edzolz

If you received your JWO and read where the "directors" decided to not award the 30 year jackets any longer. Is OCA going back to the days of a previous group of "leaders" and lose track of the membership dues. The news is that last year they sent out over 40 jackets and can't afford this any longer. Even if the jackets cost $150 that is a drop in the bucket of the dues 40 members have paid in the last thirty years.

Oldsmaniac

Well I got my 30 year jacket years ago, black and that style is not my thing. I did read about it in JWO, I don't know the politics of the club and budget but the explanation seemed legit to me...cost prohibitive.... pretty sure I joined in 1975.

jensenracing77

Figures, My 30 years is this year

CRUZN 66

I read the article as well, and was a little surprised... As is the case funding these days is always an issue... If a member still wants a jacket, at least the jackets will still be available at your own cost with the OCA allowing a $40 credit toward the purchase... Not that this is any consolation for the 30 plus years of membership, but it is at least a small token of appreciation...

Greg Rogers

When moving I went thru all my JWO magazines and found the oldest one, kept it and threw away the rest with the idea of getting a free jacket. (I think it was about 1994 so not long enough to get one). Anyway while cleaning out the back of a closet I found a REOlds Chapter jacket that I bought 20 years ago or so and never wore. So I realized I don't need another jacket anyway. And the trinkets you can now get are just another bunch of stuff I don't need, so I guess I won't worry about letting the OCA know when I joined. It's funny how your feeling about "stuff" changes after a move!

CRUZN 66

How very true.... Currently still sorting through decades of magazines, manuals, and trinkets that have been sitting in boxes and storage that I absolutely have no need for or desire to keep any longer...

edzolz

I read the article again and it states the decision was made by the directors and general membership votes. I certainly didn't get any ballot to vote for this, did anyone else?

jaunty75

The article's exact wording is "As a result, the OCA Board of Directors and General Membership voted that instead of members receiving a jacket, they will be given a one-time credit of $40 toward the purchase of a jacket, polo shirt, or cap."

I take that wording to mean that a vote was held at a General Membership meeting, which they hold every year at the Nationals. So, no, no ballot was sent to all 5000+ members of the OCA asking them to vote on this issue. The only time ballots are sent to all members is for election of officers every year.

But I do have a few observations.

First, if there was a vote at a Nationals, that fact ought to be recorded in the meeting minutes. Every year a few months after the Nationals, a summary of the event, including a summary of the membership meeting, is published in an issue of JWO. That article for the 2018 General Membership meeting, which took place at the Gettysburg Nationals last summer, appeared in the October 2018 issue. The wording in that article is vague. It's item #14 on page 15 in an article entitled "Board Meeting Highlights."

"Long-Term Member Chair, Cindy Klemm, noted that last year 39 jackets and 266 pins were distributed. Of the 37 jackets this year, 18 were for the current year and the remainder were to catch up from previous years. Seven jackets were given out at the banquet. The lowest cost attainable, with embroidery, is $85 per jacket.

It has become necessary to offer more affordable options that will not financially harm the OCA despite the difficulty of changing an existing award program."

And that's it. If an actual vote was taken of the Board, the membership in attendance, or both, that is not mentioned.

But there is bit of disingenuousness going on here. In the same article that I quoted at the beginning of this, from the March 2019 JWO, in the paragraph just prior to the sentence I quoted above, it says "When the 30 year jacket program began, there were four or five members per year receiving jackets. Last year, more than 40 jackets were awarded." (The bold and underline are from the article). The implication of this statement is that around 40 jackets are given out every year.

But that's not true.

As noted in the October 2018 article, yes, 37 jackets were given out in 2018. But only 18 of those jackets were for people who achieved 30-year status in 2018. The other 19 jackets were to catch up people who had achieved 30 year status in a previous year and were only now being given a jacket. This strongly suggests that the OCA wouldn't be giving out 40 jackets per year, but more like 18 or 20 jackets as the presumption is that everyone who was owed a jacket for reaching 30 years prior to 2018 has been taken care of. So the claim that the OCA can't afford to give out 40 jackets a year is based on a false premise. Once everyone owed a jacket is caught up, the OCA would be giving out around 20 jackets per year on a regular basis, not 40.

Now maybe the OCA can't afford to offer even 18 or 20 free jackets a year, and that's fine. But they ought to state it that way instead of quoting an inflated, not-likely-to-be-repeated-every-year number of jackets as the reason to discontinue the program.

It should be noted that, in that same October 2018 issue is a report from the treasurer. One of the bullet items in his report says

"OCA continues to have operating losses: $11,521 in 2017 compared to $66,441 in 2016. They key variances are: website expenses, insurance expense, and National Meet income/loss."

I think the point here is that the first responsibility of the OCA board is to maintain the fiscal soundness of the organization. Programs like free jackets for 30 years members come second, and, if necessary, are jettisoned if the club can't afford it. The cost of even 20 jackets at $85 each = $1700 is not trivial.

jaunty75

"Consolation?" That's an odd word choice. It makes it sound like the jackets are some for of compensation for the punishment of being an OCA member for 30 years.

CRUZN 66

Not sure I see your correlation to the meaning... Definition of consolation - " the comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment "....I see nothing relative to "compensation for punishment"... BUT, I guess that's just my interpretation...

jaunty75

Punishment, loss, disappointment, all versions of the same thing here. You just affirmed my point. "Comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment." So you're saying that 30 years of membership in the OCA is a "loss or disappointment" that the jacket compensates for. As I said, that's an odd interpretation. Membership in the OCA is good thing, not a bad thing that needs to compensated for.

edzolz

$1700 for awards is not trivial considering all of the membership dues OCA has received in the last thirty years from each member qualifying for this, and all of the other members not yet attaining thirty years, is quite a sum.

CRUZN 66

You are correct and I totally agree, Membership in the OCA is a GOOD thing... I did not intend for the "30 years of membership" to be interpreted as the loss since we were discussing the jacket, not so much the 30 year membership... I do realize, as an after thought, that the jacket and 30 year membership were a mutual given in the past ... As for going forward, I simply was saying (or so I thought) the jacket was the loss and the compensation (or as I said consolation) for that loss was the $40 credit...

jaunty75

I haven't misunderstood anything. I didn't say for sure that the decision was made at a General Membership meeting, I said that I took the wording in the article to mean that a vote was taken at a meeting. I could be wrong, but if they took a vote and it wasn't done by a mail-in ballot, and we're assuming this is the case because you yourself said that you didn't receive any such ballot, then when did they take the vote? The only other possibility, assuming they took a vote at all, is at a meeting, and the only membership meetings are the once-a-year meetings at the Nationals. If they didn't take a vote, then how can they possibly know that the "General Membership," as the article states, supported the idea of discontinuing the free jackets?

This isn't too difficult, I can think of at least two reasons.

1. Because they didn't join the OCA only for the purpose of getting a jacket after 30 years but because of all of the other benefits that come with being a member.

2. Because they understand the concept of fiscal responsibility and realize that, yeah, while it would be nice to get a free jacket, the financial health of the organization is more important than me or any one person getting a jacket, and if I really want one, I can take the $40 credit they're offering and buy one for $45 instead of $85.

edzolz

Some more questions about the costs of the 30 year jackets and why can't OCA afford them anylonger? These copied from the OCA website meeting minutes.


Question: There was a $250,000 CD in 2010. What happened to it?

Answer: It was located in Texas under the management of the former Treasurer. Those funds are in a money market account in the Bank of America. Those funds are being used to help offset expenses.

Question: Are these financial reports on the website for chapters to see? Answer: There might be some security risks with putting it on the website. The

Treasurer is willing answer any questions.



Mr. Wilson stated that one of the costs for OCA is the 30-year jackets. The jackets cost about $100 each. This year, there were 49 candidates who ordered 37 jackets. That is a potential for $5000 expense. Last year there were about 60 jackets, which is $6000. So in two years’ time span, OCA spent about $10,000 for jackets. There have been other ideas suggested to help cut costs, such as polo shirts instead of jackets


Nothing said about any vote to do away with the 30 year awards. By directors or membership. Look it up on the OCA website in the minutes from each years meetings.

jaunty75

You can only equate these two if the only benefit one gets from being an OCA member is the free jacket after 30 years. The OCA spends dues money on many other things, all of which benefit members. So members are getting value for their dues money even if they don't get a jacket.

jaunty75

The minutes from the 2018 meeting are not on the OCA website. Only 2011 through 2017 are there. The 2018 Gettysburg meeting is the one of interest here as that's where the issue of the jackets was discussed according to the article in the October 2018 JWO issue.

mrolds69

Ughh...I hate to even get involved in this conversation, but here I go. First...whatever happened to the "old" money from the Crowdis/Yancey fiasco? That was a hella' hella' lotta' $ that would buy many jackets. Hell, the INTEREST from a modern CD from that $ would probably pay for the jackets each year. Second...I can assure you that Crowdis/Yancey thing severely hurt OCA membership costing the club countless $$. Third...at one point in time, before many people here can remember, a lifetime membership was offered for peanuts by the OCA. So, you have some people getting jackets now that didn't pay dues. The pins you have to know about and beg for them. The Oldsmobile Club IS a good thing, I understand they have to preserve $ to exist, I don't need a jacket, I can afford to buy one myself. I don't know how many Nats I've attended. Used to love them, now...not so much. Last year's banquet in Gettysburg was the absolute worst event I've ever attended. It ran super late, they ran out of food, the food was poor, the service was worse, and there wasn't even a tiny souvenir on the table for anybody. Which is probably good, because it will help me to forget Gettysburg fast. I know and appreciate that many people in the OCA work very hard on the events. I know Cindy Klemm works hard on events and for the OCA. Anyways...that's my take on it!

edzolz

Question: There was a $250,000 CD in 2010. What happened to it?

Answer: It was located in Texas under the management of the former Treasurer. Those funds are in a money market account in the Bank of America. Those funds are being used to help offset expenses.

Why can't jacket expenses be used from this fund?

In the long run I will buy my 30 years of loyality to the OCA. It has been a long fun membership, and I have learned a lot from Olds owners but at 74 and ailing health I will take the renigging from the organization and probably bow out.