Official statement from FRRS:(begin quoted post) of http://wplives.org/2015election.html

The FRRS Board of Directors election has been indefinitely postponed. Members James Mason, Robert Reininger, Bill Meeker and Debra Baer, represented by member Keith Gillette, have sued the organization in an effort to have your private, personal information (name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address) in an effort to circumvent our election process. Under California law, the organization is compelled to either provide them this information or provide them a reasonable alternative. The California Attorney General's office recommends a blind mailing as a reasonable alternative and this option was offered to these four members. A blind mailing is one where they provide their information to the organization and it is mailed to the membership in the same manner as the Train Sheet or Headlight without disclosing your private information.

We will continue to fight for your privacy and will release the mailing list only if compelled to do so by a court of law.

Should you wish to express your opinion regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the organization at info@wplives.org or by mail at PO Box 608, Portola, CA 96122.

WP Lives!

(end quoted post)

Interesting that the museum says that the dissidents are trying to circumvent the museum's election process, but at the same time states they are required by state law to supply the member's mailing information. If you look through the court filings, you will see that the dissident's attorney offered to protect the privacy of the mailing list as an officer of the court, making them legally liable if it is abused in any way. The museum's offer of a blind mailing has likewise been rejected. So it is a standoff no doubt to be resolved in the courts.

If you read through all the documents submitted to the court, (http://wpdream.org/issues.html) including the rude comments, it is possible that the dissidents have various personal agendas. But, it also would appear that the sitting board and/or its officers may be making an effort to prevent any candidate other than the incumbents from being on the ballot. The museum bylaws/policy seem to prevent any controversial statements by any candidate in the election literature. Basically the members are not being allowed to freely hear from the candidates or even vote for some. Even if all three dissidents were to be elected, I doubt they would control the board unless they have allies in enough sitting members.

I do know a few of the people being mentioned having been a member and volunteer many years ago. It is disappointing that it has come to this. A previous post stated that the dissidents hadn't proved anything, but the primary questions of finances and the disposition of monies from asset sales could be easily refuted. The museum did make an effort to refute some of the claims, yet strangely not these.

There is something rotten here, but I won't speculate further. First the Nevada Northern fiasco, and now this ...