A site about but not connected to the
mcrgobod.gif (260x76 -- 6582 bytes)
BOD Attack on Members
BOD Attacks First Amendment
Election Summary
Post Election Update
What they have done
Bad Endorsements
Demands Members Have
Contact Us
Who we are
What You Can Do:
   Step One

BOD Attack on Member's Concerns



Members of MCRGO, 

Many of you recently received an e-mail from MCRGOs Board of Directors which was sent out in response to member questions regarding information posted on this website.  Unfortunately the BoD controls all the discussions and forums for discussion with their members and do not tolerate anyone who speaks out against what they are doing.  This goes back to when they removed Ross and declared that an Executive Director was no longer needed.  There was no member comment and those who complained were either removed from their positions or treated so poorly they quit.  Others have raised concerns with the BoD only to be ignored, told they were out of line, or that the BoD will not hear that complaint.  Throughout the BoDs response you will see these concerned members referred to as "those who want to destroy MCRGO", "distracters", people "seeking to divide and damage".  Many of you have sent the BoD messages only to have your questions ignored while you get a negative response back.  You too are now one of those "seeking to destroy MCRGO", just for raising your concerns.

Since the BoD controls the discussion forum that it's members can participate in, we are not given the chance to respond to all of the members and address the statements theyve made.  This is unfortunate as many of those statements are incorrect or suspect, and a few are clearly false. We are reposting their letter here. We are members too.  We have paid our dues and put our time in.  We have raised our concerns only to be ignored or insulted. We will not stand for this behavior from the people who are supposed to be representing us.

The Boards response was to answer all questions proposed on this site in one official response.  You will notice that nowhere in the response did the Board address their failures, admit they were on the wrong track, or even suggest they were open to what membes had to say.  Instead they told you how things where going to be and it "will be the final time" they do so.  What type of response is that from the Board that is supposed to represent the membership, not control them?  What you will see is that they really didn't answer any questions and instead used their response to hurl insults at those who question them.  This negativity is the well known style that David Felbeck has handled things since he took over.  Do we really want negativity to be the number recognized trait of MCRGO?

The BoD letter will be in bold and our will be in standard black text.

Letter from MCRGOs Board of Directors, sent out on November 16, 2002. 
Unauthorized Website Allegations  

To begin with the title "Unauthorized Website Allegations" is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric.  Is this Board saying we must first get their permission and then be authorized to question their practices?  The BoD answers to the membership but this BoD thinks they control the membership and the members answer to them.  Throughout the rest of this response you will see this clearly is their attitude towards the members.

Many allegations have been made over the past months in a direct attack on the members of this Board of Directors by unidentified persons masquerading as concerned members, using a variety of websites designed solely for this purpose. We thank all of the members who have expressed their support and understanding about the allegations.   

This is an incorrect and a deliberately misleading attempt to marginalize complaints put forth or questions asked by actual members. No one has attacked any member of MCRGOs BoD personally but many questions have been raised concerning the official conduct of the Board and certain members individually. And those questions have been met with a variety responses, with the main response of being ignored.  In some cases members have received an reply stating a direct refusal to answer the questions; however some members have even been told they are out of line for asking the question and that the question will not be considered.  When the members have made others aware of this the BoD makes claims such as "anyone who questions the Board cannot be a loyal MCRGO member". The Board members need to stop trying to slander the questioners and start truthfully answering the questions put to them by the members.

Some of you here have sent questions to the BoD.  Based on your response you have seen much of what we have seen.  Claims that this is the first time they have heard of the issue.  Claims that everything is fine with MCRGO and that it's just a couple of mad members who want to destroy MCRGO causing problems.  Or in some cases a reply stating that if you want to participate with the Board to email them individually.  But did any of you get an honest straight forward answer or just more excuses?

In order to assure our members that the claims are scurrilous and without merit, the Board is publishing to our members the following facts about recent MCRGO events.  This will be the last time this Board responds to or dignifies these or similar attacks.  We have much important work to do in the coming months until a new Board of Directors is elected, and refuse to be distracted from that work by persons determined to either control or destroy MCRGO. 

This will be the last time they respond to our questions?  Just when did the Board stop representing the members and determine that they would answer only what they feel like answering?  We thought the Board answered to the members, not the other way around.  If a member asks an honest question, the Board has a duty to respond, even if they feel that they have more important things to do. Its this sort of arrogance and the attitude that members are just a nuisance that has led to much criticism of the Boards conduct and questions about their roles at MCRGO. Who works for who here?  Notice that once again the BoD claims that those who are questioning them are distracters and people who want to destroy MCRGO.  You can see our questions listed on this site, do they seem geared towards destroying MCRGO?

1. Our former Executive Director, Ross Dykman, resigned on June 29, 2002.  In accordance with Michigan law governing employer/employee relations, no statements can be issued by the Board of Directors regarding his resignation.  The individuals demanding explanations are aware of these laws, and are only seeking to divide and damage MCRGO by repeatedly urging illegal action upon this Board. 

According to witnesses, one of whom was Neva LaRue, Dykman was called before the Board and told that his position was being eliminated. Perricone had not been hired by MCRGO at that time but LaRue also reported that Chuck Perricone was sitting in his car in the parking lot outside that meeting waiting for Dykman to leave. Its pretty obvious that after all his work in founding and building MCRGO, Dykman was ousted by the Board to make room for Perricone.  Notice once again, that any member who wanted answers to the sudden departure of Ross Dykman is called a series of nasty names by the BoD.  What constructive purpose did the BoD hope to accomplish by this?  Did they want to put the rest the question or were they trying to destroy the character of those questioned the sudden removal of Ross Dykman.  This type of negative response is characteristic of that many members and activists have received, regardless of the questions they have asked.  We are sick and tired of the BoD's negative attitude and negative responses.  This negativity by the BoD hurts the image of MCRGO.

2. In 2001, 9 people were elected to the Board of Directors.  6 were elected in a group, as motioned, seconded and overwhelmingly approved by the members present at the Annual Meeting.  3 were elected from a group of nominees from the floor.  Each nominee was given time to present their qualifications, votes were cast, then counted by Michelle Collins and Joy Angel.  Michelle is the wife of Rod Collins, then President who was not running for re-election.  Joy was a co-worker of Rod's at that time, and totally unconnected to MCRGO otherwise.   

The results of this election have always been suspect. First, it was improper to limit the voting rights only to those members who drove to the annual meeting and paid to get in. There were only about 400 people there out of the entire membership.

Secondly, it was wrong for the incumbent board members to be re-elected as a group. Members didnt have the opportunity to vote out any one member. They were told to accept or reject them all.  Most members did not personally know all the incumbents and were blindly lead to vote for them without any discussion. Third, there have been persistent allegations that Rob Koehler of St. Clair County actually won a seat on the Board that night but that he was arbitrarily replaced as one of the winners by Pat Alzady. Alzady ran the election that night and as the ballots were not available for review by anyone other than Alzady, who announced the results, well never know. Also, the new claim that Rod Collins wife and co-worker counted the ballots has not been heard before. Those two ladies were sitting outside the hall handling the admission of members that night. How could they be there AND in the back counting ballots?

Since the election, 5 of the 9 Board members have stepped down from their positions and were replaced by appointment of the Board in accordance with the Bylaws, which do not require soliciting suggestions from the membership.  Each resignation was announced to the membership, as was the appointment of a new Director to serve the remainder of the term in question.  Directors who were elected but have stepped down include:  Eileen DeHart, Alan Cropsey, Jerry Jennings, Stephen Wire and Steve DeFrain.  The 4 elected who remain on the Board are David Felbeck, Rollie Brengle, David Aviles and Todd Adkins.  Directors who were appointed include Pat Alzady, Norm Burmeister, Glen Griffith, Jim Kliemann, Dale Shantz and Phil Webster.  There are more directors appointed than 5 because Norm Burmeister was appointed on 9/22 and stepped down on 12/2.  Each Director that resigned has done so for compelling personal reasons, which will not be discussed to respect their privacy. 

Jerry Jennings, past President of MCRGO, also left under a cloud. He reportedly had difficulty getting along with other Board members and there were some questions regarding his handling of the treasury. He was called before a meeting of the Board at the MCRGO office so that David Felbeck could tell him that the rest of the Board wanted his resignation. However Jennings apparently had been forewarned and showed up at that meeting with his resignation already in hand. He appears not to have left willingly. Its clear that he was purged. 

There were also repeated calls from many members for Steve DeFrain to step down from the Board after he became a paid employee of MCRGO in addition to his being a Board member. But DeFrain told members that he didnt want to step down. David Felbeck announced that there was no conflict of interest for a Board member to also be a paid employee of the Board. Then after renewed complaints were heard when DeFrains wife was quietly hired for a job at MCRGO, DeFrain suddenly left the Board and Felbeck announced that he was leaving to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. No member has yet been able to get the straight story on that. Was there a conflict or not?  

3. The PAC changed personnel for two reasons - the resignation of Ross Dykman, and the ongoing campaigns of Alan Cropsey and Eileen DeHart, which made them unavailable to serve on the PAC.  David Aviles volunteered to chair the PAC, and the Board appointed David Aviles, David Felbeck and Chuck Perricone to fill the vacancies due to the shortness of time between the change in personnel and the primary elections.  When the new committee met, it was discovered that the previous PAC had not sent questionnaires to all candidates nor had records been kept on which candidates actually received questionnaires, leading to a significant amount of confusion and delay in issuing endorsements for candidates due to insufficient information with which to make a decision.  Several chapter chairs assisted the PAC in getting questionnaires to candidates who had been ignored previously, so that the PAC could make informed decisions.  The PAC continued to meet throughout the period between the primary and the election, as information became available.  Endorsements were issued up to roughly 2 weeks prior to the election, in order to get the most complete information in the hands of our members. 

There are several apparent falsehoods here. Reportedly none of the original PAC committee members resigned from the PAC. All were summarily removed from the PAC by Board decree. The old PAC was bi-partisan, with one Republican (Cropsey) one Democrat (DeHart) and one Independent (Dykman). They were replaced by three Republicans. Perricone was a former Republican legislator and both Felbeck and Aviles were known to be active in their county Republican parties. Also all actions of the PAC were allegedly supervised by Todd Adkins of the NRA. He was originally listed as the fourth PAC committee member on the MCRGO website but site manager Jim Vass was reportedly told to remove his name because he didnt want his connection to the PAC publicized. Also Dykman was reportedly told to give all PAC surveys to Adkins when he was removednot to any of the other members. Additionally, Dykman stated at the time that all Republican and Democratic candidates had been sent surveys and the deadline for returns had passed with the majority of them having been returned. PAC Treasurer Dan Wholihan stated at the time that the reason for the delay was that Adkins took the surveys back to Virginia with him and did not send them back in a timely fashion. If we are to believe the Board claims of a delay due to insufficient returns, we have to believe that Dykman and Wholihan both lied. 


One oversight was the brief endorsement of Clark Bisbee, due to an error in transcription by David Aviles, who has freely admitted to his error.  When the error was brought to the attention of the PAC, the error was corrected. 

First this "error" was called an oversight and members told the PAC committee would have to review Bisbee's record.  Now they are claiming it was an error in transcription". This seems suspicious in light of the fact that Chuck Perricone has strongly lobbied MCRGO two years prior to get the organization to endorse Bisbee. Bisbee was one of the three most anti-gun republicans at the end of the 1997-1998 legislative session but he was also a friend of Perricone, who was at that time a sitting legislator. Perricone was reported to have asked MCRGO to endorse Bisbee and the PAC committee unanimously voted not to do so unless Bisbee would give the organization just one pro-gun vote. Bisbee refused to do that and did not get the endorsement. This year however, as soon as Perricone was placed on the PAC committee, he received the endorsement. And he would have stayed endorsed had not PAC Treasurer Dan Wholihan objected and alerted the membership. David Aviles at first attempted to defend Bisbees endorsement by claiming that Bisbee was good on the gun issue. Only when other members publicly posted Bisbees record on the MCRGO website did the organization retract the endorsement. Its evident that Bisbees ties to Perricone got him endorsed and but for Dan Wholihan and other outraged members, he would have kept the endorsement. And this was NOT an isolated case. Anti-gun John Stewart, another Perricone crony, saw the endorsement for his pro-gun opponent retracted as soon as Perricone got on the PAC. And former state rep. and recently convicted drunk driver Terry Gieger was given the endorsement that had already been promised to Rep. Patty Birkholz, allegedly because of Perricone. There are just too many anecdotal reports of Perricones malfeasance regarding the PAC for them to be ignored. 

While we will not address each alleged "error" of the PAC, we will address two which are representative of the allegations made.  An example of one disputed endorsement is that of Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver. 

Again the BoD is telling the members they "will not address" their errors.  If members have questions they deserve answers but if the BoD openly admits they have made an error then the members definitely deserve full and complete answers.  But, this BoD doesn't think you do.  

During the court case over 2000 PA 381 (the current concealed carry law), she wrote an opinion stating that the appropriations added to the bill did not protect it from referendum.  She also stated the following in her written opinion: 

"Finally, it is essential to recognize that the issue before us is one of constitutional interpretation.  My opinion on the issue of constitutional law does not address and should not be read to reflect one way or the other a position on the merits of the concealed weapons act passed by the Legislature." 

Claiming that Judge Weaver "voted" against concealed carry is thus shown to be inaccurate and misleading.  Judges do not vote on a case, they issue opinions based on their understanding of the law.  Judge Weaver has been a strong opponent of "legislating from the bench", wherein judges do not follow the law, but interpret the law according to their own biases.  She refuses to do this, instead relying on a strict constitutionalist stance.  While we disagreed with her opinion in this instance, we also recognize that Judge Weaver and Judge Robert Young are both able, intelligent, qualified and staunch supporters of Michigan's constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.  They both deserved and received MCRGO's endorsement. 

Weaver sided with the minority on the court against MCRGO and our CCW law despite the State Constitution being very clear on the issue of appropriations. Her decision, if it had been supported by one more Justice, would have nullified our CCW law and undid all the years of work we did. She can say whatever she likes about the merits of the concealed weapons act. She still took a position which would have completely illuminated it and for that she cannot be rewarded with an endorsement! But again, this was reputed to have been part of a promise that Perricone made to the Republican party. We cant know if that report was true or not, but its clear that a Justice who tried to sink our concealed weapons law got our groups endorsement and thats just plain wrong. You dont reward people who hurt your cause no matter why they say they did it. 

Second, Eileen DeHart definitely was endorsed in her race, and remains a valuable and supported friend of MCRGO.  Her opponent, Laura Toy, was listed as Acceptable, for her history of supporting pro-gun issues.  Both candidates are highly qualified to serve as legislators.   

Laura Toy was not a supporter of the CCW law as it was voted on. She supported some of the amendments which would have severely weakened the law. But she was a Republican in a close race and the Board gave her quite a bit of support. Neva LaRue, MCRGO Chapter Chair from Lapeer, publicly campaigned for Toy and stated that she was doing so  in order to elect the best REPUBLICAN. More importantly, other than an endorsement, the Board did nothing to help DeHart. Had MCRGOs BoD mobilized the members in that district to fight for DeHart, that close race might well have gone to our friend Eileen. But they did NOTHING to help Eileen and Eileen DeHarts qualifications dwarfed Toys.  

The issue of "Endorsed" versus "Acceptable" has been debated repeatedly.  Both Endorsed and Acceptable indicates a pro-gun stance on the part of the candidate.  Endorsed indicates that the candidate has not only supported and voted for the right to keep and bear arms, but has demonstrated the courage and leadership we needed to win.  Acceptable means that the candidate has a past record of voting for our issues at least part of the time, has pledged their support in a very public fashion or submitted a favorable questionnaire.  There is very definitely a difference between the two, despite claims otherwise.  Additionally, some have been critical that more than one person in a specific race have been given either an endorsement or acceptable rating in the past election.  This is neither a slap at our friends, nor the lazy way of doing business.  It indicates that we are in a good position, because both candidates in a given race are pro-gun.  This is good news, not bad! 

Wrong. It was a deviation from the normal practice where MCRGO picked one candidate determined to be the best and stuck with that candidate exclusively. This wishy-washy theyre all good position only makes MCRGO look indecisive and dilutes the effectiveness and value of the endorsement. 

It should also be pointed out that of the endorsed candidates for the 2002 elections, 83% were successful in their bid for election.  This puts us in a very good position to both protect our existing law, as well as to improve it by removing some of the restrictions and requirements that are of no benefit to anyone, and to focus on other gun-related issues. 

What the Board isnt telling us is that of those 83%, most every one of them was either a Republican in a solid Republican district of a Democrat in a solid Democratic district. It doesnt take a genius to forecast the winners in most of Michigans races and the newspapers predicted almost the same results weeks before. Its dishonest to claim that because the Board picked the obvious winners or endorsed both candidates that somehow the Board was successful. The measure should be based on the close races in the seats where Republicans and Democrats had an even chance, and MCRGOs actual participation in those races needs to be evaluated. But in almost all of the close races, MCRGO as a group did nothing. NO public meetings or fundraisers, no phone banks, no postcards to members, no door-to-door or other volunteer efforts. Nothing. Senate candidates Paul DeWeese and Mickey Mortimer begged for MCRGO help, as did many other veteran pro-gunners fighting for their jobs. MCRGOs BoD didnt organize anything in any of their districts. They didnt even help Mike Green, the author of the CCW law itself and he lost his race. The honest truth is that other than publishing a list of endorsements, many of which were improperly given, MCRGO as an organization sat out the 2002 elections. We pay these people to get out there and organize and they did not do it.

4. Allegations have been made regarding financial issues.  The following are the facts:  

Ross Dykman's salary started at $15 per hour ($31,200 per year), and was raised to $45,000 per year effective January 1, 2002 at Stephen Wire's suggestion, with an additional 20% fee paid to Advance Employment for handling all matters pertaining to salary for our employees.  Also, Mr. Dykman received health insurance coverage starting February 1, 2002, which cost MCRGO an additional $385 per month.  He received expense reimbursements, such as mileage.  The total amount MCRGO spent for Mr. Dykman's employment from January of 2001 through July 31, 2002 is as follows:  

$ 57,444 base salary ($31,200 for 12 months,  
$ 45,000 for 7 months) 
$ 11,489 20% payment to Advance Employment 
$ 68,933 subtotal 
$  2,315 health insurance payments 
$ 11,771 expense reimbursements and consulting fees 
$ 83,019  total cost to MCRGO  

Why is Dykmans salary being discussed in graphic detail all of a sudden? Other than being the former Executive Director he is not even part of this. Since the BoD is so open about publicly displaying the amount paid to the employees why are we not being given Steve DeFrains salary details, Debbie DeFrains salary details, Rod Collins salary details, or solid details about New Era Consulting?  This is a whitewash and an attempt to appear like the BoD is giving full disclosure when all theyre telling us is how much they paid Ross Dykman and not how much they are paying the people who are here now.  This public display of salary information is also blatantly disrespectful to Dykman, the man who founded MCRGO in the first place.  How many licensed attorneys do you know that will work full time plus nights and weekends for only $31,000 or $45,000 a year?  MCRGO had a great thing going but this BoD through it away.

Compare that to what we pay New Era for the services of Deb Shields on a full-time basis, and Chuck Perricone on a part-time basis.  We do not pay expenses - our contract is for a flat yearly fee, paid monthly, for a period of 2 years.  That fee is $50,000 per year.  Additionally, we have the right to end the contract prior to the 2 years with a 30 day notice, so does New Era.  

So the BoD replaced a full time director and lawyer with a full time secretary and a part time consultant?  Is it no wonder that MCRGO has declined so rapidly?  Just what was the BoD thinking when they decided this.

New Era was NOT hired to represent us in the Legislature.  Currently, that is handled by Directors who are assisted by Rod Collins, our new Communications Manager.  Mr. Collins is paid for 20 hours per week, but donates almost that many hours of his time in order to support MCRGO through serving as a chapter chair, and in supplementing his work as Communications Manager.    

New Era Consulting was selected for Mr. Perricone's political experience and knowledge of business practices, as well as his invaluable support for passing concealed carry reform. He has been under considerable pressure both before and after the passage of 2000 PA 381, about this issue.  His support of firearms rights was instrumental in the passage of this law.  His experience and assistance in political matters is worth far more than the fee we pay New Era.  Another factor was Deb Shield's administrative skills, combined with their dedication to firearms rights as an issue.  The Board of Directors felt it was best to get an outside view of the internal workings of MCRGO, understanding that changes can and should be made so that the organization can be run more efficiently, effectively and appropriately. 

While were on the subject of new Era, how did Perricone get picked for this job? Who else was considered? Was the job bid out to anyone else or did Perricone get a no-bid exclusive offer on his own terms? Rumor has it that Perricone was brought in by Todd Adkins and David Felbeck despite warnings from several legislators that Perricone is not respected or liked and that MCRGOs reputation and ability to work with the legislature would be significantly compromised if Perricone were brought on. 

5. The retreat planned for November 23 and 24 is not a vacation.  It is a working weekend with sessions scheduled from 9:30 a.m. on the 23rd through 2:00 p.m. on the 24th.  The purpose is two-fold:  to receive the report of New Era Consulting, and to discuss their suggestions for improvement while developing a working plan and improved infrastructure that can support the massive growth of this organization since the new concealed carry law took effect in July of 2001.  Each Director is paying for their own lodging and travel expense, except for one Director who has requested reimbursement for lodging due to heavy financial burdens at this time.  Meals will be  provided by New Era with the exception of dinner on Saturday evening, which MCRGO is covering.  In addition, as we have from the beginning, each Director is volunteering their time to MCRGO in order to support and lead this organization.  To imply that the Directors are giving up numerous hours of our personal time each week to work for MCRGO for the public name recognition is ludicrous.  Most of us aren't even known by name outside of our organization, which is as it should be.  We all believe passionately in the right to keep and bear arms, and serve on MCRGO's Board of Directors in order to support that belief.  Period. 

If its not a vacation, why was it being held at a posh resort way up north where none of the Board members live? Why cannot the meeting take place at the MCRGO office in the conference room or at a local hotel conference room? If even one Board member (David Aviles) cannot afford to go, why doesnt the Board have this meeting locally and spare the members the expense of paying his way? And just who is paying Chuck Perricones way? This sounds like another freebie, just like the recent CCW class that MCRGO gave Perricone, his wife, and Deb Shields for free.  Recently we learned that the Board scrapped the idea of holding it up north and decided to have it at a very nice hotel in Lansing.  Why the sudden change?  Perhaps the guilt of what they were doing finally sank in after many members complained to the about it.

6. The 2003 elections for the Board of Directors will be run as fairly and impartially as we can.  By removing ourselves from the Election Committee, and requiring that each member be given the right to vote, it is hoped that all members will now have and use their voice in deciding who leads this organization, a voice that has been missing until the last Bylaws were written.  It was also the Board's intention that the Election Committee would establish procedures and guidelines for future elections, which should reside in a handbook, rather than the Bylaws.  The Board of Directors deliberately removed ourselves from the establishment of these procedures to avoid accusations of undue influence, although we will certainly advise the Election Committee if asked. 

Absent here is any discussion of who the members will be allowed to vote for. The Board of Directors recently changed the bylaws to create a committee which will determine who may or may not run for the Board seats. This lends itself to abuse. How do we know that friends of the Board will not be the only ones approved? Will anyone who has ever questioned the Board be barred from appearing on the ballot? A fair way is to allow members to get on the ballot by presenting petitions with the signatures of a fixed number of other members. Using a committee as a screening process to block undesirables is hardly fair or open and with the questions swirling around this current Board, we need as much fairness and openness as we can get. Allowing the Board to set up a committee which will work behind closed doors is not acceptable.  The Board will claim that there will be no abuse, but why are they in favor of a process where that claim can be made instead of a process that is 100% open with results that cannot be disputed by either side?  We are calling on the Board to have open fair elections with no committee and handled by an independent third party.  That's what Step 1 of our site is all about.  If you haven't read it please do. 

7. We are aware of at least two and possibly more individuals who previously held positions of trust within this organization that abused that trust by unethically, and possibly illegally copying the membership database for their own purposes.  Both individuals were well aware of MCRGO's confidentiality policy with regard to our membership database, but willingly violated that policy and the trust of every member of MCRGO in order to support their efforts to either obtain control of, or failing that, to destroy MCRGO.  Their attempts to sow discord and mistrust among MCRGO members are supported by a small group of people who retain their membership, but quite clearly do not support MCRGO.  It is unfortunate that such a small minority of our membership have been successful in diverting the important work that needs to be done into bickering, character assassination and other actions designed to slander this Board of Directors while damaging MCRGO.    

This is just propaganda designed to marginalize any critics of the Board, no matter how valid the criticisms. To allege that some unnamed people stole the database is ludicrous. MCRGO has been giving out the names, addresses and e-mail info of its members for some time now. Many of you have gotten mailings from candidates running for office where the candidates themselves appealed to you as MCRGO members. How do you think that happened? The Republican Party undoubtedly has every members name, address, phone and e-mail by now and they have this because the Board of Directors has given this information to several candidates for office. Many of us have gotten the mailers so theres no denying it. 

But again, just because some of us dislike or question the actions of the Board of Directors, that does NOT make us bad members. It actually makes us damned good members, because it shows that we want to see our organization on the best possible path, and if thats not the path that the current BoD has put our organization on, then we have a right and a duty to bring it up for discussion and call for change if they wont hear us. Many of us have tried to talk to the Board members by e-mail, phone or in person and weve been rebuffed. So now were taking our case to the rest of the members and were leaving it to our fellow members to decide if our questions deserve answers or not. If you think they do, then demand that a Board member answer. But to claim that because we dont blindly follow David Felbecks lead that were trying to destroy MCRGO is just plain wrong and its conduct that is unacceptable from any elected official at MCRGO. Are we disloyal citizens for questioning or criticizing Jennifer Granholm? Were we bad citizens trying to destroy America when we criticized Bill Clinton? Of course not. So why is it that were not allowed to question or criticize David Felbeck and his administration?

Anyone who says that members should be censored or who implies that members who complain about the actions of the Board are unfit members is unworthy of a position of leadership in this or any other organization and you have to look no farther than the bottom of the Boards announcement to see just who thinks that way: The Board of Directors

This response from the Board of Directors made a lot of accusations and repeated called the people who dare to question them nasty names, but did it answer your questions?  Were any of the concerns about the failures of the BoD addressed?  The only response that I saw was "we are busy getting our work done doing things the way we want to".  The BoD does not care what the activists nor the members think.  To find out just right them and demand fair and open elections with no nominating committee and handled by a third party.  Members have already received replies from one BoD member Rollie Brengal stating "The Bylaws set how the election will be conducted."  The BoD wrote the bylaws and they can change them.  Do let their claims that they can't do anything, there isn't enough time, or this is the first we have heard this request fool you.  They have been getting hammered on these issues since the removed Ross from the Executive Directors position.

The negativity of the Bod is not acceptable.  Many have tried to change it but that does not look possible any more.  Our only chance to get a postive BoD for MCRGO is in the next election, which the BoD controls with their "election committee" and refuses to change.  You must contact the Board of Directors today and demand fair and open elections handled by a third party with no "nominating committee" just petitions signed by other members:



Dave Felbeck, President and BoD Chairman DaveF@mcrgo.org
Rolland M. Brengle, Jr. First Vice Chair RollieB@mcrgo.org
Pat Alzady, Second Vice Chair and Secretary PatA@mcrgo.org
Todd Adkins ToddA@mcrgo.org
Dave Aviles DaveA@mcrgo.org
Glen Griffith GlenG@mcrgo.org
Jim Kliemann JimK@mcrgo.org
Dale Shantz DaleS@mcrgo.org
Phil Webster PhilW@mcrgo.org