------------------
James R.Hall
MSA S10 & MSA D12

Fred

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

If I Had Just One Day,I'd give it all to you.

I'll sign off by adding.

Peace On Earth Good Will Towards Man

There are some facts that have eluded the rationale in this thread.

1. The SGHOF is NOT a duly represented entity.

2. It's decisions-right or wrong-(in the minds of those outside the committee) have NO overseer for final adjudication.

3. IF the decision must be unamimous on any nominated player, then it IS possible; AND legal for even one person on that committee to prevent ANY person from being elected.

4. IF the decision is by majority on any nominated player; then it is possible AND legal for a majority to prevent ANY person from being elected.

My point is this:

1. It is NOT up to ANY one to determine the outcome (except those on that committee) of ANY entity which is NOT a duly represented form of government or institution.

2. We live in a country where we have a duly represented government and governments.

Because of this, we can assume the idea that a committee such as the SGHOF must follow representative governmental protocols.

Such is NOT the case with the SGHOF. We, the "outsiders" had NO input ino the selection of its members OR its rules and regulations. It is a non profit PRIVATE institution. None of us are taxed or are required to pay one dime for its existance. What we think has NO legal bearing on its present, past or future rules, protocols or elections.

So whether we like it or not, it is NOT ours to control, rule or adjudicate. In a word, they can simply do whatever they choose within their legal rights. And I beleive they ARE in their legal rights to elect who EVER they choose, be it in line with my opinion, or popular opinion or not.

I personally would vote for Maurice if I was on that committee. I am not on that committee, so I have NO right to condemn that committee for exercising its legal rights.

That committee is NOT part of the ISGC. Scotty is the producer of the ISGC. But he is only one voice on the SGHOF committee. So EVEN if he voted for Maurice, the majority (or unanimous vote) is not within his jurisprudence.

So it boils down to this. If the elected player must be of unanimous vote, then one member, regardless of his reason, can prevent ANY one from being elected. The same goes if it requires a majority vote, ie, a given player did not receive a majority. For what EVER reason.

We can fuss and fume, but that committee has the right to do as it chooses. We can choose not to give a dime to the SGHOF if we want. But it is NOT our legal right to demand who that committee should or should not elect; except in a colloquial way.

May God always right wrongs.

Carl, IMO, is absolutely correct in every sentence he posted on this topic, and even gives the board the benefit of the doubt on "unanimous or majority vote" on selection. I understand, however, from documents I've received from one of the board members, it is a majority vote. He even stated to me a 4 out of 7 vote is necessary for induction or rejection. Your pick.

Pay particular attention to Carl's quotes that follow:

"So whether we like it or not, it is NOT ours to control, rule or adjudicate. In a word, they can simply do whatever they choose within their legal rights. And I beleive they ARE in their legal rights to elect who EVER they choose, be it in line with my opinion, or popular opinion or not."

He further states:

"We can fuss and fume, but that committee has the right to do as it chooses. We can choose not to give a dime to the SGHOF if we want. But it is NOT our legal right to demand who that committee should or should not elect; except in a colloquial way." (I'm assuming Carl states 'colloquial' to mean in an informal conversational way.)

And Lastly---

"May God always right wrongs."

Lots of folks ain't gonna' relish that last one, and I ain't one of 'em.

One has to ponder, however, how many people, who are not associated with the Steel Guitar Family, ever vist the SGHOF when Scotty's Conventions are not playing the Big Town?

My impression, from correspondence received from Scotty and another board member, is that this organization is nearly 100% supported by Steel Guitar players and their family members. Perhaps it is presumtive of me to believe, aware of that fact, it might just be prudent to listen to the "multitudes". And those "multitudes" are you and I---the Steel Guitar community.

I've never been known to be one to stick a sharp stick in the eye of a grizzly bear, when the only protection I have is a finger nail clip. You gotta' get pretty damned close to anything to "hurt something that big with a finger nail clip".

Your interpretation of my last statement on this post is certainly welcome.

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

Did Mr Anderson "do something" to one or more of the "board"?

Who are the nominating/voting entities?

How do they get chosen?

Maybe somebody can help those "unenlightened" by posting a "constitution" of some sort.

Is there one?

What kind of a "God" enters into the choices/procedures?

How is "he/she" chosen?

Thanks from all of us underinformed.

Fred

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

The other questions, notwithstanding the "god humor" are pretty glaringly unanswered.

Don't OVER estimate us "mud players"..

We can't figure *everything* out...

------------------
James R.Hall
MSA S10 & MSA D12

------------------
Derby D-10 3+4 Les Paul Custom.

"To Whom it May Concern:
During the last several years, a conflict between me, Maurice Anderson and his former steel guitar company, known as MSA, led me to make inaccurate statements. I publicly accused Maurice Anderson and his former business associates, including Jerry Anderson and Stan Bennett of misappropriating deposit money from the old MSA entity, which had received funds from individuals who had ordered steel guitars, about the time the entity failed in the 1980s.
Recently, Maurice Anderson, Jerry Anderson and Kyle Bennett, who is one of Stan Bennett's sons, formed a new MSA entity, which is known as MSA Pedal Steel Guitars. As a good faith gesture, these individuals have caused the new MSA entity to proceed on a path that will provide full reimbursement to all those past affected individuals. Despite their commitments to an equitable resolution for those depositors, I concluded that their motives and actions were insincere. I was mistaken. I now believe their actions to be sincere. My misguided beliefs may have led many to conclude that these individuals are dishonest and disreputable, which has discouraged others from doing business with their new company, MSA Pedal Steel Guitars.
I now understand that my statements regarding Maurice Anderson and his colleagues, including Jerry Anderson, Stan Bennett and Kyle Bennett, and the MSA entities, were inappropriate. I now believe that these individuals - specifically Maurice Anderson - never misappropriated any funds belonging to others. I also believe that my statements, which might have discouraged others from doing business with MSA Pedal Steel Guitars, were inappropriate and emotionally driven.
I deeply regret my comments, conclusions and actions concerning the Andersons, the Bennetts and the MSA entities - particularly Maurice Anderson - who has been hurt the most by my actions and statements.
Furthermore, I wish to apologize to the steel guitar community at large and assure all that I will strive for the rest of my life to avoid similar situations, as well as rectify this one."
signed:
"Tom Bradshaw"

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

But more interestingly I also found a post on that same topic, by another of the SGHOF's Board Members, who has taken the opportunity to post to the current topic here. So I'll take the liberty to just include that in addition to the original post made by Mr. Bradshaw.

Here they are posted in this Forum under Events and Announcements dated 18 Sep 2002, under Topic Title: Thanks For Your Support:
--------------------------------------------
"Tom Bradshaw
Member
From: Concord, California, USA
posted 18 September 2002 01:43 PM profile send email edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate all those opening this topic to immediately read my statement at the following website: www.steelguitarhistory.com. Regardless of the outcome, this subject is closed for me. I will not contribute to any discussion about it, nor will I acknowledge or respond to any future private or public inquiries concerning it. ...Tom Bradshaw "
--------------------------------------------
Next quote same subject, same topic area, and dated Sep 20, 2002:
--------------------------------------------
"Winnie Winston
Member
From: Tawa, Wellington, NZ
posted 20 September 2002 03:04 PM profile send email edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've followed this for a number of years.
I happen to know one of the people who was told by Jerry Anderson "The guitar is sitting right here. Just send the money." He did and he never got a guitar.
I'm not assigning blame to anyone. I just think that the honorable thing to do would be to take those few people who felt they got screwed by MSA and make restitution.
That is all Tom ever asked. Sure Tom goes goes a bit over the top-- it's part of HIM. But in his heart he is the most honest and starigtforward and trusting person I have ever dealt with.
Did the Steel Guitar community ever support him? Hardly.
Many years ago he started Steel Guitar Magazine. He sent Issue number one to all the people he had on his mailing list. He said, "here it is. You want 3 more for the year, send me $5.00. A bunch of people took him up on it. So he sent a card to the others who didn't and said "How about it?" And he got another bunch. But he was left with about 10,000 names of folks who GOT a free issue and never replied. He said to me, "I KNOW who they are. I KNOW they are interested in steel guitar." He was baffled.
And the great magazine folded because of the lack of support within the community. And Tom did it all out of his own pocket.
So we have the current situation. Tom tried, on behalf of the steel guitar community to get restitutions to a few who he felt deserved it.
We are a small community. WE generally know what's in everyone elses's garbage.
My personal opinion (Ok-- here it comes...) is that if Maurice had the integrity he claims to have, this whole thing would have gone away long ago.
It need not have gotten to this point.
It is a sad situation all around.
I only hope that those few who Tom was battling for get the restitution they deserve.

JW"

--------------------------------------------

Mr. Winston, you made all these statements 2 days after Tom Bradshaw admitted he had skunked Reece Anderson's and MSA's good name. Let me refresh your memory about a couple of statements in your post.

l. "Sure Tom goes goes a bit over the top-- it's part of HIM."
Just how far does one get to go over the top before someone calls his hand? To the point of possible character assassination, and/or slander? One wouldn't think so.

2. "Did the Steel Guitar community ever support him? Hardly."
You made this statement referencing Mr. Bradshaw's book publishing adventure. Do you presume to tell people what book they should, should not subscribe to and/or support? Not this individual I can assure. We're not obligated to support anybody or anything that they choose not to.

3. "Tom tried, on behalf of the steel guitar community to get restitutions to a few who he felt deserved it."
Does that mean Reece should just fold up the tent and pay out monies to people who he, Reece, felt did not deserve it? Evidently, subsequent to reading Tom's final Statement above someone else including Tom, thought that might not be the case. In other words "Pay up because I said so" didn't wash. Tom's statement proved it did not.

4. "My personal opinion (Ok-- here it comes...) is that if Maurice had the integrity he claims to have, this whole thing would have gone away long ago."
I'm certainly glad you said "My personal opinion" which the Good Lord knows you're entitled to, because after reading the foregoing I thought maybe you were beginning to believe you were gonna' be the ultimate judge on "Integrity" in addition to perhaps who we should support. You don't believe Tom made this statement involuntarily do you. How strange, I've read that Tom Bradshaw wouldn't bow down to anyone, (I even have an email from Mr. Bradshaw saying that to Reece and I simultaneously) and I take people at their word. Tom must have had the thought generated in his mind that he had made a mistake. Don't you take Tom at his word? I do. Why would you think otherwise? Do you not, after reading Tom's statement believe that Reece was right or do you have an axe to grind also? If so, you and Bradshaw should both recuse yourselves from any vote the SGHOF has on Reece Anderson's nomination. How do you like that? Sound reasonable?

6. "It need not have gotten to this point." Just where in the hell do you think it should have gotten to? Is Reece a puppet on a string or should he have a right to recourse. I don't know how a situation like this works in NZ, but here we have the ability to refute false accusations. Reece simply took the luxury of doing that. And contrary to popular belief, I certainly don't know, but I bet it didn't cost him or MSA a single dime. Just a lot of heartache for him, his family, and members of both the old and new MSA Company.

7. "It is a sad situation all around.
I only hope that those few who Tom was battling for get the restitution they deserve."
You, who should, know even less than I, an outsider and no officer of any organization, about the MSA restitution process.

Blasting someone's good name and character, without proof, is not really the way to the public's heart.

In my opinion, I think both of you should be gentlemanly and courageous enough to submit your resignations to the board. But you won't, you're both probably there for life.

Ok b0b, I know you'll probably shut this one down now, but at least let the last post live and don't delete it.

Someone needed to say it. I've been civil too damned long and my heart hurts because I have.

FRED

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

Alright, and I thank you for your information.

It shouldn't hurt for a "on the previous episode" every now and then for those of us that haven't been here forever.

Now, the question in this case is:

Are We to assume that this means that he is "voting for him".

If it is a "pained apology" done under some type of "duress" whether legitimate or not, then We can only guess.

If this "is" indeed the case then it might be reasonable to assume that others might have a less than favorable vote as well.

I'll make it simple.

Anybody what wishes to "flame" anybody either is "not in the know" and is speculating, which is not gonna help one little bit.

OR...

If they ARE "in the know", and wish to clarify this ever present issue they must be able to answer at least ONE if not TWO questions:

1. Who is voting for or against him?

2. Why?

If this organization, which indeed does support and further the "PSG World" wants to have more credibility than the "CMA" awards, or "Rolling Stone", then I'd like to opine that the process could possibly made more complex in a very few ways, and much simpler in others.

Here's the problem.

We'll say that a guy actually IS the best Steel Guitar player in the world, but has only played with a half dozen bands, in clubs and on the road for only 20 years. Is it not possible for him to be chosen?

Evidently, it is.

That's a good thing.

If say the same Steel Guitar player who is the best in the world, with the same credentials did a bricklaying job for one of the nominating members, and a brick fell off killing his best mule, and refused to pay him, and sued him for trying to collect his money.

Would he not still get his proper due?

Should he not?

Would the guy or guys not have to explain their vote?

Since ANY vote, including political public votes are subject to "personal preference" or "dumb reasons" for votes, I submit that it would be "more fair and exquitable" to "spread this respobsibility" and possible "embarrasment and anger" to a broader base. More fair to the "steel guitar world" and more fair to those "Seven" on whose shoulders it falls.

Some or ALL of the Seven might and DO have the right to vote the way they vote for any reason. It's even that way in a "democracy". It's just spread among "registered voters" as in our country's case by an EXTREMELY well thought out Constitution, and Amendments.

I think even a well intentioned organization can deteriorate if medium sized problems are not rooted out individually and dealt with, and if they shed light on a growing possibility for these problems in the future, that time be taken for "revamping" the whole thing.

Not "throwing the baby out", but carefully setting the little guy on a towel and emptying all the turds out of the tub.

I guess it would be, from an "outsiders" view more credible if:

1. The voting members would have to publicly state and explain their votes.

2. A broader vote could replace this "secret lodge" type of process with members chosen somewhat clandestinely.

3. There were an actual set of exclusions for HOF members such as felony conviction, multiple marriage or divorce, unamerican activities, or communist party membership. ( I just threw those last two in.. )

4. Simple "recusal" is probably not an option due to the unavoidable contact we, or they are bound to have with ANY prospects.

Much like b0b has laudibly done with the SGF here, requirements for voting members could be minimal, BUT require that members ACTUALLY be Steel Players. Something like a submitted 1099, or a tape and signed band member affidavits. It's not like "we" are hard to spot..

If the HOF is not "worried" about "credibility" with the vast majority of "mud players" or "the stupid" (like myself possibly ) then I say:

"Go ahead on."

If it might be a concern, as I privately think that it might possibly be, then I'd suggest a something like the few simple, if not "easy", changes.

I guess there's always "Rolling Stone"...

Thanks.

EJL

P.S.

I have recently presiding over a nerve wracking case in the "forbidden zone" that has involved the problems of Steel Players that are involved in the Manufacturing Community. I had to render a pretty harsh decision. We'll see how it finally turns out.

The guy that taught me how to play , (or should I say "one of the guys") wouldn't have anything to do with the "sales end",let alone the "manufacturing business" if you whupped him, from what I remember. Now I think a lot of people see why. I know I do..

BTW,

He's IN the HOF.

PPSS.

MAYBE if allowed to be unlocked, "cooler heads" will prevail over personal attack, as seems to be the case so far, and it might actually get "resolved". I'm finished with my input.

On the other hand......

[This message was edited by Eric West on 10 September 2003 at 02:27 PM.]

------------------
@^@

violate their agreed code. Resignation or impeachment is in order.

------------------
James R.Hall
MSA S10 & MSA D12