Questions relating Marino's 13-page RAAM Report

Timeline of Marino's RAAM Report:

Marino's RAAM Report submitted to UMCA on January 6th by Marino
February 6th (original questions)
February 17th (Compile of Feb 6th questions as multiple choice--see below)
April 17th (Mavis re-sent the questions)


February 17th, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Dear UMCA government,

Based on the quickness of the answers to the other questions (within one or two days), I assume, I have compiled some multiple choice questions based on Marino’s version of questions he presented from February 6th. Once again, it’s up to you to either pick the most accurate answer or answer in your own words.

1) I presented a 13 page report dealing with the subject matter of the UMCA owning RAAM. Where am I in error with my opinions? For those who did not read the report, I outlined many potential conflicts of interests between the UMCA and RAAM, LLC. My presumption is that RAAM, LLC wants desperately for the UMCA to legally own the race because it will afford RAAM, LLC many potential opportunities to reduce their operating expenses, which increases their personal profits, but still does not put a ceiling on the amount of money RAAM, LLC investors can make by owning the race. If RAAM, LLC were to become non-profit, this would greatly reduce their personal earning capacity. In essence, RAAM, LLC has the best of two worlds, that of operating as a non-profit, but able to make money as a for-profit. In order for this to work for them, they must have a heavy influence on the UMCA Board because the Board has the ability to control future races (and their personal profits). This is a control and money issue. (Pick all that applies.)

A—We will gladly answer all of Marino’s points in the Jan-Feb 2008 UMCA magazine. Be on the outlook for the magazine.
B—We hadn’t discussed Marino’s 13 page report much ever since it was submitted on January 6th. We are generally ignoring it.
C— We hadn’t discussed Marino’s 13 page report much ever since it was submitted on January 6th, but we will eventually get to it. It’s just that we need to first work on Hughes’ new contract and some other more time sensitive issues.
D—We discussed Marino’s 13 page report and decided Marino is just a grumpy old man and we think that as long as we ignore his pestering, he will eventually go away.
E—We spent 2-4 hours (or more) discussing Marino’s report and is still working hard on it each time we have a chance. We may not have a conclusion until (March?).
F—We now understand why we need to uncover more details about the UMCA-RAAM partnership and we will do that so the concerned UMCA members don’t have to be assuming anything about the non-profit and for-profit organizations’ partnership anymore.

2) How many investors of RAAM, LLC are on the UMCA Board? How many should there be? (Pick all that applies.)
A—There are currently three of them: Fred Boethling, John Hughes, and Muffy Ritz. During Spring 2007, there was also Lee Mitchell.
B—There is nothing in the Bylaws saying how many should be on the Board. Of course, that was before the partnership. We forgot to make this Bylaw amendment when we did the amends last Fall.
C—We are aware that the UMCA Constitution stated the UMCA and RAAM should be two separate organizations—as one of the ways to avoid negotiating other non-RAAM events. This indirectly meant we shouldn’t have RAAM investors and UMCA officers wearing both hats as a way to avoid conflict of interests between acknowledging RAAM itself and the other events UMCA is supposed to be acknowledging too. Well, we forgot to make these necessary changes when we made Bylaw amendments last Fall.
D—We don’t care what you think of the UMCA-RAAM partnership. It’s valid regardless of what the UMCA Constitution said and the non-RAAM race directors can whine all they want.

3) Per Federal law, all Board members (or their legal council), are entitled to view all business contracts involving the non-profit (UMCA). RAAM, LLC has been refusing to abide by this law. Why is RAAM, LLC violating this law, why is the UMCA allowing this law to be violated?

A—Like we told you before, the business contract is a private matter and we don’t want to deal with the non-RAAM race directors protecting their event’s interests.
B-- Like we told you before, the business contract is a private matter and there is no proof of the federal law entitling all Board members the rights to view all business contracts.
C-- Like we told you before, the business contract is a private matter and not even all of the RAAM, LLC’s investors have the right to see this contract. (This one is a rumor the UMCA members want to confirm.)
D-- Like we told you before, the business contract is a private matter and you have absolutely no business trying to preserve the Board or anyone else’s federal law rights.

4) Is the UMCA better off by owning RAAM? Support your answer. (Pick all that applies then explain)

A—Oh yes! The UMCA and RAAM were partners in the pioneer days and it was so successful we want to unite the two again to maximize the interests of the ultracycling sport even through RAAM will keep other RAAM-like races off the market.
B—Oh yes! UMCA and RAAM used to be together when both were for-profit organizations and even through UMCA is now a non-profit organization, we see no harm in bringing the two together again.
C—Oh yes, even through Marino’s 13 page report did unmask a few serious possible problems that make the partnership impossible to be stable.
D—Oh yes and clowns such as Marino are only bothering us with details we don’t think will ever happen or be a problem.
E—It’s probably not quite a good idea to bring the non-profit and for-profit together again. After we were told of the estimated RAAM costs by those familiar with hosting RAAM, we realized RAAM wasn’t in danger at all.

5) What exactly are the details of the MD's interest being in a Blind Trust?

A—Like stated in the Nov-Dec 2006 UMCA magazine, MD is not participating to make any money and any earnings he makes will go to the Annemarie McSweeney scholarship fund. This is not in writing, just a verbal promise and the UMCA members don’t have the right to ensure this is actually happening because the RAAM, LLC’s financial report is a private business matter.
B—Like stated in the Nov-Dec 2006 UMCA magazine, MD is not participating to make any money and any earnings he makes will go to the Annemarie McSweeney scholarship fund. This is in the UMCA-RAAM contract or some other contracts the UMCA members don’t know about yet.

6) Extra: Regarding the MD’s Blind trust details. It was stated in Ultracycling Magazine that Hughes is a less than 20% investor in RAAM, LLC. If Hughes remains as the MD and RAAM is sold in 4 years from now for three times the original price that RAAM, LLC paid, select the best answer regarding Hughes’ earnings.

A—Hughes will be paid the same amount he originally invested when RAAM was purchased.
B—Hughes will be paid (less than 20%) of the new RAAM selling price.
C—Not exactly either A or B, explain.

6) What is in the contract between the UMCA and RAAM, LLC?

(Basically, we need to know whether the possible problems unmasked in Marino’s 13-page report are taken care of in the contract. You are expected to carefully answer each of Marino’s problem points, stating whether they will be prevented from happening according to the contract between UMCA and RAAM, LLC.)

Happy cycling,
Mavis