http://www.savesmrs.com/

rather pathetic by this lawyer.

I don't believe this could happen at the Illinois Railway Museum because only volunteers have voting rights. Only people directly involved with the operation of the organization should have a say in how it is governed.

Why can't the organization simply screen the membership applications for potentially hostile new members and refuse their application? Any request to join which has had an address sticker applied over the original address, as stated on the website, should be considered suspect and rejected after investigation. Let the rejected parties file a lawsuit and then bring the truth out in court. Is it legal to limit membership in an organization such as this to parties who are honestly interested in the continued survival of the organization and to reject those who would affect a takeover for their personal gains? Can any of our legally trained participants on this board comment? Thanks.

Don C.

Don't forget to read this line on that link.

"Now keep in mind, what you're about to read is speculative, my best reasonable guess based on information I myself am getting. I have labored very hard to use only verifiable information. "

I don't know about refusing new members, this might catch the attention of the IRS and other regulatory agencies. It looks like it's too late for an online membership drive. It seems like if they survive this bout there should be a rewrite of by-laws that might change the voting portion of the membership to those members who volunteer a set number of hours and other members are supporting members. Maybe also the actual property could be transferred to a unbreakable trust that leases the track back to the organization via a 999 year lease. I'm sure there are legal eagles out there who know how to prevent this situation from happening.

Part of our voting requirements are being an active member. This entails a set number of hours per year. Fund raising activity's are part of the requirement. We have always felt that if you are going to vote on how to spend it you need to help make it. The board how ever does have provisions for appointing people who can make a positive impact.
This is not always popular with members but in the end we feel it is the best protection for long term survival. We have fought long and hard to protect our right of way.
A stunt like the one tried here would not work in our case. I'm sure there are people out there that would love to have been able to get rid of us this way.

Remember that the guy who is behind this takeover is an attorney. A real estate attorney, but still an attorney. So I am pretty sure that putting a sticky label over a written address is legal in this case. If not, could it be grounds for disbarment?

Later!
Mr. Ed

You can still help by joining! Read on.

It's too late to sign up for the mail-in election. However, the packet of 149 hostile memberships arrived 3 days prior to the deadline, and in those 3 days, SMRS members including me) accomplished an amazing feat. They signed up over 200 new members who are either interested in SMRS, or merely outraged at the injustice. None of these folks are "sockpuppets", they all will receive their own ballots at their own addresses. If everybody votes in the mail-in election, SMRS should have it on the numbers.

Some opposition memberships arrived too late for the mail-in vote. Why, then? Well, one possibility is the general membership meeting. It's extremely rare to raise propositions and do stand-up votes of the membership, but I suppose it's possible. It would sure be nice if SMRS had either members present or proxies to outvote 'em. And I believe they can sign up as late as October 30. So yes - new memberships can help!

SMRS will get rid of proxies as soon as the bylaws allow, which is unfortunately next year according to the current Bylaws article 12. Found at http://www.savesmrs.com/smrsbylawsx.html

Just for example the model railroad club I was in, it has a general memebership, but the member is always voted in, you just can't throw money at the club and expect to be a member. The design is about participation. You could have a supporting/donating membership, but has zero voting rights.

I read some of the issues especially in the news report, there are a few social concerns like railroad crossings, seems somebody want to be able to establish a crossing, things like this the group needs to look at, but they could refuse a crossing for safety reasons.

But for someone like a business like a stone quarry wanting to land grab and mine stone over where the trackage is, theres gonna be a big argument there!!!

A railroad is a thin looooong property, just to grab land and mine under it, thats hardly worth it, run around the tracks and mine the other side.

They're already mining on both sides of it. The problem as much as anything is that the law requires a considerable setback from the railroad property. So the railroad, by its presence, locks out not only the gravel under the railroad itself, also the gravel under the 80 foot right-of-way, and also the I think it's 70 feet setback on both sides... along with the slopes away from that setback. So you're talking about a 220-300 foot wide strip that is non-mineable, if my math is correct.

Of course that's only one point of real estate contention; having spoken to the opposition leader, it seems as much as anything about the easements. Two people in particular are responsible for about half the 149 memberships, and they nominally want easements across the railroad's land. In both cases they were offered crossing licenses and they didn't want em, they wanted an EASEMENT, by golly! One of them sued; that's the A.J. Brown case documented on the web site; and it ended with them actually getting an easement.

Has the society considered, since a large number of membership applications were delivered in a bulk package, requiring verification of identity before the membership is issued, in order to prevent fraud. This could be done by asking for a photocopy of a driver's license or other acceptable photo id. This would be a reaosnable way to slow down the opposition and reduce its effectiveness.

2.5 Good Standing; Provisional Status
A member shall not be in good standing and, in the case of a Regular Member, shall not be
entitled to vote if the member is determined by the Board to have failed to fulfill and maintain
the qualifications of a member as set forth in Section 2.2 above. A new Regular Member shall
be in provisional status for the first 365 days of membership. During a Regular Member’s
provisional status, such member shall not be entitled to vote on any matter subject to
membership vote.ÿÿÿÿ
_______________________________________________________________________
This is the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum dba San Diego Railroad Museum bylaws the said new member for 365 day of membership provisional status shall not be to vote.-
I got this from the PSRM Volunteer services /date Nov /16/ 2006


Stan Paulsen