Proposal to change the JMA

I disagree to the proposal, as put forth. i8t is not a question of "as always done..." but it is wrong since the ability and the difficulties of a members to take action based upon real knowledge will be very limited. but maybe this is the main reason why this proposal is put forward as we see it in front of us....!

agree

The JMA is not in danger of disappearing in the next 3-5 years. Ten years from now, when many of our members and leaders will have "aged out" of riding, the picture is not so clear. I believe we owe it to future Jewish bikers to be proactive and creative NOW in order to ensure the future health and vitality of the JMA. Doing nothing simply because "we've always done it this way" just kicks the can down the road and will make the challenges even harder to address in years to come. The proposal as put forth may not be perfect, but it's more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Anyone who has a better solution is encouraged to share it for everyone's benefit!

The JMA is moribund. It has been for years. Many clubs have disintegrated, others have shrunk and some have abandoned the JMA. Most of this has been self inflicted. I have observed how individuals placed their needs over the needs of the greater Jewish Motorcycling community. No need to rehash. The JMA is an organization of Clubs, first and foremost. The problem is, there are so many people, who for whatever reason do not fit into the clubs that exist and are not interested in forming their own. This leaves the vast majority of Jewish Bikers outside of the only worldwide organization dedicated to bring them together. Right now the JMA, its board and its member clubs do not appear to be trying to expand its scope. One group wants to maintain the status quo even though they do very little to promote new clubs or expand their own membership, the other seems to have spent the last 10 years trying to find a way to change the balance of power. There have been half hearted attempts to create clubs for or otherwise corral the unaffiliated Jewish riders, the latest being a "virtual" club (1999 called and it wants its terminology back) Most have failed because those in charge of them didn't really want them to succeed as they were seen as a threat to both of those positions.

I would say that there needs to be a way for individuals to be a way to include non affiliated riders as members of the JMA without changing it from an organization primarily of clubs.. Perhaps allowing non club members to join the JMA without having voting rights or for all of the unaffiliated to have one rep with one vote equal to one club. Then if that group expanded, the membership chairperson would try to assist groups with similar geographic or other commonality to create new clubs.

The first step is for everyone to put their egos in a box and think about the greater good of the JMA and the Jewish riding community.

Change is unsettling.

As a JMA officer, I have no problem with JMA members who oppose the proposal to re-imagine and revitalize the Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, in order to position our organization for greater success in the years ahead. Reasonable people, all of whom are invested in the JMA, can disagree about what is the best path forward, and some people may sincerely believe that the familiar, "same old, same old" JMA is best.

I'm not one of those folks. I favor out-of-the-box thinking about how the future JMA should be organized to support Holocaust awareness and education, combat hate and prejudice, and promote friendships and riding for Jewish bikers.

What I do have a serious problem with, however, is Club Reps and officers who distort and misrepresent the proposal they oppose, who invent falsehoods and then attack their own misrepresentations. That's a cheap and lazy way to argue! Two specific examples:

• There is an allegation that the proposal "requires" dues assessment. That is completely false. In fact, the language providing for the option of JMA dues comes directly out of the current JMA Charter and Bylaws which now permit the collection of dues and the imposition of special assessments. (Failure to pay is now cause for a club to lose its JMA membership in good standing.)

  • Avi Kuperberg has pulled out of the air (or out of his a**) the fantasy that dues will be $54/year. This affords him an imaginary "straw man" to attack and discredit. In reality, at this point, dues are equally likely to be $5, $500 ... or $0 -- whatever is necessary and justifiable in the future.

• There is an assertion that the proposal emasculates the JMA clubs and renders them "irrelevant" to the JMA. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you read the proposal, you'll see that it consistently reinforces the importance of local clubs as the place where JMA members would continue to congregate for camaraderie and riding. Further, the clubs' complete autonomy is guaranteed in relation to controlling all local affairs: membership, events, rules, rides, structure, etc. As is now the case, clubs would have to meet JMA "chartering" requirements.

  • A strong, vibrant national and international JMA could give greater prominence and visibility to affiliated clubs, meaning they'd play an essential role in attracting and retaining individual members; motorcycling is fun when we do it with a group of friends!

  • Yes, the Club Reps would transition from being members of a governing body to being Club Liaisons who are members of an advisory body that speaks for the interests of clubs; individuals would speak on their own behalf, as in a democracy, by electing all Board members.

Finally, there is a charge from certain opponents that this proposal is a power grab (or similar nonsense) by the Cleveland Shul Boys club. In 2016, when I was elected JMA Treasurer, I was the only Shul Boy involved with the JMA. (BTW, as a former member of the Chicago and Cincinnati clubs, I still feel loyalty to those groups too). Since then, other Shul Boys have been elected or have volunteered to devote substantial amounts of their time and energy to the JMA. Where are all the volunteers from other JMA clubs? Oh yeah... they're sitting on the sidelines throwing spitballs and criticism at those who have actually stepped up to bat for the JMA.

• The Shul Boys are not monolithic, by the way. We have the same diversity of opinions and disagreements as any other group of Jews. Besides, like every other JMA club --- with three members or twenty members or eighty members -- the Shul Boys will have exactly one vote whether to support or reject the proposal at hand.

I hope the upcoming Zoom meeting on Monday evening, April 25, at 8:00 pm EDT/5:00 pm PDT will feature more serious and respectful debate about the actual merits and disadvantages of the proposal that's on the table. See you then.

Best regards,

Bruce Ente (he/him), Treasurer

Jewish Motoryclists Alliance

A Good Shabbos to all. This will be my last post prior to Monday's meeting. I promise.

It needs to be said, once and for all that there is no misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or mistake on my part in what is stated in the proposal. In addition to having a reasonable ability to read, I have some fairly unique insight into the ideas, concerns, and a few unstated objectives behind his proposal. As a board member, I have, over the last 2 years, had numerous conversations, at meetings, and informal "off line" conversations with proponents of this proposal. Here is what the proposal says in black and white,

"To accomplish this, we propose modifying the JMA bylaws by adding Individual Memberships to the JMA with annual dues and direct democracy (that is, all members vote for JMA officers, board members, policies of the organization, and other issues)."

The proposal goes on later to justify in great detail the need for the imposition of dues.

Without taking a lot of time and space here by quoting this, please either take my word for it or check yourself.

At the risk of being redundant, I will make one final comment because it is very important and goes to the essence of this whole thing; This proposal seeks to, for all intents and purposes, eliminate the clubs and their reps. You don't need to read too far between the lines to see that. The clubs established, built, and continue to support and give direction to the JMA. The clubs ARE the JMA. I don't think i would be going to far out on a limb to suggest that most of the clubs and club members are not the least bit interested in being relegated to "Affiliates".

Thank you Lauren for providing the link to see the ongoing conversation. I feel totally comfortable having my club representative, Lauren, having my proxy in our club dealings with JMA, and that's been proven over her long history as a founding member of our club as well as her activities with the JMA and other organizations we support. After reading it all, and re-reading the proposal itself as well as the introduction narrative, I find myself in complete agreement with the comments made by Danny, Michel, David and others in resisting this "solution searching for a problem" as Danny so correctly notes. The question is really what does the newly envisioned JMA bring to its members that the existing JMA does not? I've been riding since 1974. I'm a charter life member of AMA, 15 year member of ChaiRiders of NY and 6 year member of ABATE. While I don't get to physically participate with all of those organizations as much as I'd like to (maybe when I retire next year?) I gladly send my dues in each year as I know what I am getting for them. We recognize that JMA has done an effective job of managing the R2R each year and some day I hope to directly participate. That said I don't see a reconstituted JMA as providing any more benefits in motorcycling than I already enjoy through my other memberships. I suspect many are in a similar position, and the focus and benefits of those organizations are clear. As to any dues anticipated to be paid to a centralized JMA, I'd suggest that the knowledge that it's pulling administrative funds from the charities it's designed to support keeps expenses far more circumspect than having a larger bank of dues from which to pull.

copy and pasted, with permission, as was written. Typo's and all

Concerning this proposal, it's something that I think we have all seen coming for a long time. It's amazing about timing, because I only recently saw the Broadway show Hamilton and it has given me new insights about the debates by our Founding Fathers that took place during the establishment of our governing structure and a new perspective of the structures which, up till now, have ensured its survival and amazing growth. I even recently read Federalist Paper #10, so relevant to the "fractionated" America of today, AND in fact, this JMA Proposal.

By comparing the JMA Proposal to the contrasting positions debated during the founding of our government, I see a direct analogy between our original 13 colonies clustered on the east coast, having successfully grown under a bicameral governmental structure to 50 states spread across the land, and the geographically dispersed JMA clubs, each representing LOCAL interests that bind THEM into a cohesive organization.

The JMA clubs have similarly grown from a few to also about 50 (except the one club that has no geographic location, and the VERY EXISTANCE of that club is possibly a forebearer of the type of power that can be unleashed by dedicated/driven people but no local accountability)

Thus, I see the Proposal as an effort to effectively eliminate the governing power by the geographically diverse JMA clubs over JMA activities and support, and concentrate that power in an Oligarchy or even eventually an Autocracy.

Recall that the original organizational form of the JMA, which was violently objected to, was an Autocracy. We all know where that leads; Absolute Power ....

IF this Proposal does move forward, the one further provision that MIGHT prevent the JMA from devolving into an Oligarchy would be to copy the solution implemented by our founding fathers, where the JMA Clubs have a vote equivalent to the Electoral College, and 51% or more of their vote determines the JMA leadership, thereby preventing a small group of highly driven/vocal people from concentrating their powers if persuasion, from taking control. But since this provision is contrary to the Aims of the Proposal, I fully expert it will be dismissed out of hand by those in power and its importance will not be realized by the unenlightened.

Larry Edelman President of Hillel’s Angels N.J.

Hello JMA members, I represented the Israeli Motorcycle Club-the IMC, for many years, participated in many R2R's and other JMA's activities, including initiating and leading twice JMA affiliated rides throughout Israel. during my representing years I new most of the Clubs Reps and most of the JMA governing committees, and being the IMC's Rep. I voted for people to become presidents and vp's, based upon my knowledge of those people I voted for. The IMC is the largest club in the JMA, about 1800 active members, there is no way that they will become knowledgeable about a person in the USA that would like to become President or VP, this is one of the reasons, because of which we in the IMC, to oppose this idea. it was discussed in the past and the representatives voted against, so we here, including our new Rep the JMA, Mr Eliko Aljim, who is also the IMC's president, disagree to bring it up just to fulfill some individuals wrong agenda.

I ALSO AGREE TOTALY WITH WHAT DANIEL HERBST WROTE AND ALSO TO THOSE THAT SUPPORTED HIM HEREIN

Best regards and Chag Sameach

Eli Liran

First and foremost, David is mistaken in his assertion that the proposal does not specifically call for members to pay dues. For your convenience here is exactly what his own proposal says on the subject" we propose modifying the JMA bylaws by adding Individual Memberships to the JMA with annual dues and direct democracy (that is, all members vote for JMA officers, board members, policies of the organization, and other issues)." This solution in search of a problem labeled a "Proposal" will effectively eliminate the clubs from the JMA. The clubs will have no membership status, no voting rights, They will be reduced to affiliates, "Clubs would, however, continue affiliates of the JMA, if they choose to be. Most significantly, each club would remain autonomous and self-governing, with full control of its membership requirements, activities, local club rules, and so forth." In other words , you can still be a club, and do what you like in your own town, but you have no real position in the JMA, you just get to call your self an "affiliate" This is such gas lighting. Oh and by the way, the clubs will be made to jump through whatever draconian hoops the leadership of the JMA might choose to impose at any point. " A club will remain an affiliate if it meets the criteria that define an affiliated club." Be good boys and girls and do what the board says and you can continue to be "Affiliated" And don't worry all you reps. You will lose all status but you can still call yourselves liaison. No one is hiding his head in the sand or refusing to embrace progress. There is no problem, specific or general that this proposal remotely addresses. It is simply an effort to replace the JMA with a fundamentally different organization that is more to the liking of a few individuals.

Here is a copy of the proposal for those who have not yet read it

I think that this is a great discussion to have. It is why we wrote the proposal in the 1st place; to generate active, productive discussions on the JMA's future. But it is only productive if we discuss what is actually in the proposal and not made-up or erroneous "facts".

The proposal does not ask for dues. It only states that there could be a provision for dues (as is the case today under our current Bylaws). Why address this? Because there is a cost to running the JMA. Currently, we subsidize these costs by deducting them from the annual donations intended for the R2R target charity; meaning that whatever the cost of running the JMA is, the charity receives less in donations than it otherwise would get.

Even so, the decision to charge dues or not would, under the proposal, is a decision made entirely by the JMA members themselves. Nothing in the proposal suggests the IMPOSITION of dues.

Comments from Avi Kupenberg

Paragraph 1 - Everything here is accurate. However, it is reasonable to argue that if all we want to do (in the future) is run a single event (the R2R) we do not need to have an organized JMA, executive positions, an executive board. All we really need is for someone to volunteer their time to organize and oversee the R2R once a year.

Paragraph 2 -

Those of us who wrote the Proposal agree with AVI. It is for this reason that we have made a concerted effort to structure the new JMA in a way that leaves the clubs more autonomous than they are now. As an example: today a new club needs 5 people to become a club and 5 people to remain a club in good standing according to our Bylaws. The new structure ignores what makes a club a club. It is completely up to that club as to what defines them as a "club"; i.e the JMA would have no control over any aspect of any club.

The issue of dues is again speculative. If the membership voted to impose dues they would also be the ones to set the amount. (as is the processes today). Where $54 comes from is ?????. As for the comment about traveling to Cleveland ( we all know what type of comment this is. Today the JMA's management is from all over the U.S. and I suspect it would continue to be so. I know we are all older, but surely we all have heard of the telephone and the internet. So my guess is we would have a virtual organization.

Paragraph 3 -

This argument fails in 2 ways. 1) since the membership would be individuals, there would be no club vote. In a direct democracy, individuals are free to vote as they see fit.

2) Even ignoring the 1st argument this (argument) is false as long as the total number of members is greater than 1/2 of the total number of individuals that belong to a single club. (if there are 20 JMA members who are also Chai Riders, but there are 50 JMA members in total, the Chai Riders would not be able to push their own agenda. We are hoping that most of the Website members would want to be members of the evolved JMA and so we are talking about hundreds of members

Paragraph 4 -.This paragraph essentially argues that there would be no oversight. One could make the exact argument about the current JMA structure and would be equally untrue.

Again this argument shows a misunderstanding of what is being proposed. The evolved JMA would provide NO governance over any club. The Clubs would be completely autonomous. Perhaps those that are concerned about this could re-read the proposal.

Paragraph 5 - This appears to argue that this is how we have always done it. it was good enough for us 20 years ago and it is good enough now. Ask the bookstore industry how well that argument works.

The issues we, as an organization, are facing cannot be addressed by sticking our heads in the sand!