Looking for a ballot.

[Ed Fernandez]

That interview with Carl Olsen took place in the early 90s.Fast forward to 2010.What worked then certainly hasn't worked in the 21st century.
They had a grip on the rules then,the economy was going along fine,multi crew teams weren't here yet,the payouts and contingency weren't rock bottom yet and Olsen was a master of understatement and smoke and mirrors in his assessment of the transition.
Soooooo,basically we (sportsman racer in general) got screwed for the benefit of the pros and the upper management of NHRA.That's how I interpret the situation.

[Bruce Noland]

Nice spin from the management side of nhra by Mr. Olson. In this interview he failed to mention the fact that the IRS had revoked nhra's not for profit exemption in early 70's. And that they had to scramble, stall and scramble some more to create a new "improved" nhra which included members with voting rights. In 1981 they produced yet another new and improved set of bylaws and asked the unwitting membership to give them the keys to the store. Apparently a majority of the members at the time were unaware of the predatory nature of the nhra executives. The good news is that most of this is well documented and subject to review. Yes, even after all these years.

[Greg Hill]

Originally Posted by RockyJ

Ok i just can't let this go ,because i hate injustice. Caveat : I am not a bar assoc. lawyer but i have a pretty good legal mind, and have represented my own interests in court a number of times. So heres the 1st problem i see with this : full disclosure - vs. deception
Quote :Further the law requires that 7,000 NHRA members vote on these bylaws, and at least three-fourths of those voting must vote favorably for the adoption of the bylaws. Or what? They conveniently left out the part concerning the consequences. They basically decieved the membership into thinking that they must ratify or vote favorably [yes] in order for nhra to continue in business. This was most likely not the case but perhaps a condition to continue the non profit status.Or maybe not even that- since i have not seen the documents. It appears and i say appears that a fraud was perpetrated on the membership some 30yrs ago to get the membership to give up its say in how the corp. was operated.
If one could prove that a fraud was committed ,then there may be remedy,because it is negatively impacting members even today. But it would take a good Calif. attorney and some guts.
After all it does not state anywhere in that letter that the consequences of approving these changes would cause all of the members to lose any say in how the company was run. We all got screwed 30 years ago , butt [ha] we are just now feeling the pain. So either fight back or shut up and take it.

The letter that was sent to the membership was certainly misleading and quite possibly fraudulent. Whether or not anything could be done now about it is uncertain because of the time that has elapsed. A statue of limitations probably would be in force to protect the management and board. The reason I'm looking for a ballot is to see what the wording actually was and try and determine if it was in fact fraud.