Report to MRF Board of Directors on the
Emergency NCOM Board of Advisors Meeting
held in Las Vegas, Nevada on July 27, 1996

Submitted by: Mark Buckner, MRF President
Date: August 1, 1996

7/27/96 - 7:00 p.m.

Upon entering the meeting room, myself and the other attendees were handed a packet of letters by Richard Lester. This packet is available if any of you would like copies. The majority of these letters, which were authored by numerous individuals, were highly supportive of Richard Lester, Aid to Injured Motorcyclists (AIM) and the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM). At this time Radio Bob Letourneau distributed a packet to each of the attendees which included: 1) memo from Letourneau containing a timeline of events regarding the AIM product liability lawsuits in question and comments from Letourneau; 2) memo written to Richard Lester and the NCOM Board of Advisors from Ed Netterberg; 3) letter of resignation from Ed Netterberg; 4) NCOM press release dated December 23, 1992 titled "Trial Lawyers Focus on Motorcycle Accidents"; 5) American Trial Lawyers Association Mission Goals; 6) copy of an email from Simon Milward of FEM; 7) copy of an email from Craig Clinch of MAG UK titled "The AIM Scandal". Copies of each of these documents are available if you'd like to see them. After handling out the packet, Letourneau asked the group to look over the enclosed documents and comment as they saw fit. Richard Lester then asked if anyone minded if AIM attorney Eggleston sat in. Lester explained that Ed Netterberg had requested Eggleston's presence some time back, and that Eggleston was in the hotel and willing to attend the meeting. Radio Bob Letourneau stated that he did not want Eggleston to sit in on the meeting. Lester then asked the rest of the group for their opinion. No other opinions were offered. Lester went to call Eggleston and tell him not to come.

Upon Lester's return, the meeting was called to order by acting chairman Rod Clarke of Vermont. Upon Ed Netterberg's resignation, Clarke became the acting chairman of the NCOM Board of Advisors (BOA). Other board member in attendance were: Bill Johnson (CA), Brian Murphy (TN), Glen Fengstad (MT), Frank Ernst (MN), Dennis "Big D" Watson (NM), Warren Sheehy (NE), Louis Watson (OK), Moon (PA) and Radio Bob Letourneau (NH). It should be noted here that Letourneau resigned from the Board of Advisors during the meeting. Also attending were Richard Lester, Butch Harbaugh (Chairman of NCOM's Legislative Task Force), and myself (Mark Buckner). As MRF Liaison to the NCOM Board of Advisors, it has been my duty to attend NCOM board meetings and act as a go between for the MRF and NCOM. Ed Netterberg was formally the NCOM Liaison to the MRF Board of Directors, and Radio Bob Letourneau was appointed as Alternate NCOM Liaison to the MRF in May of this year. As liaisons, each of us had a voice but no vote while attending meetings of the other group.

In his opening comments, Clarke asked that the group show respect for each other and try to walk out of the door as friends. He urged the group to not rush to judgment. Glen Fengstad was appointed to take meeting minutes. Clarke then turned the floor over to Richard Lester.

Lester asked the group to keep an open mind and to look at all the facts before making a decision. Lester then addressed Ed Netterberg's letter of resignation saying there were several points he wanted to clarify. Lester did not read from Netterberg's letter when discussing these points, telling the group that they were in possession of the letter as contained in Letourneau's packet.

First, Lester stated that Netterberg said that the NCOM BOA made a decision that they would be informed about product liability litigation. The actual quote from Netterberg's letter read as follows: "To add to the list of being upset, it is my understanding that when NCOM was formed, the possibility of product liability law suits were discussed at great length realizing they could become a reality. The NCOM board was informed they would always be updated on these matters. This was very important because product liability law suits could have either a positive or negative effect on our legislative efforts. It is obvious we were not informed regarding the leg protection law suits nor were we informed of the other 25 product liability law suits. Yet it is being called an oversight!" Lester stated to the group that no such arrangement was ever made.

Second, Lester discussed Netterberg's claim that a formed AIM attorney from South Dakota has stopped being an AIM attorney because of product liability. The actual quote from Netterberg's letter reads, "Since this question came up, I have been informed that product liability was emphasized at many AIM attorney meetings. My source resigned as an AIM attorney because he felt this could have a negative effect on Motorcycle Rights. Of course another active AIM attorney denied this allegation." Lester then stated that per AIM attorney Tischler, who talked to the South Dakota attorney, the South Dakota attorney assured him that he had not resigned because of product liability. Third, Lester pointed out that although Netterberg says there were 25 cases, there were only 12 to 14 cases.

Lester then went on to discuss the Ed Youngblood article entitled, "The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But . . .". Lester stated that how Youngblood got the information contained in the article was immaterial. Lester stated that even though the article made him mad, he agreed to take a conciliatory position in his response to Youngblood and stick to the issues after talking to Mark Buckner. Lester said that he instructed Bill Bish to write and send such a letter to Youngblood which is what happened. Letourneau asked Lester if he had seen Youngblood's written response to the Bish letter. Lester said that he had. Lester said that the longtime friend mentioned in the Youngblood article was obviously Balls (Michael Farabaugh). Lester stated that Balls had an ax to grind and that Balls worked for a competing law firm. Lester stated that the AMA were fence sitters, and that if the AMA was doing their job, there would be no need for NCOM or the MRF. Lester stated that AMA's ties to the motorcycle industry forged their position. Lester then discussed his original conversation with Youngblood as referenced in the Youngblood article. Lester stated that yes, he had told Youngblood at that time that AIM would not pursue product liability lawsuits, but that things change over the years and he (Lester) saw no reason to keep AMA informed as to AIM's change in their approach to product liability lawsuits. Lester discussed the Europeans, saying that he had personally helped to inform American bikers about leg protectors and airbags by forming ties with FEM. Lester referenced a letter from Craig Clinch of MAG UK dated 11/8/95, which Mark Buckner had been copied on at the time, and a position paper on the Confederation of Clubs. Lester said the Confederation of Clubs paper had been written at the suggestion of Mark Buckner and Wayne Curtin, and that Buckner had been kept informed throughout the process. Buckner agreed.

Lester then made the statement, "We are not suing any manufacturer for failing to put leg protectors on bikes." Lester said he didn't connect the problem of terminology when the issue came up with Pepper Massey-Swan and ICOM. Lester stated, "I had not ever seen a complaint on these cases at that time." Lester stated that he would not drop any current cases because he could not order an attorney to drop a case, and that a lawyer could withdraw from a case only with good cause. Lester stated that if he ordered attorneys to drop the current cases, he would lose his license. Lester then stated, "We sill not accept any future cases." Rod Clarke asked Lester, "Can we disassociate these attorneys from AIM?" Lester replied, "Yes, but we would lose a lot." Lester then talked about all the good AIM attorneys do.

Lester then talked about Craig Clinch of FEM and the contact Clinch made with Pepper Massey-Swan regarding product liability lawsuits. Lester stated that he did not believe it was a coincidence that the contacts were made when he was out of the country. Lester stated that he believes the AMA fed information to FEM, the FEM called Harley-Davidson, and the Harley-Davidson provided the names of the filing attorneys to FEM. Lester stated that Pepper Massey-Swan had a "knee jerk reaction". Lester stated that, "She and others didn't want to wait for the truth." Lester then stated that it would be unethical to let the members of the BOA see the names of the plaintiffs on lawsuits. Lester said, I don't think any of the attorneys knew they were causing problems." Lester then stated that the AMA had rushed to judgment and had no evidence. Lester again called Pepper Massey-Swan's actions a "knee jerk reaction" and stated that leg protectors were not mentioned in any lawsuits. Lester stated that he believed this perception came from Pepper's reading of interrogatories, not from actual lawsuits. Lester stated that the issue of leg protectors did not appear in anything he'd seen. Lester again talked about Pepper's knee jerk reaction and stated that she didn't want to see the facts. Lester said, "The leg protection issue is about what's already on the motorcycle. Pepper is not a legal person." Lester reiterated that AIM will not do any more product liability leg off cases.

Lester stated that individuals must be protected and deserve the best representation they can get. Lester stated that product liability lawsuits have required Harley-Davidson to disclose their secret crash testing. Letourneau stated that he felt the current lawsuits promoted crash testing of motorcycles and that this was a bad idea, that we did not want the government to get involved in crash testing motorcycles. Letourneau then asked Lester if he would take money as referral fees on future product liability lawsuits. Lester stated that he would not, that it would be a bad for what we're doing. Lester stated that bikers resent being prejudged. Lester then talked about AIM attorneys who have helped the biker's rights movement, and said it was wrong to prejudge them. Lester suggested a committee of three BOA members to monitor future cases to make sure inappropriate product liability lawsuits would not be taken on by AIM attorneys. Lester then talked about a Harley-Davidson dealership who was welling crash guards that were not H-D parts, that were made in Taiwan, are of poor quality, which Lester believes is out and out fraud. Lester stated that these crash guards are not made of tempered steel. Lester referred to Harley-Davidson advertising describing crash guards as "better than insurance" and stated that Harley-Davidson does not disclaim it even now. Lester went on to discuss the "Harley bulge" and the hostile leg environment. Lester stated that he would oversee all future cases and that is anything out of the ordinary came up he would run it by the three person committee, who could then, if necessary, run it by the full board. Lester stated that if the BOA didn't like that approach, he could find someone other than himself to oversee the cases.

Buckner was asked by several board members what he intended to do, and if the MRF's relationship with NCOM would change. Buckner stated that he had made a commitment to the NCOM BOA to talk to each other and that he would hold judgment until he heard what they had to say. Buckner went on to say that he would wait to see what action the BOA would take regarding what he considered to be the core issues over the current product liability cases. Buckner stated that he would then make a decision as to his future status as the MRF Liaison to the NCOM board, that he would report back to the MRF Board, and that the MRF Board of Directors would make any final decisions as to future relationships between the two organizations.

Letourneau asked Lester about the seven page boilerplate product liability lawsuit that Lester had sent to the attending board members prior to the meeting. Lester stated that of course he had sent it to them, he wanted them to be informed. Letourneau stated that he had received another boilerplate lawsuit in which the first seven pages were identical, but which also contained pages eight through eleven. Letourneau asked Lester why pages eight through eleven weren't included in the boilerplate sent to the attending board members. Lester stated that those pages weren't important. Letourneau stated that he thought the pages were important because leg protection was discussed in pages eight through eleven. There was no response from the other attendees on this subject.

Lester then stated, "If you get a manufacturer to change a product in the courts, legislators never see it." Lester stated that H-D won't change the bulge even though they know its dangerous. Rod Clarke asked Lester if he would file a class action lawsuit against a dealer. Lester said no, AIM attorneys would file under personal injury instead. Lester stated that he knew two Harley-Davidson dealers well and that both of them agreed that Harley should be sued. Letourneau again asked about referral fees. Lester stated that he wasn't sure but he thought it may have been Craig Clinch who came up with the idea that any future referral fees could go into a fund to study leg protectors. Lester then stated that he wanted to board to let him know how much leeway he would have in fighting the AMA. No suggestions from the board were given. Lester then gave each of the attendees three actual product liability lawsuits which had been filed by AIM attorneys with the names of the plaintiffs blacked out. Lester asked the board to look closely at the case involving a Harley-Davidson FLSTC model. The board looked the case over. While the board was doing so, Lester stated that, "AIM attorneys do not know how to define leg protectors."

Rod Clarke sated, "It says here that Harley-Davidson failed to provide leg protection." Lester replied that he was just using their words, and that everybody is not a legal scholar. Lester stated that the hostile leg environment was the main point. Lester then stated, "We're suing them not because of something they don't have on the motorcycle. We're suing them to make them correct a faulty product that is on the motorcycle." General discussion ensued as to why the board was just now seeing these cases. Lester said that the board had an opportunity to hear about all product liability cases at the AIM attorney meeting at the NCOM convention each year. Lester said, "All these product liability suits were discussed at the AIM attorney meetings." Lester then stated that the current cases were filed because, "We have an obligation to protect our clients". Lester also stated that these were not frivolous lawsuits, and that, "We saw this as a way to rectify a wrong."

Letourneau asked Lester about this amounts asked for in the suits. Lester stated that he thought they were for $5 million. Letourneau then stated that he was in possession of a lawsuit filed by AIM attorneys against Harley-Davidson for $26 million. Lester said, "$5 million, $26 million . . . what's the difference. We usually settle for between $75,000 and $100,000 anyway." Letourneau stated that it was Lester's office who had filed the $26 million suit. Letourneau stated that the suit in question was filed over a Sportster with no Harley bulge and that everyone knew that Sportsters didn't come with crash guards. Letourneau asked Lester to explain this. Lester asked if this were the case involving the kick stand. Buckner replied that he didn't think so, but soon determined that kick stands were referenced in the case in question.

Buckner then reminded Lester, and referenced the hand written notes he (Buckner) was taking, about a statement Lester had made earlier in the meeting. Buckner stated, "Richard, earlier I heard you say, and I have it here in my notes that you said, 'We're suing them not because of something they don't have on the motorcycle.' Did I hear you correctly when you made that statement?" Lester replied that was correct. Buckner stated that, as Lester had asked, he had not wanted to prejudge anyone, and therefore the MRF had requested and received actual copies of current lawsuits from Harley-Davidson. Buckner stated that he had asked Lester for these lawsuits in a prior telephone conversation but was told that they could not be provided in the interest of protecting the client. Buckner then produced six lawsuits and asked Lester if he would mind explaining why one of the suits in particular, which had been filed by attorneys Lester and Koenig, was claiming Harley-Davidson was negligent in not providing leg protection on a Sportster. Buckner again reminded Lester that Sportsters do not come factory equipped with any sort of crash guard and do not have the "Harley bulge". Buckner also stated the Lester himself was one of the filing attorneys. Lester became very agitated and demanded to know if Buckner had brought with him lawsuits filed by attorneys Chuc Coulter and Richard Gray as well. Buckner replied that he had not, and reminded Lester that the issues being discussed centered around certain product liability lawsuits filed by Lester and other AIM attorneys. Butch Harbaugh also became agitated and stated that other motorcyclist's attorneys were likely filing the same type lawsuit. Buckner agreed that this was entirely possible. Buckner then reminded Lester that they (Buckner and Lester) had engaged in two long telephone conversations during the preceding weeks to discuss various aspects of the cases in question. Buckner reminded Lester that he (Buckner) had asked many questions about product liability lawsuits in general and about leg protectors in specific during these conversations. Lester did not disagree. Buckner reminded Lester that during these conversations he had asked him pointed questions as to whether AIM attorneys were suing to force Harley-Davidson to put crash guards on their bikes, and that Lester had said no. Lester did not disagree. Buckner stated that he believed Lester had been doing little else but looking into this situation since ICOM had brought the matter to light, and that he felt Lester certainly must have reviewed the lawsuit in question, particularly since he was listed as one of the filing attorneys. Buckner then stated that he believed Lester had been less than honest with him on the whole affair. There was no response from the other attendees on this subject.

Buckner went on to point out that he had brought along several other cases involving Sportsters wherein Harley-Davidson was being sued for not providing leg protectors and asked if any of those present would like to review the cases. None of the board members wanted to see the cases. Buckner then pointed out that the case in question also included claims that Harley-Davidson, not the plaintiff, was responsible for the accident, thereby taking the plaintiff's personal responsibility out of the equation. Buckner stated that in the case filed by Lester and Koenig, it appeared that the plaintiff was going around a curve when he fell over and hurt his leg. Lester stated that the case also involved a faulty kick stand, but did not elaborate. Buckner stated that personal responsibility is one of the core values of the motorcyclists' rights movement and that in his opinion it was wrong under the circumstances to claim that Harley-Davidson was negligent and that the plaintiff was not. Lester stated that from state to state different levels of negligence were part of the law, and that in one state the plaintiff could not collect damages if he or she were over 50% negligent. Lester reiterated that not everyone is a legal scholar. There was no response from the other attendees on this subject.

Buckner pointed out that the suits claimed the Harley-Davidson motorcycles in question were negligently designed. Buckner stated that included in these lawsuits were numerous references to these same Harley-Davidson motorcycles as inherently dangerous, unsafe, not of merchantable quality when sold, and unsafe to the general public. Buckner stated that these were the type of things the enemies of motorcycling had been saying for years, and that he felt making these statements in a lawsuit was detrimental to motorcycling and to motorcyclists' rights.

Dennis "Big D" Watson stated that he could see Buckner's point, that mistakes had been made and that is was time to move on. Frank Ernst also stated that Buckner and Letourneau had raised important points. Brian Murphy stated that AIM was a good organization and that the most important thing was the kid on the street. Murphy stated t AIM, that he was not a legal scholar and relied on his AIM attorney heavily, and said, "We're not here to bury anybody. I am more than willing to accept Richard's explanation." Bill Johnson stated that the clubs had old problems with the AMA, particularly over the % label. Johnson went on to say that NCOM was built on a good foundation, that a mistake had been made, and that it was time to get on with it. Warren Sheehy stated that the group needed to work on the problem, change it, and fix things. Several board members including Moon and Warren Sheehy then took exception to Ed Youngblood's article wherein they felt Youngblood laid partial blame on the NCOM board for the situation. Buckner explained that Ed Netterberg had called Youngblood to discuss the same point and that, as Buckner understood it, Youngblood had agreed to change that portion of his article regarding the NCOM board before it went to print. Frank Ernst then stated that is was time to fix it and go on. Ernst also stated that he was concerned about what this would do to the SMROs. Letourneau echoed this sentiment and stated that each person in the room would have to go home and explain things, and that they should be on solid footing before doing so. Rod Clarke then asked for the opinions of those present who hadn't said much up to that point. Louis Watson stated, "Its not how you make your money, its what you do with it."

Clarke then asked Lester if the individual cases presented to the board at this meeting had ever been presented at an AIM attorney meeting during the convention. Lester stated that all kinds of things were discussed at the attorney meetings. Lester stated that he found it strange that no one got upset when product liability suits were being filed over helmets, but because of their attachment to Harley-Davidson motorcycles, would get upset over the current cases. Letourneau pointed out that the issue was not Harley-Davidson, that suing any manufacturer over not putting leg protectors on their bikes was wrong. Lester again stated that if the board members would only come to the AIM attorney meetings, they'd see for themselves. Lester then blamed the board's lack of knowledge regarding product liability cases on the board members themselves for not coming to the meetings, even though he had begged them to do so in the past. The board agreed that they were at fault and discussed appointing a board member to attend the AIM attorney meetings in the future.

Rod Clarke stated that is was best to focus on the opportunity presented by the problem. Clarke suggested a complete restructuring of NCOM. Clarke stated that the board must have more control over all decisions including those that involved the budget. Clarke stated that he felt that board needed to redefine the relationship between NCOM and AIM. Clarke reiterated that the board must play a larger role in decision and policy making. Clarke stated that the board needed to be more than a rubber stamp for decisions made in California. Several board members then stated that Richard Lester had done a lot for motorcycling and that NCOM must go on. The general consensus of the board was that mistakes had been made but it wasn't time to tear the whole thing down.

Rod Clarke asked Richard Lester to leave the room. Clarke stated that he wanted to be sure everyone was speaking freely. Lester reluctantly agreed and left the room. Letourneau was asked if he was still planning to resign from the board. Letourneau stated that he would wait to hear how the board would respond to the issues on the table. General comments were made by board members in support of keeping NCOM together and fixing what was wrong. Buckner was asked his opinion at this point. Buckner again pointed out that Lester, being one of the filing attorneys, obviously knew that Harley-Davidson was being sued for not putting leg protectors on Sportsters, yet had admitted to making statements to the contrary. At this point Lester knocked on the door, asked and was readmitted to the room. Buckner again stated the Lester had been less than honest during the whole affair.

Rod Clarke again attempted to center the discussion around what could actually be done to fix things. Clarke again suggested that the board address the relationship between AIM and NCOM, and again asked Lester if the lawsuits that had been presented at this meeting were ever discussed at an AIM attorney meeting. After general discussion which centered on why NCOM should not be allowed to die, a vote of confidence was called for to continue NCOM and address problems. General discussion followed on the roles of AIM and NCOM and about funding. All board members voted in favor except Letourneau, who voted no. Rod Clarke had no vote as Chairman. Lester then stated that AIM was merely a conduit for money, and that if the NCOM BOA wanted more control go for it.

Letourneau again brought up the point of referral fees and Lester again stated that referral fees could go into a think tank. Buckner asked why, if that approach would work for future cases, would it not work for current cases. Lester stated that this would be unfair to the client. It was generally agreed without a motion being offered that Lester would oversee a committee of three board members regarding future cases. Lester also stated that he would have to talk this over with the AIM attorneys, and said, "If all they are in this for is the money, then we don't need them." Frank Ernst again stated that Buckner and Letourneau were raising valid points. Ernst then suggested a declaration from the NCOM BOA stating that the board disagrees with how this happened, but wants to salvage what's salvageable. This suggestion brought general agreement from the board.

Butch Harbaugh then asked Rod Clarke if he was willing to continue as Chairman of the Board. Clarke stated that he had been considering resigning just a few days earlier, but would stay on to try to work things out. Harbaugh stated that the group must take responsibility, and that the job must be done right. Harbaugh stated that the two previous Chairmen of the Board had done nothing to help the organization. Harbaugh stated that legal matters must not interfere with NCOM.

Letourneau was again asked if he still planned to resign. At this point, Letourneau resigned from the BOA, reading his letter of resignation aloud. Letourneau did not participate in any votes taken beyond this point. Letourneau also turned in letters of resignation from NCOM LTF members Sherman Packard (NH) and Butch Olson (ND). Several board members asked Letourneau if there were any way he would change his mind, as he was in their opinion a valuable member of the board. Letourneau stated that he would not change his mind, that he held no animosity for anyone and wished them all the best, but that he could not and would not be a part of NCOM under the current conditions. When asked what the board could do to change things, Letourneau suggested they follow ICOM's lead and disassociate themselves completely from Richard Lester and the AIM program. The board was not in favor of taking this position, and asked Letourneau if there were any other alternatives. Letourneau suggested that if Lester and AIM were to give NCOM a $300,000 no-strings attached grant and let the board run things as they saw fit, that might work. This suggestion met with cautious approval from most of the board and was discussed for several minutes. There was also general discussion about NCOM switching from a Board of Advisors to a Board of Directors. Lester stated that he would support changes in the way NCOM operated, but that he must retain checkbook veto power. Butch Harbaugh stated that he had no problem with that approach. There was general agreement from the board. Rod Clarke asked Lester whether he would support a no-strings grant. Lester stated that the board could do anything they wanted but he must have checkbook veto power. Rod Clarke asked Lester if he would support NCOM going from a board of Advisors to a Board of Directors. Lester stated that he was obligated to run certain things by the AIM attorneys, that going to a board of directors was all right with him but he must first check with the AIM attorneys. Several board members questioned why the opinions of AIM attorneys should be considered on this point. Lester assured the board that is was necessary given the scope of the change. Rod Clarke again asked Lester if the cases presented to the board at this meeting were ever explained or discussed at the AIM attorney meetings. This marked the third time that Clarke had asked this question of Lester. Lester's response was, "Honestly, I don't remember." There was no response from the other attendees on this subject.

Rod Clarke then asked Lester about the NCOM budget, whether an actual budget existed, how the money was spent, and if the board could see the budget. Lester stated that a budget sort of existed, explained some expenses such as the newsletter, and said that is cost roughly $50,000.00 to put on the national convention. The board was in general agreement that they didn't care about the newsletter since it was mostly about AIM attorneys. General discussion followed on how much it would actually take to run NCOM and where the money might come from. Lester stated that NCOM could become independent, that he would support a grant, that he would support going to a Board of Directors, and that he would allow the board complete autonomy, but that he was worried about funding. Lester suggested that instead of a lump sum grant, the board should consider funding on a project by project basis. Lester stated that he needed to have some input on how the money was spent. Lester again stated that he had no problem with the board changing to a Board of Directors, but that he must have some input.

Rod Clarke stated that he wanted to see more detailed financial information. Glen Fengstad suggested that the board could work toward a grant approach but that it couldn't be done overnight. Fengstad stated that planning would be required and that the board would have to take into account Lester's retirement. Fengstad again stated that this wouldn't happen overnight and could take several years to accomplish. Lester stated that if NCOM did go away he would just take his $300,000.00 and go home. Letourneau stated that he did not like Lester using the term "my money", that the money came from injured bikers. Lester agreed and said that he didn't want to see NCOM go away, but if the board would leave him checkbook veto power he'd have no problem giving the board its autonomy. (How's that supposed to work? Lester's financial relationship with all the rights organizations is basically the same as with NCOM, so let me see if I got this; Lester didn't "hire" the Confederation of Clubs to accost members of HLDL and BOLT, or MMA to attack our credibility, he just maintained "the checkbook veto" over their activities? I think I get it! ed)

Lester then stated, "Don't hobble me by taking the checkbook veto."

Rod Clarke stated that he saw the current problem as a great opportunity to restructure all of NCOM. Lester said he agreed, but that he must have checkbook veto. Rod Clarke again asked about a grant wherein the board would have complete control. Lester stated that he would love to see an autonomous Board of Directors, and that he thought that over the years a mutually rewarding program between NCOM and AIM could be worked out. Lester again stated that he must have checkbook veto power. Rod Clarke asked for motions from the board. Fengstad moved that Rod Clarke form a business plan to be presented at the November meeting of the board. Lester stated that the checkbook veto must be addressed in any business plan and that he would have to go back and sell the whole idea to the AIM attorneys.

Butch Harbaugh moved to change from a Board of Advisors to a Board of Directors, with Rod Clarke filling the office of Executive Director. Lester suggested the title of "Chairman" instead of "Executive Director" since NCOM already had an executive director working in the California law office. The board agreed. 2nd. Passed unanimously. Brian Murphy moved to give Lester checkbook veto power. 2nd. Rod Clarke disagreed. Murphy withdrew his motion. Murphy then moved that Rod Clarke would put out a news release on NCOM's position as discussed earlier. 2nd. Passed unanimously.

Harbaugh stated that a full board should be formed at the November meeting with all position voted in by the board. After some discussion as to how members of the board had been elected in the past, the board gave general agreement to this idea. Harbaugh also stated that Bill Bish now worked for Rod Clarke. Lester agreed. There was general discussion as to whether or not the November meeting of the board would still be held in Jackson, MS. The board agreed that this should be the case.

There was general discussion to whether or not the 1997 national convention would be held in New Hampshire. Letourneau said that decision would rest with the NHMRO board, but that NCOM should not count on the convention being held there. Letourneau stated that he would call an emergency meeting of the NHMRO board to decide the matter as soon as possible. General discussion followed as to how NCOM's restructuring plans would be explained to the SMROs.

Rod Clarke asked if there was anything else that needed to be addressed before the meeting adjourned. At this time Buckner resigned as the MRF Liaison to the NCOM board. Buckner also turned in a letter or resignation for Wayne Curtin from the NCOM LTF. Buckner stated that in his mind the core issues on the table had not been addressed and that he did not see how they would be addressed anytime in the near future. Buckner stated that he could no longer in good conscience be a part of the NCOM board. Fengstad asked Buckner what type or relationship the MRF would have with the AMA since the AMA was pro-motorcycle industry. Fengstad also asked Buckner if the AMA had received a grant from Harley-Davidson and if part of that grant money had not come to the MRF. Buckner explained that the AMA had been formed in the 1920's primarily to support and promote the motorcycle industry and that those ties had been a part of their charter ever since. Buckner explained that the AMA actually served two masters, those being the motorcycle industry and the AMA membership, but that is was certainly no secret to anyone. Buckner explained that the MRF and the SMROs didn't operate the same way, that they served only their members, but that a solid relationship had exited between the MRF and the AMA for many years and would continue to exist in the future. Buckner agreed that indeed the AMA had received a grant from Harley-Davidson and that $10,000.00 of that money had been diverted to the MRF over a two year period. Buckn