Newyorske listy - Czech Newyorker

Nezavisle ceske elektronicke noviny
Letoo - 2000
MEMO

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.