Post Vote
I believe that there are now more than 800 votes in the ballot box which would seem to fulfill the requirement given that noone is likely to challenge Article 46.
As I think we all believe, a vote to move forward will be just the first step.
This note is just a heads up to advise that we will be keeping the blog going as a discussion forum.
Either that or roll it into the club website as a discussion forum. Agian we suggest that TAC absorbs this forum into it's website.
Those behind the blog are certainly not doing so with the demise of the club as an objective. They started the blog to show there were actually some people who really care about TAC.
The numbers that showed at the Town Hall Meetings showed that we are certainly in the minority.
As one of the founders of this forum I can assure you that we care about the future of TAC and believe that Dan, Jerry and many others are on the same page. I was a bit perturbed about some sour looks when a few of the questions were being asked
The reason I say that the vote is just the start, is that there is still some serious hurdles to jump.
The numbers are wobbly.
The primary advocates are nervous.
There are alternatives.
Some very significant questions remain unanswered:
- Could the Club get better leverage from a sale of the land into a consolidated development and come out with much less debt and a better business model?
- Why build at Takanawa when we can utilise the Tokyo Lawn Tennis Club, FCCJ and YCAC to provide basic services in the interim and close TAC for 2 years.
I think the club could do well to promote the fact that the new club will be with us not just 50 years but 100 years at least. Old building methods in Japan ensured that there was built in obsolescense via low grade concrete. Basically tha club was sold a dud when it was built. This is unlikely to happen agaon. Sell the point.
Personally, I thought the meetings were held in good spirit and decorum and isn't that what a club is all about.
posted by Unlock at 6:41 AM
7 Comments:
We definitely should keep the blog up and running so there is a forum for alternative views and checking to make sure the project is delivered as promised. Frankly, it is not a good idea to have it moved to the TAC webpage. We hurt our cause by having anonymous bloggers writing ridiculous accusations and attacking other members personally. The club would have to monitor and censure and we don't want mgt doing that! If the project is approved, let's go positive and try to make it a great project. Another area we could work on is to impose strict term limits on Board members. It is always the same people. How about two terms and then they are done for life. It would bring in fresh blood and stop the terrivle dysfunction of the board.
Just logged on and saw this comment. I agree 100%. Strict term limits so new people will stand fo r election!
Absolutely. How many board members have been there so many times and not always with the best and most open of intentions. New blood is needed. If this project is as sound and transparent as they say, any new person should be ble to pick it up quite easily.
1. "How about two terms and then they are done for life. It would bring in fresh blood and stop the terrivle dysfunction of the board." Have you considered that there are indeed published term limits (check your Membership Directory for further info)? They do allow for multiple terms over the course of an individuals membership, but frankly I’m happy with that being the case. If you were only allowed two terms, then naturally we’d be seeing a whole new board every 5 to 6 years or so. In many cases that might be just what the doctor ordered, but when you consider that a large percentage of our membership use the club, rather than give back to the club in the form of committees and other volunteer positions, you’d come to the realization that we’d eventually have a lot of people on the board who are members that use what the club has to offer, but has done little to serve the club in the process. I'm not a board member, but I would agree that the board is generally filled with many of the same people year after year. But let's also keep in mind that the members of the board are our elected representatives recommended by the nominating committee – “elected” being the operative word of course, this is a democratic process. The board isn’t filled with people that are appointed by management – all voting members have the opportunity to decide who nominated should be selected to represent our interests; if you’d like to make a change, get out their and vote, don’t just talk about it in a forum of this kind.
2. “Why build at Takanawa when we can utilise the Tokyo Lawn Tennis Club, FCCJ and YCAC to provide basic services in the interim and close TAC for 2 years.” I know little about the Tokyo Lawn Tennis Club, but I do know that the FCCJ has VERY limited dining options and I can’t believe they’d be happy having the more than 2,000 TAC members regularly dining at the FCCJ when their dining facilities are already filled with members of their own. The FCCJ also has no provisions for families – something to keep in mind as a good percentage of our membership have very young families to look after. I’ve also heard the Takanawa proximity issue brought up on a number of occasions. Wouldn’t traveling to Yokohama, where YCAC is located, be counterintuitive as YCAC is much farther away than Takanawa for most if not all of our membership?
3. Having been to several Town Hall Meetings, I was kind of shocked to read the “Frequently Asked But Unanswered Questions” posting on this blog on May 8. If you feel that your questions continue to go unanswered, why is it that these questions were not brought up during most if not all of the Town Hall Meetings that were offered? The purpose of the Town Hall Meetings, as I see it, was to allow the membership to ask the difficult questions and get a better perspective on what our vision should be for becoming the premier club in Asia. By choosing to forego asking these questions in many of the other forums that TAC management and the board offered us, we only have ourselves to blame for not getting the responses we believe we deserve. Remember, from the beginning this has been a democratic process, and as such, we were given ample opportunity to be heard. We all have a vested interest in the future of this club, but discussing this behind closed doors, cloaked in anonymity on a blog, is hardly the best means for voicing opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I would have liked to have seen the Board answering questions through this forum as well, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that we didn’t explore other avenues for getting our questions answered. After all, as the late John F. Kennedy put it, “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all,” we all need to be better informed, a blog forum is a great start, but we’ve got to go to the source, and that means asking the LRPC – DIRECTLY – for more information. And if that doesn’t work, then join a committee, the membership can affect change, but talking without inaction will get us nowhere.
4. “Personally, I thought the meetings were held in good spirit and decorum and isn't that what a club is all about.” I completely agree. I truly believe that all involved in the process, from the management to the LRPC, the third-party financial/legal/real estate advisors, and the membership want to see our club become ever more successful and a model for the next generation of what a club should be. Despite the wide-ranging view points, let’s all keep in perspective that we have a common goal and that we’ll need to work together to that end.
Under the Articles a board member can be elected to three 2 year terms and then he/she has to sit out for a year. This means that a person could serve 18 out of 20 years! Isn't this way too much and way too unhealthy for an organization? The result is that only people who have huge egos, not enough to do in their day jobs, or look at it as a way of advancing their personal interests will do it. Does that describe more than a few of our "leaders?" Any sensible person will steer clear of associating with this band of thieves! The Board is clearly made up of too many hangers on who get some kind of rush out of being in a position of authority. If they were limited to a couple of terms and then out for life, new people would step in, give a fresh look to issues and, most importantly, not get so emotionally involved. Will this change ever happen? I doubt it!
I agree with both of the last two posts. We need to all work together to make the redevelopment project work now that the members have voted overwhelmingly for it. No matter how we feel about the Board we want the Club to succeed. The changes brought on by the project are a great opportunity to change how the club is managed. I hope somebody is considering governance for the new club so we don't continue with "business as usual" under a dysfunctional board!
I believe that with so many zeros involved that simple duty of care is insufficient to run what now must be run as a business.
Under the current structure NOONE is responsible if this project goes pear-shaped.
Erect a gallows in the carpark as a totem to ward off complacency and obfuscation.
Post a Comment
<< Home