| Pages:
1
2 |
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
Jim Warren vs. PRCA
Last May Jim Warren met with the PRCA BODs and they reached an agreement. Basically the PRCA said they would do X and Jim would stop the momentum of
his lawsuit. However, if the PRCA did not do what they said they would do, then on October 1st Jim would continue his lawsuit.
For the record, Jim continued his lawsuit in October.
There is going to be judge's ruling on or about January 25, 2008 where two items will be decided. One of the items is whether or not the members were
given the information they requested and the other item is about who will be paying for the attorneys fees.
There will also be a two day hearing sometime in May 2008 for the other items in the lawsuit.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
The judge's ruling is going to be this Friday, January 25.
The two day hearing is scheduled for April 1-2, 2008.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Mike_Donnell
Rookie
Posts: 27
Registered: 11/28/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
Karen... In what state is all this taking place? I think we here are all counting on you to keep us up to date on this scenario as well as you did
the PRCA/WPRA court proceedings.
I haven't followed this one at all and have no real idea what is at stake. If you are going to do your usual fine job of reporting, for us, I'll
just sit back and watch for awhile.
Mike
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
The following was the 10/6/06 press release
For Immediate Release
October 6, 2006
Cowboys Suing PRCA To Force Changes In Leadership
Current BOD Changed Rules To Prevent Restructuring, Suit Alleges
AROMAS, Calif. - Former Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) Board Member James Warren, of Aromas, Calif., filed suit against the PRCA in El
Paso County Court on Tuesday, October 3 on behalf of 760 PRCA Members who signed a petition to request a general membership meeting through a process
prescribed by PRCA bylaws.
By initiating a general membership meeting, members could potentially restructure the PRCA's board of directors and make changes to the current PRCA
business model.
PRCA bylaws allow for such a meeting provided either 10% of the membership is physically present and requests such a meeting, or signatures to request
the meeting are obtained from 10% of the active membership.
The suit alleges that the PRCA refused to cooperate with Warren by failing to provide accurate records regarding the number of PRCA members so that
the 10% requirements could be calculated.
It also alleges that the PRCA's board of directors actively worked against the members' efforts by changing PRCA bylaws after the members request for
a general membership meeting. The members' request for the general membership meeting was submitted on August 8, 2006; the PRCA board then met in an
emergency session on August 16, 2006 and changed the bylaws, attempting to remove the members' rights to use proxy ballots. They also went one step
further in attempting to remove members' rights by limiting the agenda at those meetings to only items the sitting board chooses to address.
Warren, a member of the PRCA for more than 30 years, says he feels the association and its board of directors no longer represents the best interests
of its membership, and that the members began this drive to initiate the general membership meeting after trying to raise their concerns with PRCA
leadership, only to have those concerns ignored.
"We are not out to damage the PRCA in any way with this suit" said Warren. "We have tried to take the high road at each and every step and only now,
after trying everything else, have we been forced to take this matter to court. We are simply seeking relief to make the PRCA follow its own rules and
let the members exercise their rights."
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Doughhead
Rookie
Posts: 27
Registered: 1/19/06
Member Is Offline
|
|
When it quits being about whats best for the Cowboys then it's time for change. W.T. Johnson found that out in Boston years ago. Maybe it's time for
the current board to get a wake up call.
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
HERE IS THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COURT:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff is a voting member of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Inc., (also known herein as “Association”), with a mailing address of
4400 Highway 101, Aromas, California 95004.
2. Defendant is a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation, with a business address of 101 Pro Rodeo Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919.
3. This case arises as a result of certain actions of the Association enumerated below, by and through the Board of Defendant, which have violated its
fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff and the other members of the Association, have breached the Association’s contract with its members,
and constitute negligence and violation of the Business Judgment Rule.
4. The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association operates pursuant to the Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, C.R.S. Sections 7-121-101, et seq.,
Articles of Incorporation and adopted Bylaws and rules.
5. The Board of the Association has for several years operated without the input, consultation or advice of the membership, by acts of the Board and
Commissioner which have purposefully excluded the membership from such participation.
6. The Board of the Association has for several years denied, after request, membership attendance at Board meetings.
7. The Board of the Association has for several years refused to supply Board Minutes to the members upon request.
8. The Board of the Association has for several years denied, after request, access by the membership to the financial statements, contracts and other
financial and operational documents generated by the Board and/or its Commissioner.
9. The Board of the Association has chosen not to call and hold annual membership meetings.
10. In August, 2006, Plaintiff, on behalf of several hundred members, properly submitted a call for Membership Meeting by submission of the
appropriate number of proxies pursuant to Bylaws B1.9.1 and B1.9.3 of the Association.
11. The Board of the Association failed to notice up the meeting in accordance with Bylaw B1.9.2.
12. The Board of the Association then immediately met and amended the bylaws to deprive the Membership of proxy voting, thereby purposefully
attempting to invalidate the meeting call by the members. By this action, the Board of the Association violated C.R.S. Section 7-121-102 and the
Association’s bylaws, as well as other obligations enumerated herein. The Board of Association’s action was inequitable, unreasonable, not in good
faith, and contrary to established principles of corporate democracy.
13. The Board retained an auditor who then invalidated certain proxies based upon “lack of card number” of the member, an unreasonable denial of proxy
in view of the fact that names and signatures were on file, and card numbers are not required in the proxy scheme in the Articles,
Bylaws, or statutes.
14. On September 30, 2006, Plaintiff, by and through counsel, requested a copy of the membership list and invalidated proxies, which request has
apparently been ignored.
15. The actions described have effectively disenfranchised the membership of any participation in the Association.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION--BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
16. Plaintiff re-incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-15 above.
17. Defendant’s actions, particularly its recent actions to disenfranchise its members (its members being the cowboys who are the contestants and the
core of the organization) constitutes a violation of the fiduciary duty of the Board of Directors to its members. The Board of the Association acts as
a fiduciary to its members. Further, the action of the Board of Directors was merely an act of self-preservation. The members suffered
damages/injuries as a result of the Board’s action. The Board’s breach was a cause of those damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—BREACH OF CONTRACT
18. Plaintiff re-incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-17 above.
19. Defendant’s actions constitute a breach of its actual and implied contracts with the members. The relationship between the Board of Directors and
its members is contractual.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION—NEGLIGENCE
20. Plaintiff re-incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-19 above.
21. Defendant’s actions injured Plaintiff, the Defendant was negligent, and the negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order for Declaratory Relief pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 and C.R.S. Sections
13-51-101, et seq., declaring the bylaw revision action taken by the Board void, for Injunctive Relief pursuant C.R.C.P. 65 ordering the Board of
Directors to send notice of a special membership meeting and to set the time and place of meeting, and for such other and further relief as to this
Honorable Court may seem appropriate in the premises, including damages which may be indicated upon review of documents obtained through discovery and
amendment hereto.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2006.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Mike_Donnell
Rookie
Posts: 27
Registered: 11/28/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
Karen .. I did not see this on any other boards. Maybe I missed it but I am just now reading it.
Everything up to the final paragraph seems just to set out the alleged sins of the PRCA
The crux is in the final paragraph which leaves the requested scope of the final judgment pretty broad and vague.
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
The complaint was written by an attorney, so of course it is all alleged as well as broad and vague. That is why they get the big bucks $$$
THE JUDGE'S RULING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY WAS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 29, 2008.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Mike_Donnell
Rookie
Posts: 27
Registered: 11/28/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
Since this is Jim Warren's complaint, I assume he is getting hit for those big bucks
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
In May 2007 when Jim met with the BODs and they reached an agreement as noted above, the PRCA reimbursed Jim's legal fees up to that date:
$50,000.
Now the judge's ruling originally scheduled for yesterday but has been continued to February 29, please note one of the issues before the court is
regarding attorney fees.
So if Jim Warren, on behalf of 760 members (additional proxies make this total over 800) had to file a lawsuit against their own organization for the
alleged sins, who should pick up their legal tab?
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
awest
Rookie
Posts: 19
Registered: 1/14/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ok so now its March, so what is the scoop? I'm counting on you KM to fill us in!!
Money doesn\'t buy class.
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
Since I have not talked to Jim Warren, the following should be considered "unofficial":
- Trial started on Wednesday 4/2 and is expected to go for 4 days
- Trial is not expected to end until Monday or Tuesday next week
- PRCA atty asked for case to be dismissed and Judge said no
- Judge has ruled in the proxy issue and Jim Warren has "won"
- Testimony/both sides of case are still being presented
More complete details will be posted next week.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
As I stated last week, what I posted was to be considered "unofficial"
As such, based upon new information this morning, I want to point out/clarify:
- Testimony is ONGOING
- NO rulings or orders have been made by the Judge -- again both sides have not rested.
- There is no jury, it will be up to the Judge
- There is no trial today, the trial will continue on Tuesday with the PRCA presenting their side
Therefore in regards to the proxy issue, the "won" posted above should be considered "premature". Until both sides rest, there are no rulings.
Sorry for any confusion.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
The Judge is supposed to make his ruling on Friday, April 11.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
The Judge made his ruling a day early in favor of Jim Warren.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
rodeoprofiles
Rookie
Posts: 20
Registered: 1/11/08
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's the PRCA's press release about the Jim Warren case.
Ruling Issued in Warren v. PRCA - Courtesy of the PRCA
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO - The El Paso County District Court issued a ruling today in the matter of James Warren v. PRCA. In summary, the Court
held that a special PRCA membership meeting will occur. However, all of Warren’s past and present proxies are invalid.
The Court also held that Warren must develop a specific agenda for the special membership meeting, including any and all proposed bylaw
changes. In addition, Warren must provide that agenda to the member prior to obtaining his or her proxy. The Court confirmed that the PRCA and any
voting member of the PRCA will also be allowed to solicit proxies. By doing so, the Court has placed numerous procedural protections in place that
will govern what is to be addressed, as well as what may be accomplished at this special membership meeting.
The PRCA is dissatisfied that the Court agreed with Warren’s request to exclude the voting rights of more than 800 members who joined after
August 7, 2006, and also granted his further request that more than 1,600 Life (Gold Card) Members, specifically those who have not completed their
membership renewal forms, will not be entitled to vote at this Court-appointed meeting.
The PRCA strongly disagrees with Warren’s attempt to deny these members their right to be involved in any meeting that will have a direct
impact on their membership. The PRCA, however, is pleased with the Court’s decision to deny Warren’s request to prevent PRCA rodeo committees from
voting at this meeting.
The PRCA is in the process of reviewing the Court’s ruling to determine the impact on all PRCA members prior to making any final decisions.
The PRCA is dedicated to the protection of its members’ rights and to the integrity of the sport of professional rodeo.
http://www.rodeoprofiles.com
|
|
|
RodeoAttitude
Super Administrator
Posts: 543
Registered: 7/1/05
Location: Maxwell, Iowa
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Here is where you wil find Jim Warren's response:
http://www.cowboysinc.org/index-1.html
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
Colorado judge: 'PRCA failed to act in good faith toward its membership'
By Jim Thompson
April 11, 2008
With that extraordinary statement issued April 10, Judge Larry Schwartz concluded a nearly two year battle by a group led by Jim Warren of California
to force the Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) to call a special meeting of its members.
Warren is a former PRCA calf roper and also served for a number of years on the association board of directors. His lawsuit was begun when the PRCA
board began to make arbitrary decisions against its own bylaws or to change bylaws without due notice or membership input.
The judge ruled against the PRCA on all counts before him. As a result, Warrens group, CowboysInc.org, will have 60 days to write proposed bylaw
changes and 90 days to gather proxy votes for a meeting to be set in September of 2008.
Anyone wishing to view the judge's decision may download the 14-page article at http://www.cowboysinc.org and click on "latest news".
One of the arguments before the court was the actual voting member list. The judge ruled that any PRCA member who would have been eligible to vote on
August 7, 2006, would be eligible to vote in this coming September meeting. The date was chosen because that's the date when the PRCA board of
directors, led by then-commissioner Troy Ellerman, arbitrarily changed the bylaws to exclude proxy votes at future meeting, despite rules to the
contrary in the existing bylaws. Ellerman is now in prison for other charges not related to the PRCA and the commissioner position is being filled
temporarily by board member Keith Martin.
The active PRCA cardholders in that time period are around 5,750 plus rodeo committees who each command one vote. The PRCA had sought to include
nearly 2,000 inactive members with whom they had had no contact since 1994. When information was offered that nearly 400 of that number were presumed
deceased, the judge ruled that inactive members would not be eligible to vote.
Warren's group now will set to work to write the proposed bylaw changes and/or clarifications for the meeting.
The group has not set forth any plans for board of director changes or structure for the PRCA as a result of this ruling. Both Warren and Brian
Wallace of http://www.RodeoInsider.com indicate that this is the right of the membership to decide and not dictated by their group.
Any proxy ballots that members have submitted for either side of this case prior to the judges ruling on April 10th will now be invalid.
Both sides will be gathering proxy ballots to submit at the September meeting. That meeting, as dictated by the judge, will have to be held in
September of 2008. The PRCA must notify its membership with a minimum of 60 days notice. The Warren group is charged with the responsibility of
setting the agenda for the meeting and bylaw changes.
Web sites with additional information include http://www.prorodeo.com or http://www.cowboysinc.org.
(Jim Thompson is a life member of the PRCA, and still announces professional rodeo including the Mountain States Circuit Steer Roping Finals in
Laramie, WY each August.)
********************************************************
The above article was found at:
http://www.tsln.com/article/20080411/TSLN03/944391514/-1/TSLN
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Lost
Rookie
Posts: 24
Registered: 12/13/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
This is disgusting. People who know nothing about rodeo deciding on PRCA matters. All those giving their vote to Warren derserve what they get!
|
|
|
D.Rogers
|
|
"People who know nothing about rodeo"? Please tell us what you mean exactly.
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
Damon, the way I interpreted Lost’s post, which perhaps was prompted by the above article’s title "Colorado judge: 'PRCA failed to act in good
faith toward its membership'” I think the “people” that he/she finds “disgusting” must be the Judges in Colorado.
After all, it is these people, the Judges, who after years of college and who obviously understand the law, and who realize that it is their job to
uphold the law in this country, are the people who have recently made decisions in regards to the WPRA vs PRCA case (a jury awarded a $6.8 million
dollar judgment to the WPRA), as well as the Jim Warren vs PRCA case.
Yeppers, these two different Judges have found the PRCA guilty of illegal/unlawful acts against the WPRA in addition to their own PRCA members,
therefore these two people have made decisions which directly effect the PRCA. Go figure.
Yet IMHO it seems that Lost is disgusted by these judicial decisions made by these people.
By the way, what if the only thing these people know about rodeo is from sitting in the stands? These people are not making rulings in a court of law
as to what is happening in the arena, but at the PRCA office.
As for Warren, and quoting from the above article, “Warren is a former PRCA calf roper and also served for a number of years on the association board
of directors.” frankly I don’t see a problem if anyone wants to give their vote to Warren at this point. After all, Warren stepped forward and filed
legal action against the PRCA when other means of communication were shut down – illegally – by Ellerman.
So Lost, all things considering, why aren’t you disgusted with the individual who created all this mess? Haven’t you heard? Thanks to Ellerman,
there are some people who believe that suing the PRCA is the current national past time.
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Lost
Rookie
Posts: 24
Registered: 12/13/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
Boy ellerman must have really jilted you because the problem with Jim warren began in the late 70s early eighties so I am pretty sure ellerman was
not yet in power. and I hope you people are still around when he gets done what he wants. You will then see why.
|
|
|
KarenMartin
Regional Finalist Champeen
Posts: 256
Registered: 12/3/06
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: TBD
|
|
In my humble opinion, Ellerman has jilted every member of the PRCA, as well as the WPRA.
It goes without saying that I find it highly entertaining that Ellerman underestimated the WPRA BODs and how they would react to his illegal, immoral
and unethical tactics. The kicker is that it resulted in a $6.8 million judgment against the PRCA.
I also applaude Warren for doing what was needed to be done; again, per the Judge the "PRCA failed to act in good faith to its membership".
Best way to reach me is via email: MizKMart@aol.com
PRCA Member since 1987
WPRA Member since 2007
\"She who is silent is deemed to consent.\"
|
|
|
Lost
Rookie
Posts: 24
Registered: 12/13/07
Member Is Offline
|
|
I hope someone sues Warren because hes is not acting in good faith. He has a whole different agenda thatn he is letting on!
|
|
|
Jmoss
Rookie
Posts: 11
Registered: 12/3/05
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
lost you seem to be pretty concered about these issuse why not put a name to your post along with opions so others have a chance to see your side of
things.
Justin mosser
Life in its purest form, stayin one step in front of the horn
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
