there is a clause in section 5814 that states that any modification to the articles that effects members voting rights must be submitted as a modification to the Articles of Incorporation, and the modification must specifically state that the change was made through a vote by the members.
But there is no such modification in the articles and amendments that I received, which were represented as the complete set of articles and their amendments. There is only the original original incorporation articles and an amendment dated 2005.
So it appears that the NHRA did not follow California law requiring a real majority vote in implementing this change that removed membership voting rights and they did not amend the articles of incorporation when the claimed the vote was performed. Thus what are represented by the NHRA as the full articles of incorporation for the company read as though members still have full voting rights.
Another clause conflicts with the opinion given to you by the attorney you mentioned. Clause 8330 states that any member may:
"Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and voting rights, at reasonable times, upon five business days' prior written demand upon the corporation which demand shall state the purpose for which the inspection rights are requested;"
The clause goes on in some detail about for purposes the names can be requested, but a request for the purpose of confirming a membership vote appears to not be something that the NHRA could decline.
Based on what I've seen, with the highlights described above, I still feel that there is a reasonable chance that the NHRA did not conform to California law in several significant and verifiable ways when they made the organizational changes based on their claimed membership vote.
The additional issue that I've described in previous posts that I thought potentially could be used to challenge the vote is voter eligibility. One thing I stated in the previous post was wrong, the NHRA was not a "business league" from the start, they changed to that designation on January 1, 1987, which apparently was after the vote was taken to remove membership voting rights. So if that timing is correct its probably not possible to challenge the vote based on ineligibility of the voters, the challenge would have to be purely based on whether the vote was correctly handled and implemented by the NHRA.
However, now that the NHRA is operating as a 501(c)(6) business league, the other statements I made regarding the general manner in which the NHRA is expected to admit members and operate are still valid. In particular, operating a "business league" non-profit organization where the organizations members have been made powerless appears to directly conflict the the requirements for a 501(c)(6), which state that the members must "generally control" the organization.
In summary, based on what I've seen in examining the California and federal laws and the NHRA's documents, I still feel that there is a reasonable chance that the NHRA's removal of membership voting rights could be successfully challenged.
Jon, I know this conflicts with the opinion of the attorney you mentioned, but candidly it appears he was wrong on several issues (majority vote, access to members). Each state has different laws for non-profit corporations so its possible he may not have been familiar with California's specific laws.
I know that forcing the NHRA to restructure its management would not be an easy thing to accomplish, even if based on strong legimate legal grounds, it would take substantial "lawyers, guns and money".
But if I was making my livelyhood from drag racing, as the Pro racers do, I would still feel it would be well worth funding at least an initial opinion from an attorney experienced in California non-profit corporate law.
I know its a layman's opinion, but too many things clearly don't appear to have been done correctly by the NHRA in regard to this membership voting issue, and that certainly would be consistent with their past history.
I realize that by trying to get an understanding of the situation from the "outside in" that some of my conclusions may be incorrect, but its a pretty difficult issue to dig into as its very hard to find anyone with knowledge of the situation that is willing speak about it, so thanks for providing your comments.
But I agree with you that the most critical issue is likely this vote that occurred in the 80's that stripped the membership of their ability to elect NHRA board members.
Here's some background on this issue that I'm pretty confident is correct. The information is based on requesting and receiving copies of the NHRA's Articles of Incorporation, original bylaws and what was claimed to be all the amendments that had been made to the original articles of incorporation. These documents must be provided upon request by non-profit organizations.
The original articles of incorporation and bylaws for the NHRA as a non-profit organization had some strong and clear statements regarding members.
"The Board of Directors shall have the right to refuse membership to any applicant, but unless so refused, all applicants for Active Membership shall become members upon the receipt by the corporation of the annual dues and whatever information concerning the applicant of the Board of Directors may from time to time require".
"One of the purposes of the annual meeting shall be the election of a Board of Directors".
"Each Director shall hold office for the term for which he is elected and until a successor is elected".
So as is generally required by the federal laws governing non-profit organizations which require them to be "generally controlled" by their members, the NHRA was originally set up with members having the generally expected rights to elect the Board of Directors. In addition, the documents clearly state that these members consist of all the general participants that have joined the NHRA, there was no "special class" of members that were the only ones that had voting rights.
This is important because the NHRA is bound by California law, which has very specific requirements on how non-profits are run, and in particular member's voting rights in a non-profit organization are very controlled and protected.
The California laws regarding non-profits are available on line here, and it appears that the 7000 sections and the early parts of the 5000 sections are the ones that apply to the NHRA:
California Corporations Code - California Code - California Law - California Statutes :: Justia
Now these are dense to work through and my interpretations of them may be wrong, but there are specific clauses there that apply to the modification of members voting rights and it appears that any modification of these rights requires approval by a true majority of the membership, not the majority of returned votes that was described by your attorney. As I mentioned earlier, the California laws put a lot of emphasis on member's voting rights, and this true majority requirement for a change in these rights is not surprising.
In addition, there is a clause in section 5814 that states that any modification to the articles that effects members voting rights must be submitted as a modification to the Articles of Incorporation, and the modification must specifically state that the change was made through a vote by the members.
But there is no such modification in the articles and amendments that I received, which were represented as the complete set of articles and their amendments. There is only the original original incorporation articles and an amendment dated 2005.
So it appears that the NHRA did not follow California law requiring a real majority vote in implementing this change that removed membership voting rights and they did not amend the articles of incorporation when the claimed the vote was performed. Thus what are represented by the NHRA as the full articles of incorporation for the company read as though members still have full voting rights.
Another clause conflicts with the opinion given to you by the attorney you mentioned. Clause 8330 states that any member may:
"Inspect and copy the record of all the members' names, addresses and voting rights, at reasonable times, upon five business days' prior written demand upon the corporation which demand shall state the purpose for which the inspection rights are requested;"
The clause goes on in some detail about for purposes the names can be requested, but a request for the purpose of confirming a membership vote appears to not be something that the NHRA could decline.
Based on what I've seen, with the highlights described above, I still feel that there is a reasonable chance that the NHRA did not conform to California law in several significant and verifiable ways when they made the organizational changes based on their claimed membership vote.
The additional issue that I've described in previous posts that I thought potentially could be used to challenge the vote is voter eligibility. One thing I stated in the previous post was wrong, the NHRA was not a "business league" from the start, they changed to that designation on January 1, 1987, which apparently was after the vote was taken to remove membership voting rights. So if that timing is correct its probably not possible to challenge the vote based on ineligibility of the voters, the challenge would have to be purely based on whether the vote was correctly handled and implemented by the NHRA.
However, now that the NHRA is operating as a 501(c)(6) business league, the other statements I made regarding the general manner in which the NHRA is expected to admit members and operate are still valid. In particular, operating a "business league" non-profit organization where the organizations members have been made powerless appears to directly conflict the the requirements for a 501(c)(6), which state that the members must "generally control" the organization.
In summary, based on what I've seen in examining the California and federal laws and the NHRA's documents, I still feel that there is a reasonable chance that the NHRA's removal of membership voting rights could be successfully challenged.
Jon, I know this conflicts with the opinion of the attorney you mentioned, but candidly it appears he was wrong on several issues (majority vote, access to members). Each state has different laws for non-profit corporations so its possible he may not have been familiar with California's specific laws.
I know that forcing the NHRA to restructure its management would not be an easy thing to accomplish, even if based on strong legimate legal grounds, it would take substantial "lawyers, guns and money".
But if I was making my livelyhood from drag racing, as the Pro racers do, I would still feel it would be well worth funding at least an initial opinion from an attorney experienced in California non-profit corporate law.
I know its a layman's opinion, but too many things clearly don't appear to have been done correctly by the NHRA in regard to this membership voting issue, and that certainly would be consistent with their past history.
Last edited:
I am glad Capps wrote that. I still see a major backpedal job(and wrose the booty kissing Brutonfest the drivers had on tv) and truely don't believe that PRO carries any wieght BUT its good to see someone on the group try to set things straight.
He did mention it a bit. I see the press release from NHRA that announced the next circu...err I mean 4 lane race as basically a punch in the face of PRO. It it truely were a collaborative effort then it should have been a joint release or at least credit given to PRO. Maybe PRO just needs a PR group...hey I happen to know a couple of guys.....
He did mention it a bit. I see the press release from NHRA that announced the next circu...err I mean 4 lane race as basically a punch in the face of PRO. It it truely were a collaborative effort then it should have been a joint release or at least credit given to PRO. Maybe PRO just needs a PR group...hey I happen to know a couple of guys.....
actually they have done surveys. Just a couple of weeks ago I received one in the my email, yeah I was shocked I was still on a list 
It covered many things. I was surpised though that in asking why I didn't attend or watch as many races as I used to it list possible reasons such as 1000' racing and the tv announcing as well as many others. Of course it failed to mention the countdown but it was very detailed. Now what they do with the info they gather remains to be seen. But at least they did ask.
It covered many things. I was surpised though that in asking why I didn't attend or watch as many races as I used to it list possible reasons such as 1000' racing and the tv announcing as well as many others. Of course it failed to mention the countdown but it was very detailed. Now what they do with the info they gather remains to be seen. But at least they did ask.
.
Nitro Member
actually they have done surveys. Just a couple of weeks ago I received one in the my email, yeah I was shocked I was still on a list
It covered many things. I was surpised though that in asking why I didn't attend or watch as many races as I used to it list possible reasons such as 1000' racing and the tv announcing as well as many others. Of course it failed to mention the countdown but it was very detailed. Now what they do with the info they gather remains to be seen. But at least they did ask.
I received the same survey in my email too.
I was disappointed that they didn't have a spot where you could type in your own comments.
rocketman
Nitro Member
I don't believe these meetings are open to the fans either. In fact, I don't think PRO even wants anything PRO discusses posted here.
Treeshaker
Nitro Member
Sponsor - I guaranteed/provided the funds for the team to compete at this event.
Facilitator - I worked with all parties involved to make sure what needed to be done for the team and it's members got done.
Consultant - I worked with Allen and Joe to solve problems that they had been experiencing concerning the tune up on the car. They made all of the final calls and the car did run it's quickest 1000' ET ever at this event.
Researcher - I was gathering factual information to present to potential marketing partners (some who were present) on the best way to use the team as a marketing tool. This included everything from fan interaction with the team and driver, to decal placement on the car to best catch exposure from the camera angles used, and everything in between.
Clear enough? And what does my job description have to do with NHRA deviating from their printed run sheets? I had only mentioned my job description because several were assuming/posting that I was a team owner at that event.
You have went from a firm statement of "This did not happen" in a previous post to a "may have happened but KB didn't cause it to happen" without anything to back you up. You want to discount my "third party" status while you back up your statements with assumptions that what I have said is "untruthful". There are several other erroneous statements in your posts that to correct would cause hurt and suffering to those involved if proof is shown to correct them.
Please get back to the middle of the road and report stories as they are and stop letting your bias show.
Paul
Nitro Member
I realized my post yesterday regarding challenging the NHRA's current management structure was too long winded. It contains some important information but even though I wrote it myself I had trouble reading it in one sitting this morning.
So here's an effort to condense it, still a mouthful but its the best I could do.
The NHRA was originally incorporated under California law as a non-profit organization. Its original articles of incorporation stated that members could freely join the organization and that these members had full voting rights to elect the NHRA board of directors.
This is important because California laws regarding non-profits, available for study at the link below (sections 5000 through 7000 are the appropriate ones) make it pretty clear that members voting rights are strongly protected.
California Corporations Code - California Code - California Law - California Statutes :: Justia
In the mid 80's (any one that can tie this date down exactly, please post info on it) the NHRA conducted by mail what they claim was a membership vote that removed the ability for members to elect the NHRA board directors. However, this vote was apparently done using only a majority of the returned votes, not a true majority of the members eligible to vote.
It appears that this claimed vote could be legally challenged for several reasons. The California non-profit laws listed above state that any changes to members voting rights can only be made with a true majority vote, not just the majority of returned ballots that apparently was used by the NHRA.
In addition, the California laws state that any change in members voting rights must be incorporated as an amendment to the articles of incorporation as having done been done via a majority vote by the members. In other words, for major change like this they have to make a public record of what the change was and they must state that this change was made through a majority vote by the members.
This does not appear to have been done by the NHRA. Non-profits are bound to send their articles of incorporation including all amendments to anyone who requests them. What I received upon requesting these articles included the original ones and an amendment dated 2005. Unless they for some reason did not send me all the amendments, there was no amendment that stated any change in members voting rights had been performed. In fact, based on what they represented were the current documents of record concerning the NHRA, members still have full voting rights.
In 1987, the NHRA changed the type of their non-profit to a 501(c)(6) "business league". It appears that this was done in response to pressure from the IRS as the large amount of revenue and expenditures they had weren't appropriate for their original non-profit designation.
However, as I described in a previous post, a "business league" is very different type of non-profit organization. It generally is expected to the following key properties. It actions must be primarily oriented to develop the "business interests" of its members, and its only allowed to have members that are running legitimate businesses. In addition, its generally expected that its members through a democratic process ultimately control the organization.
The NHRA does not appear to be operating correctly as a business league. They are currently soliciting and accepting members that are not running legitmate businesses and in addition they are not allowing the legitimate business members to have the expected control over the organization.
Based on the above issues, it appears to me that the NHRA has been out of compliance with California non-profit laws in many ways, and that in particular the vote they held that took away members rights could be legally challenged, with the goal of enforcing NHRA members rights to freely elect its Board of Directors.
If these rights were returned, instead of having the NHRA run the way it is now, which is for all purposes is as a privately held corporation, it could be run as a true business league organization. As I discussed in a previous post, the NFL is probably the most successful 501(c)(6) organization, and its a good model to study for an example of how the NHRA could be run.
I know these opinions are counter to those given by an attorney that Jon Asher consulted with back when the member vote was held, but it appears that his opinions may have been incorrect.
I still feel it would be in PRO's best interest to pool enough funds to obtain an initial opinion from an attorney experienced in California non-profit law on whether the NHRA's claimed member vote that eliminated voting rights could be overturned, returning ultimate control of the NHRA back to its members.
So here's an effort to condense it, still a mouthful but its the best I could do.
The NHRA was originally incorporated under California law as a non-profit organization. Its original articles of incorporation stated that members could freely join the organization and that these members had full voting rights to elect the NHRA board of directors.
This is important because California laws regarding non-profits, available for study at the link below (sections 5000 through 7000 are the appropriate ones) make it pretty clear that members voting rights are strongly protected.
California Corporations Code - California Code - California Law - California Statutes :: Justia
In the mid 80's (any one that can tie this date down exactly, please post info on it) the NHRA conducted by mail what they claim was a membership vote that removed the ability for members to elect the NHRA board directors. However, this vote was apparently done using only a majority of the returned votes, not a true majority of the members eligible to vote.
It appears that this claimed vote could be legally challenged for several reasons. The California non-profit laws listed above state that any changes to members voting rights can only be made with a true majority vote, not just the majority of returned ballots that apparently was used by the NHRA.
In addition, the California laws state that any change in members voting rights must be incorporated as an amendment to the articles of incorporation as having done been done via a majority vote by the members. In other words, for major change like this they have to make a public record of what the change was and they must state that this change was made through a majority vote by the members.
This does not appear to have been done by the NHRA. Non-profits are bound to send their articles of incorporation including all amendments to anyone who requests them. What I received upon requesting these articles included the original ones and an amendment dated 2005. Unless they for some reason did not send me all the amendments, there was no amendment that stated any change in members voting rights had been performed. In fact, based on what they represented were the current documents of record concerning the NHRA, members still have full voting rights.
In 1987, the NHRA changed the type of their non-profit to a 501(c)(6) "business league". It appears that this was done in response to pressure from the IRS as the large amount of revenue and expenditures they had weren't appropriate for their original non-profit designation.
However, as I described in a previous post, a "business league" is very different type of non-profit organization. It generally is expected to the following key properties. It actions must be primarily oriented to develop the "business interests" of its members, and its only allowed to have members that are running legitimate businesses. In addition, its generally expected that its members through a democratic process ultimately control the organization.
The NHRA does not appear to be operating correctly as a business league. They are currently soliciting and accepting members that are not running legitmate businesses and in addition they are not allowing the legitimate business members to have the expected control over the organization.
Based on the above issues, it appears to me that the NHRA has been out of compliance with California non-profit laws in many ways, and that in particular the vote they held that took away members rights could be legally challenged, with the goal of enforcing NHRA members rights to freely elect its Board of Directors.
If these rights were returned, instead of having the NHRA run the way it is now, which is for all purposes is as a privately held corporation, it could be run as a true business league organization. As I discussed in a previous post, the NFL is probably the most successful 501(c)(6) organization, and its a good model to study for an example of how the NHRA could be run.
I know these opinions are counter to those given by an attorney that Jon Asher consulted with back when the member vote was held, but it appears that his opinions may have been incorrect.
I still feel it would be in PRO's best interest to pool enough funds to obtain an initial opinion from an attorney experienced in California non-profit law on whether the NHRA's claimed member vote that eliminated voting rights could be overturned, returning ultimate control of the NHRA back to its members.
Last edited:
I've noticed that on Friday they do go by Points for qualifying, yet on Saturday you do see some shuffling in the order based on who smoked the tires, etc...How much does Bye runs and alternating lanes play into that?
MM
Nitro Member
the 1st qualifying session is done by points with the teams with the least points going first......2nd and 3rd session are done based on the runs from the previous session with the slowest ET from the previous session going first.....and the 4th session is done by the overall ladder with the lowest qualified cars going first.....this is the overall format for it but sometimes it is not exact because teams need to alternate lanes every session
clwill
Nitro Member
I don't know about everyone else but this is how I feel and im sure alot of others feel the same way but my biggest bif with this 4-wide deal is the gimmick aspect of it the whole thing only anoys me because there is no reason for it apart from being a spectacle and a gimmick. I am not angry about the safety aspect or the confusion aspect I am just anoyed because of the current generation which I am part of I might add require constant entertainment and wwf style shows to be excited. It annoys me that the sport I love has to use a gimmick to sell it to the masses.
rocketman
Nitro Member
That was a well penned column by Mr. Asher. However this thread and subject reminds me of a baseball fan's web site commenting on the MBL's winter meetings held in some paradise like Hawaii of even Sun Valley. The owners are going to do what the owners want to do and they really don't care what the fans think. The NHRA the same. It's a millionaire's club. Just remember that Prudhomme never was a member of PRO.
Last edited:
my friends call me Zappy
Nitro Member
All this talk of 4 wide being a "gimmick" or a "spectacle" makes me laugh. It's new, thats all. It's no more a gimmick then a burn-out or raising the body after a FC backs up.
Both have been proven not absolutely necessary, yet they are still done. WHY?? Because It's "part of the show", they are fun and entertaining.
Does that make a burn-out a gimmick?? or spectacle???
Give it some time, you'll get used to it.
Both have been proven not absolutely necessary, yet they are still done. WHY?? Because It's "part of the show", they are fun and entertaining.
Does that make a burn-out a gimmick?? or spectacle???
Give it some time, you'll get used to it.
Last edited:
