NHSA files suit against Attorney General

[Skip 263]

Attached is copy of the complaint the NHSA has filed against the Attorney General in an effort to prevent the Attorney General from investigating allegations of anti-trust violations against the Association. The suit was filed by the NHSA's law firm on January 9th. As some have posted here, the Board of Directors have previously voted to allow this action to go forward and allocate up to $15,000 to pay associated attorney fees.

There are some interesting allegations and statements of facts made by the attorneys retained by the NHSA, several points which from my experience with the Association, in my opinion, are  embellished or misrepresented. However, it is always up to the reader to form their own opinion based on the allegations made in the complaint.

My utmost concern is the $15,000 allocated to this issue. If indeed the NHSA has done nothing wrong, nor has anything to hide, then why not simply let the AG's office do an investigation unimpeded and save the treasury a ton of money? This is shaping up to be another off season with lower revenues, and that money is going to be needed elsewhere. If the NHSA (BOD) truly believes they are innocent of the allegations made against them, then surely the AG will agree and put this issue to bed with little or no cost to the Association's membership. On the flip side, if they lose this suit and the AG goes ahead with the investigation, what other stones may be overturned in the process?

We have a very professional and competent Attorney General's office here in New Hampshire. If they had simply been able to move forward, unimpeded, with their investigation we would be saving $15,000 while showing a good faith effort at making sure we are complying with all dictates required of the Charitable Trust. If mistakes were made, I am sure the AG would work with the NHSA, as they have done in the past, to rectify any problems and offer guidance for the future.

Now, unfortunately, all bets are off. Sadly the only folks that will benefit from this upcoming debacle will be the attorneys, as usual. And that's truly a shame.....

NHSA Lawsuit.pdf

[ckf 297]

13 minutes ago, Skip said:

Attached is copy of the complaint the NHSA has filed against the Attorney General in an effort to prevent the Attorney General from investigating allegations of anti-trust violations against the Association. The suit was filed by the NHSA's law firm on January 9th. As some have posted here, the Board of Directors have previously voted to allow this action to go forward and allocate up to $15,000 to pay associated attorney fees.

There are some interesting allegations and statements of facts made by the attorneys retained by the NHSA, several points which from my experience with the Association, in my opinion, are  embellished or misrepresented. However, it is always up to the reader to form their own opinion based on the allegations made in the complaint.

My utmost concern is the $15,000 allocated to this issue. If indeed the NHSA has done nothing wrong, nor has anything to hide, then why not simply let the AG's office do an investigation unimpeded and save the treasury a ton of money? This is shaping up to be another off season with lower revenues, and that money is going to be needed elsewhere. If the NHSA (BOD) truly believes they are innocent of the allegations made against them, then surely the AG will agree and put this issue to bed with little or no cost to the Association's membership. On the flip side, if they lose this suit and the AG goes ahead with the investigation, what other stones may be overturned in the process?

We have a very professional and competent Attorney General's office here in New Hampshire. If they had simply been able to move forward, unimpeded, with their investigation we would be saving $15,000 while showing a good faith effort at making sure we are complying with all dictates required of the Charitable Trust. If mistakes were made, I am sure the AG would work with the NHSA, as they have done in the past, to rectify any problems and offer guidance for the future.

Now, unfortunately, all bets are off. Sadly the only folks that will benefit from this upcoming debacle will be the attorneys, as usual. And that's truly a shame.....

NHSA Lawsuit.pdf

I don't know much about lawsuits. Would this be common practice by someone that is being investigated @Skip ?

[Skip 263]

1 hour ago, ckf said:

I don't know much about lawsuits. Would this be common practice by someone that is being investigated @Skip ?

In my opinion this is not a common practice. It can be very expensive, lead to a more intensive investigation and in the case of the NHSA and the many "uninvestigated" controversies that have dogged the Association...very unwise.

[ljgomes 77]

Wow.  I did not see this coming.  I agree with Skip.  If they were not doing anything wrong, why not wait until the results of the investigation are complete?  Maybe there is some legal maneuvers going on here we are not aware of.
 

[RK-SXViper 144]

16 hours ago, Skip said:

As some have posted here, the Board of Directors have previously voted to allow this action to go forward and allocate up to $15,000 to pay associated attorney fees.

Not all counties voted in favor of this course of action.

[Freedom Rider 209]

My understanding is that only one county voted against this waste of money. Rockingham County voted no. Not surprised in the least bit. Thank you to Rob and Don for voting the way that the County you represent, asked you to vote.

[nhgator 89]

Smells like some shit to avoid stepping in here.

You would think in another low snow year the dues paid in could be better spent.

[ckf 297]

9 minutes ago, nhgator said:

Smells like some shit to avoid stepping in here.

You would think in another low snow year the dues paid in could be better spent.

Serious question, what does the NHSA really do for snowmobile clubs? They charge dues of $10 per member. Where does it go? My understanding is that the clubs all pay their share of the insurance. Correct me if I am wrong and the NHSA pays a share of it? They seem to spend most of their time with Easter Seals & the Grass Drags. I've always said that BOT is going to look out for snowmobiling in NH. Do we really need a law firm on retainer to watch the bills introduced?

[jhwentworth 307]

27 minutes ago, ckf said:

My understanding is that the clubs all pay their share of the insurance. Correct me if I am wrong and the NHSA pays a share of it?

Should be no problem getting the answer to that question, simply ask the NHSA for a copy of their latest annual report. I'll bet there's a link on the NHSA web site that you can click to get a copy sent to you.

[RK-SXViper 144]

The NHSA does not pay a portion for the clubs, only it's own portion of the D&O insurance. The advantage to getting the insurance thru the NHSA is that they create a larger group increasing their buying power that's why they are named as the first insured.

[Freedom Rider 209]

1 hour ago, jhwentworth said:

Should be no problem getting the answer to that question, simply ask the NHSA for a copy of their latest annual report. I'll bet there's a link on the NHSA web site that you can click to get a copy sent to you.

That is some funny stuff there.

[Freedom Rider 209]

3 hours ago, ckf said:

Serious question, what does the NHSA really do for snowmobile clubs? They charge dues of $10 per member. Where does it go? My understanding is that the clubs all pay their share of the insurance. Correct me if I am wrong and the NHSA pays a share of it? They seem to spend most of their time with Easter Seals & the Grass Drags. I've always said that BOT is going to look out for snowmobiling in NH. Do we really need a law firm on retainer to watch the bills introduced?

Too many asset's and effort go into the two events. There is only so much that a group of volunteers can do.

The Grassdrags are pushed so the Association can consider itself on par with Hayday's.They are making a lot of money while doing so. What is the money for? Is there a long term goal to do something with the money? It doesn't get back to the club's. It doesn't get back to the trails. What purpose is being served by having money in the bank and eating up manpower and asset's without having a long term goal.

The Easter Seals was at a point a very worthy cause that the snowmobilers and clubs took up. While the cause remains the same the Association should not be using it's asset's and staff to put on this event. Think about it. The NHSA is a not for Profit that is supposed to be representing snowmobiling yet they use the Associations time, asset's, and volunteers to promote and raise funds for another Not for Profit. The clubs can continue to do this but the Association should step away from it and start worrying about the survival of the dieing sport we know as snowmobiling.

Back to basics.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Freedom Rider
spelling

[Skip 263]

Story is beginning to break across the media. Below is a link to a story posted this morning in the Union Leader:

https://shar.es/1OFWfm

[PolarisCobra 132]

I gotta call BS on some of this. I can even see the practicality of charging the same price for all, I do believe that club prices would become a 'race to the bottom' if it is just a matter of looking at a drop down list, and picking the one with the lowest price (I do this lots of times on Amazon.com). 

I am concerned that sledders as a group could shoot ourselves in the foot over this, but the NHSA has done a terrible job (from what I can see, I admit to not getting up to NH for meetings, and only know what has been published, which isn't much) of getting everyone on the same page with this, and I don't blame those who don't like it rammed down their throat. 

It's really a shame...

[Skip 263]

On 1/25/2017 at 4:12 PM, ckf said:

I don't know much about lawsuits. Would this be common practice by someone that is being investigated @Skip ?

As you can see in the article John, the assistant attorney general is quoted as saying this is a highly unusual action....

[RK-SXViper 144]

5 hours ago, PolarisCobra said:

I gotta call BS on some of this. I can even see the practicality of charging the same price for all, I do believe that club prices would become a 'race to the bottom' if it is just a matter of looking at a drop down list, and picking the one with the lowest price (I do this lots of times on Amazon.com).

Current club dues for non online clubs range from $15 to $100, so if the really cheap people want a deal they're out there just need to look. If people really are just joining a club to get a discount on a single sled then using the online system and spending $35 to save $30 makes no sense.

Edited January 31, 2017 by RK-SXViper

[snorander 216]

" The NHSA is a not for Profit that is supposed to be representing snowmobiling yet they use the Associations time, asset's, and volunteers to promote and raise funds for another Not for Profit. The clubs can continue to do this but the Association should step away from it and start worrying about the survival of the dieing sport we know as snowmobiling. "

 

Spot on and I agree 100%

[jhwentworth 307]

34 minutes ago, RK-SXViper said:

If people really are just joining a club to get a discount on a single sled then using the online system and spending $35 to save $30 makes no sense.

I agree. I don't have the number of multiple sleds/single sleds per person, but here are the costs for registration.

1 sled= $99 w/club  w/o club $94     Club saving=-$5

2 sleds= $163 w/club  w/o club $188    Club saving=$25

3 sleds= $227 w/club  w/o club $282     Club saving=$55

4 sleds= $291 w/club   w/o club $376    Club saving= $85

 

It would seem that real savings don't happen until 3 or sleds are being registered. Remember that if no club is joined then the $30/sled increase is split between the clubs. Financially, it's probably better for the clubs in total  if multiple sled owners did not join a club.There would be more money in the system.

[PolarisCobra 132]

While that's true, joining a club pushes the money to that specific place, and if it is in the area where you ride, then you are supporting the people who maintain YOUR trails. 

[Skip 263]

Two big concerns I had when I served on the board were the fact that they had paid many thousands of dollars to a board member (former president and grass drag vendor coordinator) over a number that of years and failed to meet the AG's notification requirements, or the concern raised back then and to this day of the tens of thousands of dollars paid out at the Grass Drags for "volunteer" labor where those volunteers never received a 1099. Perhaps the money is being spent to squelch the AG early on to prevent an investigation from looking at these other major areas of concern?

i agree, this is not very good for the sport...but are we looking at a house of cards that may finally come tumbling down? 

I say call off the dogs and let the AG do his job, accept responsibility if necessary and become a better organization. Seems sensible to me, unless some of those voting to squash this possible this investigation are nervous that they could be swept up in the 1099 issue? I know for some the back tax issue could definely not be pleasant...no one wants the IRS breathing down their necks or have to answer to an audit.

Time will tell, but personally I don't think this is going to end very well for the sport in general and maybe some folks in Tilton....but as always that's my personal opinion shared for thought and discussion.

 

[nhgator 89]

4 hours ago, jhwentworth said:

I agree. I don't have the number of multiple sleds/single sleds per person, but here are the costs for registration.

1 sled= $99 w/club  w/o club $94     Club saving=-$5

2 sleds= $163 w/club  w/o club $188    Club saving=$25

3 sleds= $227 w/club  w/o club $282     Club saving=$55

4 sleds= $291 w/club   w/o club $376    Club saving= $85

 

It would seem that real savings don't happen until 3 or sleds are being registered. Remember that if no club is joined then the $30/sled increase is split between the clubs. Financially, it's probably better for the clubs in total  if multiple sled owners did not join a club.There would be more money in the system.

Seems with a max of registering 2 sleds anymore my days of being a member of NHSA will end after this year,I'd rather the money go to some good.

[Patriot 33]

On 1/31/2017 at 4:46 PM, Skip said:

Two big concerns I had when I served on the board were the fact that they had paid many thousands of dollars to a board member (former president and grass drag vendor coordinator) over a number that of years and failed to meet the AG's notification requirements, or the concern raised back then and to this day of the tens of thousands of dollars paid out at the Grass Drags for "volunteer" labor where those volunteers never received a 1099. Perhaps the money is being spent to squelch the AG early on to prevent an investigation from looking at these other major areas of concern?

i agree, this is not very good for the sport...but are we looking at a house of cards that may finally come tumbling down? 

I say call off the dogs and let the AG do his job, accept responsibility if necessary and become a better organization. Seems sensible to me, unless some of those voting to squash this possible this investigation are nervous that they could be swept up in the 1099 issue? I know for some the back tax issue could definely not be pleasant...no one wants the IRS breathing down their necks or have to answer to an audit.

Time will tell, but personally I don't think this is going to end very well for the sport in general and maybe some folks in Tilton....but as always that's my personal opinion shared for thought and discussion.

 

Skip, just one question on the bolded text. When someone volunteers at the grass drags, doesn't the hourly wage go directly to the snowmobile club they represent?

[Skip 263]

20 minutes ago, Patriot said:

Skip, just one question on the bolded text. When someone volunteers at the grass drags, doesn't the hourly wage go directly to the snowmobile club they represent?

Yes, in most cases. But tax law is very complicated and many times based on intent...additionally a number of clubs over the years, including up to now, never legally formed themselves as non-profits. Compensation paid to them, both by the NHSA and the State, based on them being a bonified non-profit ( when in fact they weren't) could be considered a form of a tax evasion. Grass Drag disbursements have a long history of controversy, and there have been allegations that some members working there have received direct compensation without an appropriate 1099. And can anyone confirm that past grass drag event coordinators that received thousands of dollars in direct compensation were recipients of an appropriate 1099? 

Excellent question Patriot, one that can't be truly answered without a comprehensive impartial audit. Hopefully an IRS audit isn't more fallout from this growing issue, as the tremendous costs that could be incurred will once again be borne by the clubs supporting the NHSA. 

But as my mind tries to comprehend the scope of where this may go, I can understand why the BOD wants this squashed, apparently at any cost, before it ever gets traction.

My opinion? The horse has long left the barn...how much longer is the barn going to stand?

[Patriot 33]

Thanks, Skip