Delegates : While you were sleeping! By-laws?

In 2011 the ATA agreed to rent the campgrounds at the WSRC. The ATA pays for the campground up front. The years 2013 and 2014 cost the ATA $400,000.00. The ATA agreed to put this money up front.

Don't the by-laws limit the EC to $50,000.00 on property acquisitions? Then they must go to the Real Property Committee? The RPC advises the delegates and the delegates vote?

When was the RPC contacted? How did the RPC counsel the delegates? When did the delegates vote?

What is the total cost of this decision? In the millions!

Tell us how your delegate voted.
------------------------------------------------------------



Above you will see future costs of the campground and anticipated revenues. I am not an expert on this. Looks simple to me.

Merlo out

Note: As always many thanks to those that work hard to get us this information. You guys know who you are.

 

The by-laws are just suggestions?

 

Any "by-law", rule, law, or anything intended to govern, is nothing but words on paper without a way to enforce them.

Some of the membership sleeps while others serve themselves .... the rest are willing to sell the keys to the bank account for a cheaply earned 27-yard card and an attendance trinket.

There doesn't seem to be any information that will wake the sleeping, or shame the anointed King, his Entourage, and the loyal followers full of faux pride for unearned accomplishments.

 

The Delegates do not do their job by making sure the EC live by and within the confines of the By Laws , that is the major part of the problem within the Association itself ... This is nothing new and is part of the problem that has caused the ATA to be and get into the position its in ... It has become a Cash Cow for the ED, EC, CHC, and many of the BOD over the years and until there are major changes it will continue ... This is nothing new as a matter of fact its the new Normal for the ATA ... The founding fathers are no doubt spinning in their graves ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Well, it's an operating lease, not a capital lease, so just maybe it does not rise to the level of "acquiring" property for purposes of the restriction you guys are referencing? It doesn't from an accounting standpoint anyway.

Just to be clear, during 2013 and 2014 the ATA made small profits on the leasing of the campgrounds, the net was not a $400,000 cost. Also note that the financial statement disclosure regarding future anticipated rental income does not mean the ATA anticipates losing money on the lease. The disclosure is limited to rental income from "noncancelable" leases in place at September 2014 for terms exceeding one year.

 

Couldn't get back in time to add to that last post before the cutoff, but even if it is not technically an acquisition of real property, I'd hope the board was involved in any such large commitment.

 

I STILL don't understand why the people who have so much to say about how badly the ATA is being managed never seem to try to get themselves put into positions where they would be able to do something about it.

 

The shooters elect people who want to be in a position to get the ball rolling, never goes beyond that because they get out voted by those already in the positions to keep them from making a difference ... The EC is a closed door "Good Ol Boys Club" in it for what they can get, not the members ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Bat...... You know real property as defined by law is rental property. That is the purpose of the Real Property Committee. The Attorney General can clear that up for you. Let me know if you need an Attorney General's phone number.

Of course it does.

It is an acquisition of "Real Property".

 

This is the definition of real property.....posted for Bat and anyone he is trying to fool.

real property
n. 1) all land, structures, firmly attached and integrated equipment (such as light fixtures or a well pump), anything growing on the land, and all "interests" in the property which may be the right to future ownership (remainder), right to occupy for a period of time (tenancy or life estate) the right to drill for oil, the right to get the property back (a reversion) if it is no longer used for its current purpose (such as use for a hospital, school or city hall), use of airspace (condominium) or an easementacross another's property. Real property should be thought of as a group of rights like a bundle of sticks which can bedivided. It is distinguished from the other type of property, personal property, which is made up of movable items. 2) one ofthe principal areas of law like contracts, negligence, probate, family law and criminal law.
---------------------------------------------

As you can see rental property or property you will occupy is real property.

Or you can call the Attorney General.

 

The $400,000 was the cost of the investment to obtain the real property. Bat again is trying to muddy the waters. The $50k limit does not have anything to do with the profit margin after future transactions. That is for the RPC and BOD to decide. If the purchase or lease is $400k than that is the cost. Profits are determined after future transactions and do not affect the legality of the acquisition.

 

Truly a statement of arrogance and ignorance. Every person that is a member of the ATA is in a position to make a difference and do something about it. When folks attempt to do something about it, one of two things happens....Jackasses like VP Terri Dean accuse you of being a Peeping Tom or like some of the previous auditors, they quit due to the corruption.

I understand many have contacted the Attorney General. It is our / your org. We will decide.

 

Where did anyone say rental property is not real property? Of course it's real property. What I stated is that this was not necessarily an "acquisition" of real property, in the accounting sense at least. It's an operating lease, ATA does not own the property, and did not acquire it in that sense. It is not an asset of the tenant (ATA), it is not shown on the ATA's balance sheet along with other acquired property. I don't know if that is what controls under the bylaws or not... neither do you.

Regarding the $400,000, that was roughly the cost of leasing the campgrounds. Your point seems to be limited to saying it was not approved properly; which may or may not be true... I haven't seen any information documenting that at all here. My point on the dollar amounts was unrelated to that issue, simply that the ATA made a profit on the camping leases during 2013 and 2014, and did not lose $400,000.

Butterly, why do you say that note to the financial statements means the ATA expects to lose money on the leasing operations? I don't follow that. What it points out is that the ATA has leased the property under leases extending into the future. It is not intended to reflect any annual sublease revenue, if any, or future long-term sublease revenues of that property, only those locked-in as of the date of the financials.

 

Does not matter. They paid over $50k to acquire it.

Why? It is a temporary asset of theirs. Why is it hidden?

Property you rent is an asset. The liability / cost is paid prior to the use.

It is difficult to document a meeting that never happened.

The future income vs expected revenue speaks for itself and has no bearing on the by-laws

 

Huh??? Accounting rules for leases are changing in the future to some extent, but for the discussion here in 2013 to date, property leased under an operating lease is, by definition, not an asset. The cost of an operating lease is accounted for over the term of the lease as an expense. It is possible to have prepaid lease payments (an asset), or lease payments payable (a liability) if the lease requires upfront payments or delayed payments extending past year end.

Again, no such thing as a "temporary asset," nothing is hidden. There were required disclosures for noncancelable, long-term (meaning in excess of 1 year) operating leases, which the ATA included the notes to financial statements just as required.

 

Not sure what that means, but it is apparent you don't understand what that note disclosure says. The wording is all there, non-cancelable, in excess of one year, etc. It does not include anything that is cancelable or for a term of less than one year as of 9/30/2014. FWIW, that's what the note says.

I agree it has no bearing on the bylaws at all.

 

Bat

From Investopedia.....Companies often find it necessary or beneficial to sign a lease agreement. A capital lease is recorded on the balance sheet as both an asset and a liability.

Legally it means very little as to how the property is to be used. It means little what accounting practice was used. The ATA acquired the land. The ATA acquired Real Property. The BOD did not vote on this multi-million dollar deal.

 

That's true, but completely off topic. I pointed out that this is an operating lease, not a Capital Lease. An operating lease is not reflected on the balance sheet since it is not comparable to actually owning the property, as in the case of a capital lease.

A capital lease is similar to actually owning the property, and an asset is reflected on the balance sheet. An operating lease is the opposite - not treated as acquiring any asset, treated as rent expense over the life of the lease in the P&L, not as an asset.

 

Give it any name you want Bat. The OP's post is about the deal done without the Real Property Committee and the Board of Directors. All you want to argue about is which column you put the asset in. You even lost that argument.

The bottom line is this transaction was made without the consent of the Real Property Committee and the Board of Directors. Millions of dollars spent. No direction. No consent.

Again>>> The ATA acquired Real Property. The BOD did not vote on this multi-million dollar deal.

 

Bat to continue.....the ATA made it real simple. Note the words "at no time acquire in any manner real property".


_____________________________________________________________

It gets even more specific and further corners the ATA in that they are not permitted to do improvements that would cost in excess of $50,000.

 

Bat...to continue

The EC is not even permitted to do improvements to Real Property without the advise of the Real Property Committee and the vote of the Board of Directors.

 

Please . . . . please . . . . let's not forget the reason for this by-law in the first place. It was strictly to provide a limitation on the Executive Committee. Why would 5 members of an elite committee ever want to spend that much money without seeking approval from the Board Of Directors? I can't imagine a reason so important or necessary, that would cause such a rush to purchase, lease, etc. especially in these times, when it is not difficult to schedule a conference with our elected Delegates. If I were king, I'd recommend reducing the $50,000 spending limit. I see no reason to grant such authority.

​

Perhaps those of you who paid attention to the business conducted over the last few years may recall that the Executive Committee proposed in 2013 to increase their spending authority to $100,000 according the minutes.

 

That's correct Kenny, it is intended to put a restriction on the EC. I'd say that sometimes you see these restrictions applying much more broadly, to any expenditure over the threshold, but ATA didn't do that, limiting it to real property acquisitions and improvements for some reason.

I'll ask you cause you probably already know, what are the bylaw's requirements for calling a meeting of the board and the manner of the meeting to approve EC actions? How complicated is it for them to do this whenever a contract might have to be signed? I'm talking about if the EC's hands were really tied and any material contract had to be approved before-hand? As I see it, that's the downside of low thresholds in these matters. It's not just the actual vote that is important, it is getting the information to everyone so they can form a considered opinion and vote. In today's world, that is easier than in decades past, but still not easy to discuss complicated matters in a non-centralized manner.

 

Lame excuse.

Call another meeting with the following in the same room. BOD, EC, and Attorney General.

 

Lame excuse for what? You don't think its important for people to have information before voting on something?

Hey, if you guys think this was a violation of the restriction on the EC, that's fine. I was only pointing out that you might be wrong about it. I'm sure you can get attorneys that will take either side.

What do we do if you are right? Does ATA have to pay back the profits to IDNR and find someone else to take over operation of camping for the Grand going forward?

 

Thanks for the OK on that Bat. I think your pals are a bunch of creeps. It is a clear violation.

Creepy example of the old "the end justifies the means." My opinion would be to ban the lot from the ATA and ask the AG if prosecution is possible. jmho

 

In fact, it is not clear. But that doesn't really matter here, you are entitled to your opinion.

What criminal charges would the AG be recommending for that prosecution?

 

I did not say there would be any. But I would consult with an expert like the AG. Ask the expert.

What enforcement do we have? Just members.