So am I to understand that based on Al's (almcc, vice president of the ROG board) comment in another thread "Anwsered on the Facebook Page" that the "Redwood Owners Group Facebook Page" is now another feature of the Redwood Owners Group and under it's control?

Yes Ken. We talked a little about this at the rally but the FB page was started early in by ROG and has been an alternative means of communicating Redwood information. Because it is owned by ROG I have intentionally spent much more time on there, as it is probably the first resource that owners and prospects go for information. You have to be accepted as a member of the FB group so we do have some control over who can post. Judi Patterson is a moderator.

Actually Paul I recall the conversation during the AGM @ the rally and you as well as other current board members told the general assembly that in fact the ROG board had not authorized the FB ROG group and they were illegally, or at the very least using without prior ROG board approval, the ROG Name and Logo. We were further told that the board had no direct control over the FB group.

I would also add that as one of the founding board members, being in right from the beginning, I do not recall any mention of approving a ROG branded FB group or allowing any outside group the authority to use the ROG name or logo. I have to respectfully disagree that it was started early on by the ROG, it may have been started early on but not by the ROG.

So I find it odd that the president's wife is a moderator of a FB group that has not been authorized by the entire board. I would encourage the current board members to review this situation and at the very least make sure your messaging regarding it's existence be consistent to the membership.

Ken
The Facebook group was started by Chuck Treadway and the the reins were passed on to Tony Lane when Chuck stepped out

So am I to understand that based on Al's (almcc, vice president of the ROG board) comment in another thread "Anwsered on the Facebook Page" that the "Redwood Owners Group Facebook Page" is now another feature of the Redwood Owners Group and under it's control?

Ken, just for clarification, I am the former VP of the ROG. Now, I'm simply a member of the ROG.

Shane - Understand it was started by Chuck without the knowledge or authorization of the ROG board at the time. He acted alone on that or perhaps w/ others but not officially. I believe doing so would have been against the long standing policy of the ROG to not allow any company or individual to commercially benefit from the ROG membership. In this case as FB is a commercial for profit company, using the ROG name and logo is allowing them to financially gain from the ROG members or at least in the name of. It will sadden me if the current ROG board agrees to let them continue to use the ROG name and logo and allow FB to exploit our members for commercial gain.

Al - Thanks for the clarification. I apologies I should have said former board member, as am I.

Ken,

Having been involved in the ROG since day 1, I consider Chuck Treadway both the founder and inaugural President. Neither the ROG or Facebook page would exist today without Chuck's leadership. The ROG started at the 2014 Rally, with Chuck and I scheduling meetings with other owners and Redwood. Therefore, from day 1 it was actually only Chuck and I. The inaugural un-elected Board was set up shortly after the Rally.

While the FB page was Chuck's idea, I recall being involved in the discussion. This subject was brought up when discussing ways to establish contact with Redwood owners. Who was involved in these discussions - unfortunately that was about 2 - 3 years ago and memory isn't what it used to be. Even if a motion wasn't made, the President, as the Chief Executive Officer has authority to make decisions, especially as the FB started before the by-laws were implemented.

From inception of the FB page, Chuck performed the role of Administrator/Moderator. He later invited Tony Lane, an IT expert, former Board member and very knowledgeable Redwood owner to assist with the Admin role. With his extensive experience, Tony agreed to assist. At the end of last year, Chuck mentioned he would like to relinquish his Admin role, noting it should probably be performed by a current, rather than past Board member. As a non-FB user, I cannot assume the role, so emailed the entire Board. Nobody, including yourself indicated a desire to assume this role. Therefore, my wife received a quick training from Chuck and Tony, agreeing to assist Tony. I can assure you I am aware of any issues and participate in any decision making. I know Tony very well and am in frequent contact with him.

While I can't determine the accuracy of information provided at the AGM, as we were unable to attend the rally. I can guarantee the FB page is an ROG initiative and it was started by an ROG representative in an appropriate manner. The primary reason was to establish contact with additional Redwood owners, who would hopefully then join the ROG. Chuck did NOT act alone, nor did he act unofficially. Frankly, I consider this allegation in very poor taste, considering everything Chuck accomplished, leading the team that started the ROG.

Regarding the issue of advertising. At the founding meeting, the attendees at the 2014 rally requested no advertising on the website/forum, I do not recall any discussion on commercialisation.

If we operated a policy such as you allude to, we would be unable to schedule a rally and especially not invite any vendors. By hosting a rally, the campground is receiving a significant financial benefit for the attending ROG membership. Then you add in vendors, who accept our invitation to attend on the reasonable assumption they will make a profit. I assume they make a profit, as some vendors have now attended 3 rallies.

While the campground and vendors make a profit, they are providing a valuable service to the ROG membership and personally I do not have a problem. I consider the ROG Facebook page a similar situation. Any Redwood owner or potential owner is entitled to join, once they answer a few simple questions. Yes, we are probably boosting FB membership, but in return, that medium is providing a service for Redwood owners. I note that membership on FB is growing and not all are ROG members. Therefore, the FB page is providing a service to Redwood owners, which is a core deliverable for the ROG

In summary, the Facebook page is and ALWAYS has been an ROG initiative and will continue in its current form. BTW - my wife will gladly hand over the Admin/Moderator role, if anyone is interested.

Andy -

I am not accusing anyone of anything, simply stating fact. If you and he were the only two "unelected board members" of a group that at the time had no bylaws or non-profit status, then I suppose you both acted alone together. At no time when I was on the board was there any discussion of allowing other platform, people or groups to use the ROG name or logo. You can see just by looking at the bottom of this webpage both of those are Copyright the ROG.

There were however multiple discussions and votes regarding using the membership for commercial gain through ad targeting and data mining, two behaviors FB uses as its primary business model. I also recall many discussions regarding the other commercial forum that does target ads to people who choose to participate and at every turn it was decided to not have the ROG do that at all. At no time do I recall any discussion regarding a FB group, which to me would be a relevant topic at the onset.

That said, I have always appreciated very much what Chuck has done for this group and count him as a friend. I was sad the day he told me that he had to sell his Redwood and would be resigning from the board. If I recall we actually enacted a change to the by-laws creating a new membership type (Affiliate) so that he could remain a member even if he did not own a Redwood.

I also appreciate what Tony did paying for, building, maintaining and ultimately donating the domain name and legacy website to the ROG after it was established.

I too though think of myself as one of the founding members, having been at the early discussions at the '14 rally, and ultimately putting up the seed money used to establish the legal non-profit 501(c)3 entity. I also was there when the ROG received it's currently logo after the club was established and that was after the initial board was formed and therefor added to the FB group after the fact.

I will say don't understand your statement with regards to FB's users growing. I highly doubt people sign up for FB simply to participate in the ROG group. I suspect it is general FB users instead who happen to own a Redwood and decide to join the FB ROG group thinking they are joining the actual Redwood Owners Group because they signed up on FB. You must see that's kind of misleading.

I also do not equate having ROG members targeted for ads and there postings used for commercialization being the same as inviting vendors to participate in a rally. They are just not on the same level and in fact part of a rally is being able to see what vendors have to offer, that is why you go to the rally in part.

Anyway, if it were me leading the current board, I would not unilaterally decide this is not a decision the board has to acknowledge and put it on the agenda for your next "board meeting". At least having a vote of the current ROG board sanctioning the FB activity and granting them a legal right to use the name and logo memorialized in the ROG board meeting minutes would be beneficial to those that follow.

Ken,

Your opinions & comments are noted.

However, in its current form, I believe the FB page meets the ROG Mission Statement, in that it assists in providing knowledge, expertise and ideas that enhance the RW ownership experience. Not every member of the FB page is an ROG member, so this initiative provides contact with more RW owners. You may not be aware, but every member of the FB page is vetted by an Admin, prior to receiving access. Tony also issued guidelines clearly stating that joining the FB page was not joining the ROG, with the ROG website address provided.

We have members of the FB page that are also members of the ROG website forum, but we also have Redwood owners on FB that either are not members, or prefer to participate on FB rather than our online forum. Therefore, the FB page is providing a valuable service to some Redwood owners, a key mandate for the ROG.

While the FB page experienced some turbulence many months ago, the Admins and I responded effectively, with the resource now providing valuable information to Redwood owners. It is also being managed very effectively.

I do not share your issues with the setting up of the FB page and believe it is providing a valuable service to many RW owners, which I note was Chuck's objective. Therefore, with many other impending and important issues to discuss, I see no need to initiate a Board discussion. However, if another Board member wishes to bring up the subject, I will gladly participate.

I do not share your issues with the setting up of the FB page and believe it is providing a valuable service to many RW owners, which I note was Chuck's objective. Therefore, with many other impending and important issues to discuss, I see no need to initiate a Board discussion. However, if another Board member wishes to bring up the subject, I will gladly participate.

Andy,

What KenA was trying to point out is a valid observation.  The ROG Facebook account has never been formally voted on as an entity sanctioned by the ROG Board of Directors.

KenA stated:
"Anyway, if it were me leading the current board, I would not unilaterally decide this is not a decision the board has to acknowledge and put it on the agenda for your next "board meeting". At least having a vote of the current ROG board sanctioning the FB activity and granting them a legal right to use the name and logo memorialized in the ROG board meeting minutes would be beneficial to those that follow."

Regardless of good intentions (by Chuck and you) in the past - and the efforts of the current admins of the FB site along with the ROG's mission and goals; it is all a moot point if it is not approved and sanctioned by vote of the ROG Board. 

If you are not going to address this issue brought up by a paying member of ROG, and dismissing it for discussion at a Board meeting, then members have no voice.

From a legal standpoint, the ROG should find out any ramifications it could face by "officially" or "unofficially" endorsing the FB website ROG entity.  Hopefully the Boards' agenda is not too cumbersome to protect the organization from any potential lawsuits.

MHO

Wow!!! I don't thing I've ever felt that I have been heard in an online discussion as now. Thank you!

In response to the allegations that the ROG FB Page was set up without the knowledge or authorisation of the ROG Board and that Chuck may have acted alone (post # 5).

To determine the actual facts of one of the ROG's earliest initiatives, I have conducted some research, contacting all initial founding members of the unelected Board and finding copies of most of the meeting Minutes pre-dating the 2015 Rally.

The ROG Facebook Page was started by Chuck Treadway on December 14th 2014, which I note is many months before we were able to start a website. The rationale was a medium to contact Redwood Owners and advise them regarding the formation of an owner's club.

In reading through old Minutes, I was unable to find any official vote regarding starting a FB Page, however I note that is consistent with many other issues we discussed at that time. The Minutes reflect general discussions which were actioned, without motions and/or votes. The first instance of Motions and votes were about Feb 2015, a couple of months after we started the FB Page.

With respect to the formation of the FB Page being a sole initiative of Chuck, or Chuck & I. I have contacted all Board members (late 2014) and while nobody can remember specifics, they were almost all aware of this initiative, or as 1 stated, he does not believe it was unauthorised. I also note that many Board members quickly signed up to the FB Page. While I am unable to find actual sign up dates, I noted a post from a Board member on Dec 20th 2014, thanking Chuck for getting it started.

In checking other Minutes, I noted to 2 specific references to the ROG Facebook Page:
- April 2015 During discussion on the 2015 Rally - Chuck announced the following, "Chuck mentioned “RVillage.com” and the “ROG Facebook Group”. We have these means for
communicating. We can still use these platforms to get word out publicly"

- May 2015 During discussions on the Nominating Committee, Jay announced the following, "Jay is putting it on the ROG Facebook page. He will be asking for volunteers and also asking for nominations so that we have a list of people who would be willing to step into the roles of the Executive Board."

Ken, I note that you are listed as having attended both the April & May meetings and are noted as participating in the various discussions. You participated in meetings when the ROG FB Page was discussed, so I have no idea why you are not aware of its existence, similar to your fellow Board members of the time.

If you had concerns with this initiative, it would have been beneficial to have discussed them while it was fresh in everyone's mind rather than almost 4 years later, when I am the only surviving original Board member.

Baring one exception, the FB Page has operated smoothly, hence the reason it has not been brought up at subsequent Board meetings. I note this is consistent with many of the subjects discussed in the first few months.

Ken,
This certainly isn't my area of expertise... I would like to understand specifically the things we should be concerned about? If I am looking forward, is there a downside to continue allowing this particular FB site to have our logo/association? Moving forward, what specifically do you suggest we need to consider? The history of this has been explain on this thread. We should make sure, to the best of our knowledge, that whatever we (ROG) is a part of is functioning correctly, ethically and legally.

Again, since this is an area you are so much more familiar than I am, what do you specifically recommend?

I find myself thinking about the illustration I used with my clients, when I was working...
'Driving down the road I need to look in the rear view mirror for perspective and information. But if I want to move forward, I need to look ahead--through the windshield. If the entire focus is in the rear view mirror I will wreck.'

I know this is an over simplification, but works for me.

Andy -

For what it’s worth I am glad you have the time to so thoroughly research this. Given that I am not a FB user and according to your research the topic came up only briefly and in passing some 4 years ago, it’s no wonder that I can say without fear of successful contradiction at no time prior to the ’18 AGM was I aware of a second place that was authorized to sport the Redwood Owners Group name and/or logo. I would add that until recently I also had not contemplated the ramifications and unintended consequences of having two places people can join, and in the case of FB be accepted, into a group called “The Redwood Owners Group”.

With that said I will add that people should consider how confusing that is to I’m sure a lot of people who only interact with the ROG on FB. I hope that is not the case but I know many people rely heavily on FB and feel comfortable using it so it is reasonable to conclude that there are those that do.

I would also like to mention that your statement the ROG FB group was started “before we were able to launch a website” is not strictly accurate. You may recall that the original website/forum started by Tony has a 2013 copyright. If memory serves he started that because he had issues with the commercial redwoodowners.com site and he wanted a safe, private place where Redwood Owners had control of all aspects of their forum free of any commercial entity controlling the site or gaining financially from it’s use. That to me has always been one of the guiding principles of the ROG.

That site by the way is still available as the “Old forum archive” in the Resources menu.

Lisa -

What originally took me by surprise was at the '18 AGM it was brought up that there is a FB group that is called "The Redwood Owners Group" which uses the same logo but doesn't have any board oversight. This as you say is in the rear view mirror but moving forward I would be concerned if that situation persists. Since Andy's own research has shown no actual board level approval of the use of the name and logo, it would seem to me putting up for a vote at your next board meeting would be appropriate.

I think you should be aware that having the FB page might actually limit the traffic on this site, especially when things like "already answered on fb" are posted.

I think you may also consider the very real possibility that by the ROG condoning the commercial use of the name and membership some may question why should they pay membership fees if the group is going to let others, i.e. FB investors, gain from the ROG's activity. I don't share Andy's opinion that having vendors at a rally is the same as having FB profit by advertisements intermixed with the ROG discussions. Given the membership has very clearly stated they don't wish the ROG to be supported by advertisements, the idea that Andy mentioned they are getting a service from accepting ads is well against what the members have said they wanted during the early days.

I don't think it would be good for the Redwood owners in general and specifically those that chose to use the FB group to discontinue it, but do it with board oversight and approval.

I would also think it's in the best interest of the ROG to make sure the FB members are aware that the ROG is more than just the FB group. I can clearly see how many dedicated FB users will conclude that the ROG is a group of Facebook and nothing more.

With regards to what you should be concerned about as a FB user I refer you to the posting Why You Should Stop Using Facebook in 2018. There are plenty of other reasons and information about what behavior FB has that exploit their users, but that is probably off topic for here.

Hope this helps.