> I find it hard to believe that anyone
> involved with Tigers as their livelihood would NOT be in a serious conflict
> of interest situation as an officer of CAT. Certainly in particular with
> respect to CAT's major involvement in replacement Tiger parts as well as
> various policy decisions, it's hard to imagine anyone not putting their own
> economic self interests above those of the CAT membership. Moreover, I feel
> the problem is aggravated by the apathy that apparently exists among the
> CAT membership in the L.A. area. A combination of apathy and greed would
> seem a sure recipe for major mischief. I would hope there would be some way
> for the CAT organization to benefit from the participation of those like
> Steve and Dan and even draw in some of the other LA "Pros" like Dale A.
> without having to hand over the reigns. Sort of like having a civilian in
> charge of the armed forces you know. Kinda keeps things from going over the
> top.
Exactly, Bob, which part of "may be removed, with or without cause" is
it that you don't understand? Or maybe it was the "at any time" that's
confusing?
Explain to me, please, why it is that if the Board of Directors can give
any officer or director the boot, at any time, with or without cause, we
need to have a conflict-of-interest clause?
And besides, they drafted the thing so poorly, that it does not prevent
anyone from running or being elected. According to the way they did it,
the Board of Directors still has to boot the person out.
Ramon
|