Nezavisle ceske elektronicke noviny
Letoo - 2000
To: Members of the Association of Free Czechoslovak Sportsmen in New York From: Peter Kutil, BBLA Trustee and V.P. Re: Transfer of the National Hall and results of the July14th vote. Date: August 14, 2000 ________________________________________________________ Please permit this memo to apprize you of the vote by the Sportsmen at the July 14th BBLA meeting relating to the transfer of the Hall to the CR. You may have already heard that the vote was in favor for the transfer. The result of the voting by the Sportsmen membership as a result of the ballots returned was 11 "against" and 2 "for" the transfer of the building. As you may know, the transfer of the building is in return for the lease back of one floor for four 99 year terms (and use of the ballroom space). Based on the events at the July 14th BBLA meeting, we believe we were only organization that voted on the final version of the lease agreement (that was not prepared or distributed to the BBLA membership until about two weeks prior to the July 14th BBLA meeting). The Sportsmen cast the only vote against. I enclose a copy of the e-mail news article that was published in "Newyorske Listy" that gives a decent account of the meeting and demonstrates that the other organizations did not present the final documents to their members for any vote. Let me know if you have any questions, concerns, etc. : 212-980-6438 I have attempted to have the final documents reflect a "joint" or "partner" concept and I am sad to report that the final documents - for no good reason - does not reflect this concept. The lease provisions are unduly - also for no good reason - burdensome for the BBLA and are not modeled as a joint enterprise or partnership. According to the final draft of the transfer, the BBLA must maintain certain "performance standards" and called by the Czech Government to report each year what the BBLA did to comply with these "standards." The "standards" basically state that the BBLA is to "engage in programing and performance activities . . . that a primary mission and purpose . . . shall continue to be the promotion of Czech-American relations." In contrast, the BBLA current by-laws provide that the BBLA is "to preserve and develop the Czech and Slovak heritage in the United States." There is a disconnect. More importantly, however, the problem I have is why is the CR telling the BBLA (an umbrella organization) what it can or cannot do or risk the right to use the floor. If the BBLA does not conform to these "standards", the Czech Government may get an order from a U.S. Court compelling compliance. In contrast, the BBLA cannot compel compliance requiring the CR to use of the Building as cultural center. The BBLA - despite having their floor for the next 400 years - cannot mortgage their space for improvements and would not be able to borrow funds. And, if the BBLA runs out of money, it loses its floor. There are also no provisions for transparency requiring the CR to run the building in a transparent manner. The building has a current $12 to $14 million dollar worth and it is difficult for me to understand why the final document does not give the BBLA more and instead puts the BBLA in a lesser status by having to report to the CR each year on its "performance standards" activity. To those people that have taken time to vote, one way or the other, thank you. P.M.K.
Home | Vitejte . . | JS homepage | Eleanor's kitchen | J. Schrabal
Copyright © 1995 - 2000 Newyorske listy (Czech Newyorker) *All rights reserved* ISSN 1093-2887