Since the GAMA Trade Show in March, where the election of officers of the GAMA Retailer Division was held, a dispute over the winner, D.P. 'Vern' Vernazzarro, has roiled the waters (see 'GAMA Retailer Division Election Aftermath'). Recently, it seemed that matters had been resolved, with the seating of the GRD Vice Chairman as the retailer representative on the GAMA Board of Directors and Vernazzarro still in the Chairmanship of the Retailer Division (see 'GAMA Retail Division Dispute Resolved'). But Vernazzarro is now resigning from his Chairman position. Here's the full text of his statement on the matter.
GAMA's Bylaws state very little about a retailer division. It says that there will be one, a board position is reserved for a retailer representative and that the retailer division chooses that representative. The GAMA Retailer Division's (GRD) guidelines cover the rest. These guidelines were first drafted by myself, revised and approved by a retailer committee, revised and adopted by the retailer division and finally revised yet again and approved by the GAMA board of directors. The guidelines state how the annual membership meeting is to run, which primarily follows GAMA tradition and Robert's Rules of Order. These guidelines were adopted and approved around two years ago and have run GRD operations ever since, with the GAMA board's approval.
At the last GAMA Trade Show the GRD held its annual elections. It was officiated by the current GRD board at that time along with the participation of a GAMA representative. For chairman each candidate was permitted to speak for a minute or two about themselves, then a vote was held. I won that vote, which was presided over by the previously mentioned GRD board and GAMA representative. I spoke for a minute or two afterwards, then the outgoing board adjourned the meeting, with the rest of the meeting to be held that evening. That is how it normally works. Not this time.
In between the morning elections and an evening get together with the new GRD board the GAMA board and full time staff met with three of the GRD board members about me. They declared I was unacceptable as GRD Chairman. It was suggested that if I were allowed to remain as chairman and sit on the GAMA board that GAMA would dissolve the retailer division. They then suggested numerous ways to remove me from office. By the time I met with the GRD board that evening the mood had changed dramatically. I spent that hour (with the first shots of the second Gulf War being heard on TV in the background) trying to figure out what had changed.
I ran on a series of goals that I started talking about. My first GAMA board meeting was early the next morning, so I had to find out what we wanted to do on those goals and other matters. Instead, the conversation kept turning to other issues. The meeting of the GRD board later on went well, but as usual was poorly attended. The next morning I discovered from three GRD board members that GAMA would not permit me to serve. I offered compromises, but was told again and again that GAMA had made up its mind.
This has chilling implications. What is the point of being a state chartered organization if the bylaws it was approved under are not followed? What is the point of having retailer elections if the GAMA board (voted on only by manufacturers) gets to decide who can and who cannot serve? Why let someone run for office and officiate the election just to say you don't like the results of the election?
I am a member in good standing with GAMA. I served as GRD Chairman once before, declining to run for re-election after that term. I took a division that had no rules, rarely met and had produced few tangible results into a fully functional division. We set up a membership e-mail list, a mentor program, a retailer handbook, used the GRD budget for the first time to procure a video system, recorded seminars for everyone's access, participated in the process to vote on a bylaws change for full retailer/distributor voting rights in GAMA (it failed in a mail vote) and kept the GRD board meeting regularly. I personally met all stated goals, obligations of the office and kept in regular contact with the GAMA board and GRD membership. At no time during my tenure did anyone ever say I was not performing the duties of my office.
Fast-forward two years to the GRD board at the last election. Two of the seven officers were not present. By its own admission they had done nothing in the past six months. There were no officer reports or any tangible results from the past year. I ran for GRD Chairman to get things back on track.
Why then would the GAMA board decide I was 'unacceptable' as GRD Chairman? Are they more content with nothing being done? A slanderous account of this 'process' at GTS was recently published in GAMA's newsletter. The heavily biased account, written by one of the retailers that lost to me in the election, provides no grounds for removal. Even then, the guidelines state only one way to remove a GRD officer. That is by a vote of the retail division membership. I suggested on numerous occasions to do this. Going one step further, it was even suggested to hold the elections over again. None of this was agreed to, mainly because GAMA knew I would likely be re-elected. The membership had just spoken. It was not an issue of legality or of a fair election, but rather that the GAMA board wanted someone either more in line with what they wanted to do or someone that was more willing to simply vote they way the GAMA board wanted. The GRD Chairman exists to do the will of the retailers and to represent them to the rest of GAMA. The retailers spoke. The GAMA board simply did not accept the result.
I have kept quiet about this ever since this first started. I said nothing at GTS about it, nor made any public comments. I did this because I was told by others within GAMA that they felt they had overstepped and wished to find a reasonable compromise to the situation. I agreed, because I did not want to see the fallout that could happen over a loss of trust in GAMA due to this unfortunate affair. While being quiet I have had to endure both public and private slander on this matter by GAMA officials. I still kept quiet. The statement published in the GAMA newsletter went way too far.
GAMA removed me from their board, but in an error in tactics 'forgot' to remove me as GRD Chairman. They decided not to do so over the uproar over their first action. I was encouraged to resign time after time. I declined. I was elected to do the will of the retailers, not to yield to the will of the GAMA board not to serve. However, I cannot and will not continue to subject myself, my reputation and my business to the slander that gets worse every week. I am shocked that GAMA has not only done this, but also then printed such slander in the industry newsletter. I cannot in good faith continue to serve with those that have such little regard for the rules of their own organization.
Therefore, I resign as GRD chairman. To those of you not involved in this process. I urge you to take a good long look at what has happened. Elections no longer seem to matter in GAMA. The rules no longer seem to apply. The representative of the retailers now needs manufacturer approval. Defense of actions now includes slander. Retailers cannot vote on the GAMA board. Now even the choice of who represents them is now no longer up to them in the end. It is a sad day. For the record, GAMA is a good organization. GAMA is more than its board. It is the sum of its membership. Hopefully they will seek their own answers on how this could have happened and if the members they elected are best serving them.
