What's Going on at MOFIB?

[mpedersen]

That is certainly a possible endgame of John and even more so, Stephen Kennedy. Mark Vera says that the BOD is working towards elections. As none of us are privy to the BOD minutes at this point, and none of us are privy to what's going on it people's heads, we are left to speculate.

 

[treeman]

Is there an attorney in IL that we can hire or will tell us if we can get everything back? I do understand that it is a long shot and could be very expensive. But if an attorney says don't bother than I guess we need to go another route and let them have it.

Is there any way to email all the members without having mod powers?

 

[mpedersen]

Regarding an attorney, Mark Vera came along with one - I presume this is his business attorney for other ventures as well. So there is some legal council already being involved in this process, and I would assume it's being donated by Mark. At least one other MOFIB member who is an attorney has tried to have input in this process, but since that viewpoint seems largely "pro mpedersen", it is being ignored and condemmed.

"We"? Well, "we" as members of the organization, I don't know what powers we have. I know that MOFIB's money is all in the hands of Mr. Vera now which is as it should be. Remember, I did ultimately resign to legitimize Mr. Vera's position on the BOD...so in some respects, these are all now questions that should be posed to Mr. Vera, as I no longer speak for MOFIB in any capacity. Remember however, that until corporate assest are restored to the corporate accounts, going after the organization through legal channels I believe would result in the monetary assets being seized by the state, and the web assets remaining in the private ownership of John Lauth. I made the decision that it's not in the memberships and donors interests to have their donotions go to the state, and the website go to the private parties in question. It would be different perhaps if all the assets were in the corporate accounts where they belonged, and were listed as corporate property legally, and officially. Unfortunately, the situation puts an undue burden on the members who believe that this situation is unacceptable. Again, Mark Vera and other members have said a vote is "in the works". The process of a vote is a legitimate, legal, and binding way to approach resolution to this crisis. Yes, there may be other ways for the members to try to "take over" the situation, but what good is that going to do? That is why I will not stop, but don't condone, yet another hostile takeover.

I do have a slightly outdated email list of all the MOFIB members. The problem in using such a list is that the list itself is considered confidential property of MOFIB, and members only agreed to mailings from MOFIB...and that translates to the organizatoin, it's directors, and the website. As outside members, I don't believe we could legally make use of this mailing list, and that unfortunately means it's off the table as an option (again, because I'm playing by the rules and the law here).

FWIW,

Matt

 

[Rook]

There are ways for the members to remove the board and setup a new board, however as Matt pointed out that would be ugly and may be the death blow to MOFIB. It may also be expensive to hire counsel in Illinois to go after effectivly $2000 in cash and the website assets.

However, if MOFIB members started forwarding an email list around to those members they know, you would likely get the email addresses for everyone in short order, with permission to email everyone on it.

 

[Anonymous]

Regarding an attorney, Mark Vera came along with one - I presume this is his business attorney for other ventures as well. So there is some legal council already being involved in this process, and I would assume it's being donated by Mark. At least one other MOFIB member who is an attorney has tried to have input in this process, but since that viewpoint seems largely "pro mpedersen", it is being ignored and condemmed.

"We"? Well, "we" as members of the organization, I don't know what powers we have. I know that MOFIB's money is all in the hands of Mr. Vera now which is as it should be. Remember, I did ultimately resign to legitimize Mr. Vera's position on the BOD...so in some respects, these are all now questions that should be posed to Mr. Vera, as I no longer speak for MOFIB in any capacity. Remember however, that until corporate assest are restored to the corporate accounts, going after the organization through legal channels I believe would result in the monetary assets being seized by the state, and the web assets remaining in the private ownership of John Lauth. I made the decision that it's not in the memberships and donors interests to have their donotions go to the state, and the website go to the private parties in question. It would be different perhaps if all the assets were in the corporate accounts where they belonged, and were listed as corporate property legally, and officially. Unfortunately, the situation puts an undue burden on the members who believe that this situation is unacceptable. Again, Mark Vera and other members have said a vote is "in the works". The process of a vote is a legitimate, legal, and binding way to approach resolution to this crisis. Yes, there may be other ways for the members to try to "take over" the situation, but what good is that going to do? That is why I will not stop, but don't condone, yet another hostile takeover.

I do have a slightly outdated email list of all the MOFIB members. The problem in using such a list is that the list itself is considered confidential property of MOFIB, and members only agreed to mailings from MOFIB...and that translates to the organizatoin, it's directors, and the website. As outside members, I don't believe we could legally make use of this mailing list, and that unfortunately means it's off the table as an option (again, because I'm playing by the rules and the law here).

FWIW,

Matt

I am not Attorney but... I would think using the list to alert membership that the BOD is not following the bylaws and the laws of the state of Illinois would be an appropriate use of that list. Do the bylaws allow for Proxies?

 

[treeman]

Bookfish,

It now looks like they deleted your "my 2 cents" thread.

 

[LargeAngels]

"my 2 cents" is still there: http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 253&t=4957

 

[treeman]

That's nice that they move it without a word into a place that most would not find.

 

[bookfish]

Thanks for letting me know. Interesting BOD minutes there. Good to see some info for the members being posted. Thx-Jim

 

[LargeAngels]

Did you see this? http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 255&t=4962

I'm not sure if they meant that particular forum or all of MOFIB

 

[Anonymous]

According to the bylaws...

The board picks the board

The board can alter the bylaws


:roll:

 

[mpedersen]

The copyright notification - http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 255&t=4962 - for the record, that's BS, and a scare tactic. And yes, it is not clear what it even covers.

For the record, I wrote the copyright agreement that was BOD approved, and that ALL users have been bound by from approval to present. So long as this remains the current T&C, ownership of a post belongs to the poster, NOT MOFIB. And MOFIB cannot, to the best of my knowledge, retroactively recind your rights, nor can than claim more than was agreed to when you registered. Due notification was made when the terms changed, and all users were given the opportunity to cease participation if they no longer agreed by those terms. The copyright agreement that governs USERS contributions on MOFIB are as follows:

MOFIB believes strongly in balancing open communication with each individual's right to own their own work. Our mission depends on the contributions of our membership, and your participation here becomes public record. Please thoroughly consider the results of posting any information that you may feel is proprietary to your breeding efforts. While individual authors retain copyright ownership over the content of their posts (text and images), posting information here constitutes your consent and permission for MOFIB to retain this information in a database and dissemenate this information through any MOFIB controlled/sponsored online / digital format (RSS Feeds, Website Forums, Newsletters, etc.) in perpetuity. You also grant permission to MOFIB to cite your contributions in fixed-media formats (CD Roms, MOFIB-Sponsored presentations, print materials etc.), with appropriate citations and acknowledgments, in perpetuity. MOFIB will always seek your permission before using any images you provide online in any offline / fixed format media.

You can see these terms here - http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/ucp. ... 2bdfebd72b

Which means, first and foremost, that AUTHORS retain ownership of their posts, and that MOFIB has no legal claim of ownership. As a poster you do grant perpetual rights for MOFIB to redistribute what you posted (in other words, you can't go back and demand that they delete your posts), but you are not granting them exclusive rights. Your words and images are your to repost anywhere you like. Which means, again, that the "group overviews" that MOFIB might not want scattered around, are in fact the property of the authors, and not MOFIB, and as such, all you need is the author's individual express permission to repost them.

You also gotta remember, there's a 4 page diatribe about copyright already on MOFIB, and most folks do not understand what copyright is all about, and what everyone's legal rights are. It is 100% legal to QUOTE something, as I have just done above. It' also 100% legal to link to something that is publicly available, as I have done. Some folks (and this "warning" from MOFIB) would suggest that what I have just done is infringment. Absolutely not.

Snailman, you are correct, the BOD can alter the bylaws. The BOD did so against my vote on March 18th in fact.

Currently however, it is the MEMBERS who elect the board of directors - http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/bylaws.php

Section 3. Selection of the Board Members.
Selection of Directors shall be as necessary to replace outgoing board members. Directors shall be entitled to serve on the Board in indefinite consecutive terms or until they are no longer capable of fulfilling their role as Board Member. Any board member may be removed from office by resignation or majority vote of a quorum of Directors. Nominations for new board members shall be solicited from the Active membership. All Active members in good standing shall have the right to nominate a candidate for the board and to vote for Directors. . The current board reserves the right to accept/deny nominations and select new members according to their current needs. A vote by the Active membership may be used to break deadlocks in the selection process. These elections shall be made as necessary to expedite the selection process. Ballots may be distributed by mail, email or in such manner as the Board of Directors finds most expedient. The results of the selection process shall be announced within 5 working days of acceptance by the new board member.

Additionally, membership (being a Member) is still currently defined as anyone who has registered for the site. That has been the same since I incorporated MOFIB, and while that may IRK the current BOD and they may desire to change it, the fact remains that no, in reality, this is exactly as I intended it to be. Every one of the 1400 members is supposed to have a vote and a say in such an election.

Section 2. Members in Good Standing.
Members of MOFIB in good standing shall be those members who have completed and submitted a membership form for admission to the web forum. Initially, Board Members and Website Moderators will represent a separate tier of membership with the right of making recommendations where the expertise of experience is required.

I will only add that it is sad to see that this meeting was referred to as the "first" BOD meeting - not possible. I am also sad to see that John Lauth has officially whitewashed his illegal actions through this official post, and that he and Luis Magnasco entered false statements into the meeting as a matter to legitimize their illegal removal of me from the BOD during my vacation (which again, Luis claims the BOD was not aware of, yet he admits to being aware, and is 50% of the voting power of the BOD...not to mention that Will Heaton ALSO knew of my absense, and he was complicit in the removal of the website, database, and email from the corporate accounts, as he was the only other one who had the access to do so besides myself, for obvious good reasons)

I wish Mark Vera good luck as the president of MOFIB.

Matt

 

[mpedersen]

One other note on the copyright warning....

I noticed at the bottom of the meeting minutes, that there is a copyright warning - http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 255&t=4963 -

©2009 THIS INFORMATION IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN PART OR TOTAL IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE MOFIB BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

Basically, I guess what somoene is trying to say is that matters of public record for a public corporation can't be quoted, or discussed, outside of the corporation, without the corporations permissions.

Perhaps that copyright notice should read...

©2009 THIS INFORMATION IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN PART OR TOTAL IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE MOFIB BOARD OF DICTATORS.

Just my $0.02

Matt

 

[Ummfish]

And, in case anyone was wondering, here is the Fair Use clause of the United States copyright law:

... [T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

From here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

In summary, quote small sections of whatever you want to talk about and don't use it for commercial, non-scholarly purposes. Given that reef boards exist for educational purposes, you'll be fine.

Ain't nothing but a scare tactic.

--------------

Edit: Oh, and criticism is certainly covered.

 

[mpedersen]

Something I emailed to my friends relating to the ongoing drama with MOFIB...

This is not another rant (fun for a change)!

I just want to share two stories I'm aware of that have been on my mind for a long time. Both are perhaps worthy of your time and consideration. No secondary message here, just trying to figure out why our hobby organizations seem plagued by the same problems time and time again...I worry that if we, as a community, cannot break free from these ongoing problems, we will continue to hit the "glass ceiling". Maybe there's something thought-provoking within these stories. I haven't listened to these in a long time, and will be sitting down to listen to them myself this evening if I can find the time.

Two Stories to listen to / watch at your leisure.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/clay ... ation.html

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_E ... sched=1276 - See "Act Three" - A Tale of Two Santas, aka. Santa Fight Club. Starts around 21:55.

Happy early "Tax Day" to most of you!

Matt

 

[LargeAngels]

Now that Copyright warning is gone from that board and when clicking on the link I get a you are not authorized to view this.

 

[Ummfish]

Oh.... I just figured it out. Whether or not posting a quote actually violates copyright is immaterial. They've set it up as a forum rule. This is just a method by which to boot troublemakers, despite the fact that the rule itself is actually against the law. You don't actually get booted for violating the law, but for violating the forum rule. Ah. Sorry. I didn't catch on at first.

 

[mpedersen]

Ha. So by voicing dissent outside of MOFIB and copying portions of the minutes in your response, they can boot you for violating a forum rule! How convinient and ironic. Afterall, we once talked about having some sort of professional standard in the user agreement..i.e. if you were known to be infringing copyright outside of MOFIB, that might be grounds for suspension of a MOFIB account. Or if you were a convicted felon guilty of animal cruelty, perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to be a member. You know,that kind of stuff which somewhat makes sense, but is difficult to prove.

Of course, that discussion was shot down in flames by most everyone, and the overrriding decision was that only your behavior on MOFIB could be grounds for removal from MOFIB.

Who wants to be the first guinea pig to test the theory?

 

[Anonymous]

Section 3. Selection of the Board Members.
Selection of Directors shall be as necessary to replace outgoing board members. Directors shall be entitled to serve on the Board in indefinite consecutive terms or until they are no longer capable of fulfilling their role as Board Member. Any board member may be removed from office by resignation or majority vote of a quorum of Directors. Nominations for new board members shall be solicited from the Active membership. All Active members in good standing shall have the right to nominate a candidate for the board and to vote for Directors. . The current board reserves the right to accept/deny nominations and select new members according to their current needs. A vote by the Active membership may be used to break deadlocks in the selection process. These elections shall be made as necessary to expedite the selection process. Ballots may be distributed by mail, email or in such manner as the Board of Directors finds most expedient. The results of the selection process shall be announced within 5 working days of acceptance by the new board member.

Since the BOD can deny anyone selected/nominated by the membership this basically means that the BOD elects the members of the board.

 

[mpedersen]

Yeah, you got a point there Chris. I would've said not to worry, and that the BOD would be beyond foolish to leverage that clause. But knowing that the current BOD has already tried to pursue an avenue that wouldn't let me be voted back in by the membership, I would not be surprised to see such a clause exercised.

That said, this may be one of the things where the members might have a legal right and ability to override the BOD itself based on the laws of IL...that might be one of several things that Mark Vera believes is in the bylaws that is in conflict with the state not-for-profit corporate laws.

For anyone who didn't listen to the This American Life link I posted, I really strongly encourage you to review it!

FWIW,

Matt