My business model for the PWNA

[Beth n Rod]

Exactly. And this is one reason why the PWNA BOD has been reluctant to have those newer to the industry help too soon. New businesses need to stay focused, they are in a higher risk for failure category. This is why the leaders need to be more established with their businesses.

Beth

[CarolinaProWash]

I agree with that to a degree Beth.....and before I go any further, I think comparing a national operation to small local networks is not necessary as that is beyond apples and oranges - it's fruits and vegetables. So I'm not doing that or even suggesting that it is being or should be done!

But in defense of new companies - part of being focused and working toward the greater end includes being part of industry efforts. As we've all seen in the past, newer companies can bring a good deal to the table where progression is concerned. I personally feel that if more new companies were involved in some sort of org or network or some larger framework than their own company, maybe the survival rate would be better.

I think if the PWNA can regroup and not repeat past mistakes it can only be a good thing. Just as I truly believe that the small state networks also have much to offer their local participants

Celeste

[Beth n Rod]

The danger of having younger companies involved is in the amount of time it can suck up. Been there, done that. It is safer for a new company to bide their time and then give when they are a little better established. Newer companies are often more enthusiastic - it's that whole new energy thing....

And waht Rod was saying before, was about national orgs, not local networking efforts. National efforts are not the same animal at all, you're right. Apples to oranges...

Personally, if any newer company wanted to donate efforts I would suggest beginning with committee efforts - not BOD efforts. Committee efforts are equally rewarding, and give you a feel for the flavor of national contributions. In other words, you can see if at some point being on the BOD is a good fit for you, based upon your experience with committee work, which is a little less intense on your time, and only lasts the duration of the committee's project.

Now is a very good time for PWNA members (specifically) to volunteer. The org NEEDS the members to step up, and they are very receptive to the desire of others to help. This is LONG overdue, and it is only from hitting rock bottom that this change is happening. It's sad that it had to be this way, but it is fortuitous and could be the best thing that has ever happened to it.

The current BOD is absolutely committed to having a transparent org. I believe this year you will see and hear things in a way you have not in recent past years, you will be given information you have not in recent past years and there will not be the secrecy - there can't be or it won't survive. The organization is standing on a precipice and doesn't want to go over the edge....

MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT THE WORK - if you are a member please help. Donate what you can, an hour here or there, contact HQ and help turn it around. The remaining BOD can't do it alone. The new BOD they are about to elect won't be able to do it alone either. There are former Presidents and past BOD members who are willing to help here and there, and I have to say it was extremely encouraging to be on that call and hear everyone volunteer to help - many of these guys have not been involved for years, and here they come again - to give time. Even Chris Detter - who was President at one time and is no longer in the industry at all, was on the call and stepped up to donate time.

The following people were invited to the call that was held, not all attended but the majority did:

Paul Horsley
Doc Reisman
Tom Bickett
Hilborn Mike
Joel Rimmler
Dan Galvin
David Gierlak
Charlie Arnold
Doc Reisman
Heather / Margie Beaudry
Don Flory
Doug Latimer
Joe Walters
Michael Hinderliter
Rory Wilson
Tony Szabo
Chris Detter
Rob Carey
Tom Daughtry
Beth Borrego
Jim Grady
Ron Musgraves
Daryl Mirza
Jim McMurry
Loree Foreman


Beth

[northwestern]

Originally Posted by Beth n Rod

The danger of having younger companies involved is in the amount of time it can suck up. Been there, done that. It is safer for a new company to bide their time and then give when they are a little better established. Newer companies are often more enthusiastic - it's that whole new energy thing....
Beth

Here's a story from the Bible that could be applied here. The young generation got to go to the promise land after leaving egypt. They were full of optimism and vision. The older generation was downers and negative and didn't get to see the promise land. A visionary started this post with a great idea, and there's other visionary's doing something to help the rest of us out. Some of you seasoned pros know it all, and there in lies your problem. You're so stuck in your old ways that you lack vision and purpose. We need people with vision, people that are enthusiastic "the whole new energy thing". I'm going with the crowd where the older pro's have as much passion and energy for this line of work as a new startup.

[Ron Musgraves]

Originally Posted by Beth n Rod

Exactly. And this is one reason why the PWNA BOD has been reluctant to have those newer to the industry help too soon. New businesses need to stay focused, they are in a higher risk for failure category. This is why the leaders need to be more established with their businesses.

Beth

Thats the last thing they have ever done is build senior members. They have been a nebie org since inception.

Please understand i have been around when you were having trouble in the past and everyone in the business has.

Learning in life is a real pill sometimes, But to say we should not involve young contractors in leadership rolls is foolish.

Young people bring energy and new thinking, personally i believe us old goats have been not willing to make changes to new technology and its whats costing the PWNA.

When I started the PWNA first forum and Co Admin the first BBS is when the PWNA membership sored. No it was not all my doing but many helping and making it happen. Yes the idea of the BBS was mine, yes many people helped create it and i know you did a spell admin after i did. We all need to realize that two mistakes were made with this org.

1. closing the BBS
2. not having there own convention
3. stopping having convention all together.

Opps, maybe more than three... These were the largest mistakes. many many were made but these hurt them in the pcoket book. They have never recoverd.

Recently a few founders stepped up to the plate and donated several dollars to pull them out of debt.

I respect the position they have taken and it has changed my attitude twords the PWNA.

A freind called me a while back probably the same time you got the call and asked me to help. I'm more than willing to help again if they keep and focus on the important things.

Beth, They asked you to help. I know why, do you???? All the time before you and after you have joined the PWNA i have never seen a member that gave so much. You were amazing to assist them, your a bigger person because if i had been treated like you had been i would have laughed in there face calling me back to take more abuse. Hats off to you Beth, I'm glad your back in the saddle for more, If they get things done please call me i may help.

[Ron Musgraves]

For the record it was the week my mother passed and i did not make the call.

I do not regret because it probably would have cost me money also. I realize theres and importance to have a national org. Even if its by name only.

[Beth n Rod]

Ron,
I will never again donate over 1,000 hours in a year to them.
I am willing to help, but the time I have to offer is very, very limited. It has to be.

Also I am NOT saying do not involve young contractors, I am saying bring them into more demanding rolls over time as they become secure and established in business. If they spend too much time on voluntary efforts early on, miss a dangerous signal from their business, and fail - PWNA will have done them a great disservice. All good things take time. Groom them and let them evolve as volunteers.

Why did they ask me to help? Yes I DO know the answer, because I have specifically asked that very question of several people. It's not just because I was at one point in time a workhorse (I'll say it again - NOT going down that path again), it's for other reasons too.


Beth

[Beth n Rod]

Originally Posted by Ron Musgraves

Rod, If i'm not mistaken? I was saying that.

Dist are needed, balance has to be assured.

What balance? The way I see it, there is no balance when the contractors are the least contributing factors. The Dist/vendors/mfrs. are usually bearing the financial burden not only in membership dues but sponsorship $$$'s that help to keep an org funded in order to keep the membership informed just as an example.

If I am correct in interpreting what I am hearing you say, it is the same as so many others have been saying is that the vendors should not have any control. Putting myself in their shoes I would have to ask: Where's the "what's in it for me" or to simply put it, where is the incentive? There is none without any skin in the game.
There can be no negotiations at this point because no one is willing to give anything worth negotiating to the ones with the power to support any org. effort.
I would think it fair to see a 50/50 split in the orgs representation of the board constituents as a starting point. This is an ambitious ratio which will most likely see some different views as to the rationality of it ever becoming a reality. Still, we must come to the table with a level playing field and keep it that way for all in order to develop better relations and progress towards a mutually beneficial organization that can help this industry to change.

I look at Mr. Hinderliters example for the reason behind starting an org in the first place and just because he happened to be a vendor as well, people put it out on the street that he was in it to make money. His position was a matter of not only coincidence but also a side effect of being involved in trying to help protect his business' future. Mr. Hinderliter has done a great deal for this industry and not asked for anything in return except compliance with the C.W.A. which he saw as a threat to not only his business but that of the multitudes of pw'ers who would not be able to operate without his intervention and making sure that we had a voice in the regulations to follow.
Yes, he made money by association, but ask yourself if he made anything for all the countless hours spent meeting with legislators, public works authorities, traveling, phone calls, gas etc... I think he by right had earned the ability to benefit from an organization as a member, founder and board member and a business man.

my .02

Rod!~

[Beth n Rod]

Originally Posted by Beth n Rod

What balance? The way I see it, there is no balance when the contractors are the least contributing factors. The Dist/vendors/mfrs. are usually bearing the financial burden not only in membership dues but sponsorship $$$'s that help to keep an org funded in order to keep the membership informed just as an example.

If I am correct in interpreting what I am hearing you say, it is the same as so many others have been saying is that the vendors should not have any control. Putting myself in their shoes I would have to ask: Where's the "what's in it for me" or to simply put it, where is the incentive? There is none without any skin in the game.
There can be no negotiations at this point because no one is willing to give anything worth negotiating to the ones with the power to support any org. effort.
I would think it fair to see a 50/50 split in the orgs representation of the board constituents as a starting point. This is an ambitious ratio which will most likely see some different views as to the rationality of it ever becoming a reality. Still, we must come to the table with a level playing field and keep it that way for all in order to develop better relations and progress towards a mutually beneficial organization that can help this industry to change.

I look at Mr. Hinderliters example for the reason behind starting an org in the first place and just because he happened to be a vendor as well, people put it out on the street that he was in it to make money. His position was a matter of not only coincidence but also a side effect of being involved in trying to help protect his business' future. Mr. Hinderliter has done a great deal for this industry and not asked for anything in return except compliance with the C.W.A. which he saw as a threat to not only his business but that of the multitudes of pw'ers who would not be able to operate without his intervention and making sure that we had a voice in the regulations to follow.
Yes, he made money by association, but ask yourself if he made anything for all the countless hours spent meeting with legislators, public works authorities, traveling, phone calls, gas etc... I think he by right had earned the ability to benefit from an organization as a member, founder and board member and a business man.

my .02

Rod!~

Rod -

The bylaws do not support that weight. Currently you can not have 50% of the BOD be vendors, it is more heavily weighted in contractors than vendors (which is fine) and changing this would take a vote by the members on a ballot, at election time, which happens once per year. Doubtful it will happen this year due to all the turmoil, therefore you are looking at a year before you may or may not see the ratio change. Personally, I like it the way it is - I think there are 2 vendor seats....I think....I will have to go look.

Beth

[Don Phelps]

There needs to be some cleaning contractors with the financial means to stand up and take their industry back. They need to control their industry. Not vendors, bbs administrators, etc., etc. There's a place for all, but the very contractors that fund the "org" don't need to be controlled, dictated and manipulated by those that wouldn't be here without those contractors in the first place. I realize this will most likely be an unpopular opinion since I've placed it between 2 bbs administrators (3 actually) but I speak freely and really don't care too much about others who try to control some and/or their opinions.

"Political correctness" is often an oxymoron.

Some of the cleaning contractors need to wake up out there. Who's wagging who, the dog or the tail?

[Ron Musgraves]

Originally Posted by Beth n Rod

What balance? The way I see it, there is no balance when the contractors are the least contributing factors. The Dist/vendors/mfrs. are usually bearing the financial burden not only in membership dues but sponsorship $$$'s that help to keep an org funded in order to keep the membership informed just as an example.

If I am correct in interpreting what I am hearing you say, it is the same as so many others have been saying is that the vendors should not have any control. Putting myself in their shoes I would have to ask: Where's the "what's in it for me" or to simply put it, where is the incentive? There is none without any skin in the game.
There can be no negotiations at this point because no one is willing to give anything worth negotiating to the ones with the power to support any org. effort.
I would think it fair to see a 50/50 split in the orgs representation of the board constituents as a starting point. This is an ambitious ratio which will most likely see some different views as to the rationality of it ever becoming a reality. Still, we must come to the table with a level playing field and keep it that way for all in order to develop better relations and progress towards a mutually beneficial organization that can help this industry to change.

I look at Mr. Hinderliters example for the reason behind starting an org in the first place and just because he happened to be a vendor as well, people put it out on the street that he was in it to make money. His position was a matter of not only coincidence but also a side effect of being involved in trying to help protect his business' future. Mr. Hinderliter has done a great deal for this industry and not asked for anything in return except compliance with the C.W.A. which he saw as a threat to not only his business but that of the multitudes of pw'ers who would not be able to operate without his intervention and making sure that we had a voice in the regulations to follow.
Yes, he made money by association, but ask yourself if he made anything for all the countless hours spent meeting with legislators, public works authorities, traveling, phone calls, gas etc... I think he by right had earned the ability to benefit from an organization as a member, founder and board member and a business man.

my .02

Rod!~

YouTube - Responding to Rod TGS

[Beth n Rod]

Here are the PWNA bylaws. These are current.
Beth

[Beth n Rod]

Now compare the current bylaws above to the one BEFORE it....attached here.....interesting changes. Not all good either in my opinion.

Beth

[Beth n Rod]

Ron,
I'll save you the trouble of asking Mr. Hinderliter, My last paragraph was the synopsis of previous conversations with him. I wasn't painting him as a saint but as a man of determination who did something that meant a great deal to him.
Your reply is a personal validation that people tend to think the worst of people due to misconceptions and a lack of understanding of human nature. He reaped a side benefit but not like you think, it was not the primary reason. It may not be as selfless as anyone in particular may like but it was a business motivated decision. Smart Man.
Now let's save the readers a philosophical argument and just get to the meat of this. He did it to protect his business that he saw was going to be impacted by the impending legislations especially those being spearheaded by the carwash owners who wanted to put forth their own version that would eventually lead to the business of commercial and residential pw'ing being severely crippled.

Now back to the crux of the matter, we seem to be on the same level of understanding but just saying it differently. My position is that in either saving an existing org or bringing a new one to fruition, it needs to have the vendors involved in the formulation.
There are not enough contractors with the time or willingness to spare much beyond dues to gain the momentum on their own. We have polled people, we have asked people to be involved and few step forward. It's not a bad thing it is just unfortunate that mostly they are not in a position at this point to do much else without their business suffering.
Donating time is a commodity and everyone has a right to get something for it but in the case of the contractor, most are either starting up, just getting things running or in the middle of growth pains which all consume a great deal of time. Too many indians and no chiefs.
Ergo the vendors. People with time management and leadership skills, and the need for a good tax write off.

Rod!~