Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Discussion of Local, State, and Federal issues regarding MV Legislation, MV use restrictions, MV registration refusals, etc. As these issues may ultimately affect other jurisdictions, information and education of all MV owners is crucial for the future ownership and use of our MVs.
This is not a board for Political discussion.
This is not a Q&A Forum on how to title or register a MV.
Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:13 am

Hello Roy,

Thank you for your reply.

As to raising dues, The BOD raised dues $5 in 2009 effective for 2010 membership year after no increases in about 6 years to help plug the budget hole. With this raise there have been members that have dropped their membership due to the $5.00 increase.
Perhaps a legal fund donation could be added to dues notices next year. Or for that matter members can always send extra funds at anytime. On going MVPA operation revisions over the next 2 to 3 months is going to make this kind thing very easy to do. Also real time membership alerts/news/surveys for those members with email should be possible.

Tom Wolboldt, MVPA Secretary

Edited for spelling.
Last edited by Tom Wolboldt on Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tom
"GPW Whisperer"
http://www.theGPWstory.com
http://www.theWillysMBstory.com
CHECK OUT NEWEST PROJECT - https://www.gofundme.com/gwcs6xne
Got MVPA ? If not why not

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by undysworld » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:34 am

Hey Dave K,

You know, reading this new thread reinforces my belief that there are a bunch of people who care about what's been happening here in Wisconsin lately. But it also makes me really tired to hear of folks bitching because the Pinzgauers might be getting a "better deal" than others. Especially when someone makes the accusation that such an arrangement is what any Pinzgauer owners here want.

As Sen. Holperin stated to Jeff Rowsam and the rest of that meeting, he was giving Jeff's group EXACTLY what they had (supposedly) been asking for for over 2 years. Isn't this true?? To my knowledge, at least as far back as Feb. 2008, Jeff was working with DOT's Paul Nilsen to craft what is now known as AB404. I assume Jeff was asking for what he (and his groups) wanted to get.

But, as far back as September 2007 I was asking for other milveh collectors to join in our fight over our Pinzgauers. You guys hypothesize about what it would be like to not be able to even drive your trucks. Well, that was reality for us Pinzgauer owners back then. No license plates, and a title that read "NON-ROADWORTHY VEHICLE".

So we fought. We fought like He!!. I visited my Senator as early as Nov. 2007 to discuss things. We were on TV twice. We were in the local newspapers twice. I took them to Appeal court, and beat DOT atty. Nilsen. I spent approximately 800 hours on legal research. We even managed to get DOT to hang the re-registration of all previously registered Pinzgauers on the potential victory of mine. Well, when I won, DOT had to re-register ALL Pinzgauers. We even convinced them to issue new registrations to Pinzgauers brought in from other US states and other countries. (But then DOT incredibly began to refuse registration applications again.) We visited our Senators and Assembly Reps again, and this is what prompted SB-392/AB-589 to even get written.

I can't speak for the efforts Jeff Rowsam and cohorts went through. I was neither invited nor included. Perhaps this is because DOT has a raging problem with me, or it could be for other reasons. That's OK, as I'm not anxious to be spending all of my life trying to solve the world's problems by butting in. I try to maintain a life beyond milvehs. Sorry.

But when Jeff's group spends 2+ years pursuing AB-404, and is given exactly what they asked for, I'd have to assume that everybody would look at the situation and be pleased as punch.

I've carried "Light Truck C" license plates on my Pinzgauer since I bought it in 2002. I've paid my annual dues, and used the truck like any other truck - I put stuff in it. I've never tried to license it as a "Collector" vehicle, although the truck is over 20 yrs old and would qualify for those plates. So for me to desire and pursue regular registration options was just normal business. I'm not trying to create some new super-duper registration option for Pinzgauers. I'm trying to keep things the way they have always been in Wisconsin. I've never been pulled over for speeding, never even had a parking ticket with the Pinz.

So in general, I've fought to maintain what I (and YOU) had all along. I've also been SCREAMING for over 2 years now, that EVERY milveh deserves to have normal registration options, and pleading for support from the mainstream groups, Jeff's included. (Remember, I also own a Deuce with "Farm" plates, which I use on my farm.) Instead, Jeff's group has fought all along to get 404. And now somebody's has the audacity to accuse me of getting more rights for my Pinzgauer, but at the expense of other milvehs??? I just don't see it.

What, haven't I done enough for you?!?!?! I've handed Jeff the statutes, administrative codes, federal regulations, NHTSA requirements, NHTSA letters of interpretation. WTF? I've lead your horse to the water, but you don't want to drink. And so now you accuse me of hogging the water trough.

I'm glad to hear that MVPA is looking long and hard at this. IF you guys are at all serious about raising money for a legal fight, I've already got two local people who've mentioned that they may be interested in helping finance such an effort. They were considering such an attempt personally, and I've connected them. If someone is interested, you can call me for details. I've already spent over a thousand dollars of my own, so far.

If I sound pi$$ed over getting badmouthed, I guess I am. I sometimes wonder why I should bother trying to help people who obviously don't want or appreciate my efforts. As far as US military vehicles go, I can get by operating my Deuce as an "Implement of Husbandry" between my farm acreages. I'm just tired of getting ragged for my efforts.

Really Dis-spiritedly,
Paul
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:25 pm

Hello Group,

Here is a little history as I understand it.

The current issues are State of Wisconsin related.
Paul Underwood has been involved with these issues for about 2 1/2 years.
Paul Underwood is not a current MVPA member as far as I can tell.
The several or all of the Military Vehicle Groups in Wisconsin, which Jeff Rowsam is a member of at least one, started getting together about 2 years ago to chart how they wanted to solve the problem they had with Wi. DMV. I believe Jeff was made their point man. I would guess Jeff has moved in the direction these groups wanted to go in or they would have told him to take a hike.
I believe Jeff has pointed out that there are about 600 owners of former military vehicles in Wisconsin as of Jan. 1, 2010.
The MVPA appointed Jeff to a government liasion sub-committee in the summer of 2009 so the MVPA could be involved as needed. According to Jeff when asked by me in Dec. 2009 what he needed from the MVPA, There was little the MVPA could help with at this late stage of affairs.
As of Jan. 29, 2010 there are 163 MVPA member in Wisconsin.

As can be seen from the numbers above the Wisconsin vehicle owners are the ones that have charted there own course in these matters. Only about 26% of these owners are even MVPA members.

I wish both Paul and Jeff good luck in their efforts.

For those on the outside looking in - Where should the help of the MVPA be placed ?
With Paul whom is not a member ?
With Jeff whose groups are only 26 % MVPA members ?
Should the MVPA designs override the designs of the local State vehicle owners if there is disagreement in the direction in which to go ? Should the MVPA support the efforts of nonmembers over supporting the efforts of MVPA affiliates ?
As much as it would be nice for the MVPA to ride into town and fix State vehicle issues we are limited in what we can actually do short of giving support, when asked, to the local MEMBERS whom are doing the fighting in the front lines.

Comments and corrections welcomed!

Tom Wolboldt, MVPA Secretary
Tom
"GPW Whisperer"
http://www.theGPWstory.com
http://www.theWillysMBstory.com
CHECK OUT NEWEST PROJECT - https://www.gofundme.com/gwcs6xne
Got MVPA ? If not why not

User avatar
Greg Hines
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:13 pm
Location: USA

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Greg Hines » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:00 pm

Tom,

In my opinion the MVPA first needs to come up with a general position on vehicle ownership/registration/use and then support that position NOT individuals. As far as I can tell there is no such position statement. If you support individuals you will always make a mistake eventually. I'm not saying the MVPA did in this case but supporting one person just because they are an MVPA member won't always yield the desired results.

Greg

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9096
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by gerrykan » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:12 pm

I think you have a very good idea Greg.
I would think the membership would need to be polled to see where the majority stand, and then create the official position.
My opinion is that most may be satisfied with Collector type use. This would not be where I stood, but at least everyone would know before hand what the expectations would be with MVPA involvement.
Roy


Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 am

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Dave K. » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:15 am

Paul, I stand by my original post here in that I believe someone had to have done something to snake an obscure vehicle like the PINZ in as a preferred vehicle. I have seen no documentation showing that this is not what is happening and it still torques me--recent MMVA newletters confirm this is the structure of the Erp bill--PINZ and 715s (what?) get the nod. The US-made MVs NEVER should have been part of the battle which has erupted around the foreign MVs. I appreciate your plight with the Pinz's and have no idea who has pushed the Pinz agenda to their benefit over that of the rest of us. It's disheartening but I am fighting this and have written letters this weekend to folks in Madison about the inequity here and the need to recognize US-made historic MVs first and foremost--as they are our true heritage. I do find it hard to believe Paul that there weren't folks on the ground in Madison that were pushing side agendas to protect their own--Madison loves this kind of stuff.

As for the division in the approach by the two sides here in WI I guess I'm a little sick of that too. Unfortunately I travel over 50% of the time overseas so I don't have a lot of time when I am home to fight the fight. You would think that people would have similar beliefs in the fight and I don't agree with what's being pushed on either side now. Retaining collector plate status should have been the fight FOR ALL but it seems now that one side wants to grease up and take it from the DOT while the other side's bill has become skewed and seems to have brought to the brink of having a bunch of Pinz's show up for a Memorial Day parade alone--wouldn't that be something, non-US vehicles celebrating our mil heritage!!! Why do I think this? Because I think if there's extremely restricted use a lot of people will sell off and move on to other vehicles and hobbies--I know I will as I don't want a bunch of boat anchors sitting around the garage 99% of the year . . .

It's in the interest of the MVPA to be involved--whether requested or not--by members or not. If the rights of the MVs erode around the country then the MVPA membership will dwindle and their purpose in being will disappear won't it? If WI goes south you will lose MVPA members as it it--and future ones. A large success here for the DOT will surely make headlines and spur other DOTS to assess their laws as well. It will not end.

I still wonder as well about the MV Magazine folks in Iola--anyone seen them at the meetings? It would be surprising if they couldn't help here but as I understand it their participation has been flacid at best. If there participation has indeed been lacking then so will my renewal notice the next time it comes due. I don't believe I should help someone profit off of a hobby they aren't willing to defend! Ahhh, to them it will be but one less . . . . no big deal.

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by undysworld » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:11 am

Tom,

I'd never even heard of the MVPA when I first got cancelled by DOT. I immediately joined, and I immediately started contacting MVPA. I never got any reply. At all. So when it came time to renew, and they sent several notices, I did not renew. No hard feelings, but it didn't seem to matter. I am not a current member.

I mean no offense to Jeff Rowsam, nor the MVPA members who are satisfied with the provisions of AB404/SB592. Jeff's a nice guy, and if the guys he represents are satisfied with the provisions of 404, then we're all happy.

But a month or so ago, when Jeff asked Sen. Holperin to include some of the less-restrictive wording from Erpenbach's bill into 404, I drew the conclusion that perhaps not everybody Jeff represents was satisfied with the details of 404. Why did Jeff request the less-restrictive wording, unless there was some interest among the guys he represents?

Dave,

This DID NOT "erupt around the foreign MV's". As I stated before, and have documents to prove, the denial of Steve B's '43 Jeep was the VERY FIRST denial/cancellation of a milveh in Wisconsin based on s.341.10(6), Wis. Stats. This whole fiasco started with a U.S. ex-mil vehicle. So don't be badmouthing the Pinz owners.

IF Pinzgauers eventually end up with less restrictions than others, and that remains a huge IF, it will be because we have never wavered in our contention that we deserved normal registration options just like we'd historically enjoyed. (And I'd point out, that others enjoyed with their US milvehs too.) Nobody "snaked" anything. What documentation would satisfy you? I'm now over seven 3-ring folders deep in documentation. Name it and I'll give it to you, okay?

If there are side agendas, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I reported that in early '08 after a lobbyist we hired met with DOT's Nilsen and Klein. That was what I told everybody back then. But nobody here wanted to listen. DOT hadn't taken away any other US milvehs (after the Jeep), and there was VERY LITTLE concern from any of the US milveh collectors. OF COURSE there are agendas. That's life, isn't it?

Tom wrote that there are 600 milveh collectors in Wis. There are, to my knowledge, about 12 Pinzgauer owners in Wis. That's a ratio of 50/1. At the public hearings, there were more US milveh owners present than Pinzgauer owners. But not 50 times as many. Maybe Pinzgauer owners did try harder.??

I don't have any problem with anyone who wants to collect milvehs. My dad, ALL of my uncles, and half of my aunts served. However, I was born with flat feet and I broke my neck when I was 14 years old. The military didn't want to have anything to do with ME. I share other's reverence for these old vehicles' history, but that's not why I bought my Pinz and my Deuce. I bought them because I respect the actual vehicle, as being vastly superior to nearly any other vehicles. I bought them to use. I too cannot justify a "boat anchor" around my garage.

I bought my Pinzgauer legally, I've operated it legally, I've defended my operating privileges as vigorously as I could, and I've never once done it at the expense of anybody else's rights. If you'd like to discuss this and/or want some documentation of this, call me. My phone number is 608 437-3465.
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9096
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by gerrykan » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:40 am

If you go to the August, 2007 thread where this all began http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=101394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , it was a 1943 Willys MB that was first refused title because it was a former military vehicle.
Doug McArthur and Tom Wolboldt seem to be the first two to realize the implications of this action.

What you will also read is this disturbing quote(to me anyway) from Military Vehicles Magazine editor John Adams-Graf made near the beginning of the controversy,
October 1, 2007
Once again, first let me suggest, "STAY CALM." Collect the facts. Then react.

First, what are the facts? Is it licensed as a COLLECTOR vehicle? If not, it is no surprise that Wisconsin yanked the registration. No one ever said nor promised that you could have full driving privilages.

License it as a collector vehicle (which is what it is) and you should have no problems.


John A-G
Iola, WI
He appears to have been for a restricted use policy from the beginning.
I doubt I will re-up when my subscription to Military Vehicles Magazine comes due.
Roy

Ben Dover
Gee Addict
Posts: 43133
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Proving Ground

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Ben Dover » Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:55 am

Perhaps a seminar could be scheduled with the legislators and state department heads to introduce them to MV's and their characteristics. A representative knowledgeable in MV features and maintenance could educate them in the safe operation and care. The collectors should not expect to have it both ways, either they are for parades and shows, or they are for general operation and use. All vehicles that are intended for operation on the road should be then subject to strict safety inspection.
It is obvious that the lawmakers have safety in mind or there would be no problems. Not all restored MV's on the road are maintained in safe condition, perhaps regular inspections may ease some concerns.
Remember, these vehicles were once operated safely by the military with no problems, and the same can be done by private owners who are willing to operate them on public highways in the same manner as the military once did.
2011 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #1064
HONOR GRAD-WHEELED VEHICLE MECHANIC SCHOOL 1960 - US ARMY ORDNANCE SCHOOL(MACHINIST) ABERDEEN PG 1962 - O-1 BIRD DOG CREWCHIEF - 300,000+TROUBLE FREE M-38A1 MILES
LIFE MEMBER AM LEGION-40/8-DAV
7 MIL SPEC MAINTAINED MV'S
COL. BRUNO BROOKS (ARMY MOTORS) IS MY HERO

Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8362
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:28 am

Hi Paul,

You wrote
I'd never even heard of the MVPA when I first got cancelled by DOT. I immediately joined, and I immediately started contacting MVPA. I never got any reply. At all. So when it came time to renew, and they sent several notices, I did not renew. No hard feelings, but it didn't seem to matter. I am not a current member.
Thanks for the history lesson !

I am very sorry to learn of your MVPA experience. This is NOT the way the MVPA is supposed to work. If even one member is left behind that number is too great for the hobby to survive ! I have no idea why your MVPA contacts were blown off in your view. This is very troubling for me to hear from my point of view as a Director.

Pages 8 through 13 of this thread http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.ph ... 94&start=0 are most interesting from a chain of events point of view.
Last edited by Tom Wolboldt on Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Tom
"GPW Whisperer"
http://www.theGPWstory.com
http://www.theWillysMBstory.com
CHECK OUT NEWEST PROJECT - https://www.gofundme.com/gwcs6xne
Got MVPA ? If not why not

Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 am

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Dave K. » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:58 pm

Paul--perhaps you can advise everyone where the heck 715s came into the equation? I'm really fascinated at this whole turn of events . . . . and who's pushing the buttons . . . . You stated that there were numerous MV owners at the hearing--why did Pinz's and 715s get singled out? I'm not familiar with how you interacted with Jeff but I would like it if he would chime in here to discuss how this all played out. . . . .

James Hybicki
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1258
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:57 am
Location: Muskego WI 53150

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by James Hybicki » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:24 pm

my original understanding on Steve B's title application rejection was that it was kicked back due to the fact it was a reconstructed vehicle from out of state with only a bill of sale. unless i have my facts crossed up some where. i thought it was kicked back due to the out of state purchase of an un titled rebuilt restored vehicle. he was told it should not be a problem to apply for a title here (wrong on sooooo many counts) and he bought the jeep without the legal paperwork one would normally get. is my memory off and the facts wrong or is it the case that one might have been trying to get someone else to do their paperwork in a state where they say it might be easier. when i go after a vehicle i never consider it anything other than a parts vehicle unless it has all the paperwork with it. its a crap shoot to do otherwise.

hybicki
Jim Hybicki
3655 S. Racine Ave.
New Berlin, WI 53146
262-232-3983
jameshybicki@aol.com
MVPA 40 Year #632
MMVA 36 Year #103

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by undysworld » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:36 pm

hybicki,
IIRC, Steve's Jeep came from a restoration co. in Texas. If it was only able to be registered as a "rebuilt" or whatever, this is the first I've heard of it. (But that does not mean you're wrong.) I understood the title to be clear. My info comes from speaking with Steve and the documents fron Sen. Ellis' office via an Open Records request.
Dave,
The M715 amendment came from Sen. Grothmann's office, for a constituent who owns one. Sen. G. had inquired of Sen. Erpenbach whether SB392 would cover all milvehs, and reportedly been assureed that it would. When the meeting w/ Sen. Holperin took place, and he (Holperin) directed Sen. E's office to narrow the bill (which Sen. E's office did - it is amendment #1), Sen. G. got mad because the bill now excluded his constituent. So Sen. G. introduced amendment #2 to include M715's.
Confused? I don't blame you. It's a friggin soap opera.
Truly, any of you who want to have questions answered, call me. Better have a chair...

Tom,
"Thanks for the history lesson ? " I don't know what you're saying. Somebody (I thought you) stated that I was not a current member. I just thought I'd add my view. I didn't mean to offend anybody, or the MVPA. But it did feel like MVPA was not interested in my/our predicament. I used to be a Customer Service Mgr. for several years, and I appreciate you being troubled by this. I do not mean any disrespect to your association. (FWIW, I was unable to load the thread you referred to.)

Ben,
I support any reasonable ideas like this. For those of us (both Pinzgauers AND everything else) who want regular registration, proof of compliance with Wis. Equip. Requirements (Wis. Stats. Ch. 347 & Wis. Admin. Code Ch. 305) is already required for operation on-road. Inspection of vehicle condition (not a pile of rusty junk!) is also reasonable. Big trucks require CDL's, etc. Maybe annual mileage limits?? There are lots of REASONABLE ideas. DOT's just not talking.
I think the lawmakers have been pretty understanding. They do not seem to be buying DOT's line, at least entirely. The root of the problem is DOT's creative re-interpretation of a particular statute. That interpretation is flawed. It needs to be challenged.

Gerrykan,
Thank you for verifying the truth. I don't wish to be negatively effecting various groups. Getting po'd at each other only serves the DOT. I certainly hold no ill will towards guys who only own milvehs for parades, and apparently John is one. But his comments don't indicate that he supports any other uses. Maybe this perspective is where 404 came from...


To Everyone,
Thanks for paying attention to this. Thanks even more for calling everyone you know and alterting people to this issue. Express your opinions, not only here, but to your elected officials.
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ben Dover
Gee Addict
Posts: 43133
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Proving Ground

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Ben Dover » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:57 pm

And thank you for replying.
2011 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #1064
HONOR GRAD-WHEELED VEHICLE MECHANIC SCHOOL 1960 - US ARMY ORDNANCE SCHOOL(MACHINIST) ABERDEEN PG 1962 - O-1 BIRD DOG CREWCHIEF - 300,000+TROUBLE FREE M-38A1 MILES
LIFE MEMBER AM LEGION-40/8-DAV
7 MIL SPEC MAINTAINED MV'S
COL. BRUNO BROOKS (ARMY MOTORS) IS MY HERO

Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 am

Re: Feather Your Own Bed--WI MV Bill

Post by Dave K. » Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:13 pm

Thanks for the info Paul. I will contact Senator G's office tomorrow in order to clarify his position and how I can get on the MFC (most favored constituent) list. I will also be contacting my SS to discuss with him what's going on and perhaps he'll make some calls as well. It's obvious there's a lot of diddling going on behind the scenes and I think it would be good if this was brought out into the open and how the majority is getting sidelined. Should be an interesting conversation but in my opinion we all sink or we all swim so I'm going to pursue that route. I pay my taxes and there's no reason why some should be able to enjoy their MVs and others can't--end of story. I know this is what you were originally working towards but the bill has now become a ridiculous display of skewed information, favoritism, vote collecting and so on. If it has to go to the newspapers or perhaps TV so be it . . . I have two weeks R&R before my next outing and have plenty of time on my hands . . . or will make it. Thanks again. Dave.

**Per your recommendation Paul I have penned notes to both my Senator and also my Rep regarding the bill. I have noted the exclusionary nature of the bills and have also penned a note to Senator Gothman who's office I will be contacting in the morning regarding his position on the M715 only.

Locked

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest