AllAmericanPilotCarServices.com » Blog Editorials Featured

Blog, Editorials, Featured

The Case Against PEVOA

By MrBoyd • May 30th, 2009 • Category: Blog, Editorials, Featured

AT THE REQUEST OF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING RANDY SORENSON, I HAVE REMOVED CERTAIN SENTENCES AND PHRASES WHICH WERE STATED AS FACT. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM EXPRESSING MY OWN OPINION ON THESE MATTERS, BASED UPON MY OBSERVATIONS OF A SERIES OF EVENTS. I CANNOT SAY WITHOUT QUESTION THAT THESE ARE FACTS, BUT ONLY THAT THEY ARE MY OPINION.

FURTHERMORE, I WANT CLARIFY THAT I HAVE NOT EVER SAID THAT RANDY SORENSON IS RELATED TO DEBBIE KALLINIKOS WITH BW INSURANCE. I DID CONFIRM THAT I HAD HEARD THE SAME RUMOR. I STATE HEREBY AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE: I DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT RANDY SORENSON AND DEBBIE KALLINIKOS ARE RELATED IN ANY WAY. I HAVE NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT IN ANY PUBLIC FORUM.

Those of you who know me know that I have opposed the PEVOA (Professional Escort Vehicle Operator’s Association) leadership on the basis of an apparent conflict of interest on the part of PEVOA President and founder, Randy Sorenson. For nearly three years I have been outspoken in my concern for the apparent conflict of interest. I have refused, until recently, to join because I feel that Mr. Sorenson is using PEVOA and his position as its president to line his own pockets. I am not saying he is taking PEVOA funds for his personal use. (THIS SENTENCE WAS EXCISED AT THE REQUEST OF MR. SORENSON’S ATTORNEYS.)

It is my opinion that such an appearance tarnishes the image of PEVOA and limits its credibility to represent our industry. I have suggested solutions that would remove the appearance of a conflict of interest, but neither the PEVOA board of directors nor Mr. Sorenson have accepted these proposed solutions. Their attitude is that there is no conflict of interest: therefore there is no need to remove the appearance of one.

Back in September of last year, I decided that I would be more effective as a member of PEVOA than as an outsider looking in. I applied for membership in accordance with all of their rules, regulations, and by-laws (until this article was posted, PEVOA published their by laws online. They have now decided to hide those bylaws and will make them available only by written request. One can only assume they want to screen who actually receives them. I WILL GLADLY PROVIDE A COPY OF THE CURRENT PEVOA BYLAWS TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS THEM THROUGH PRIVATE EMAIL TO ME.) Here are the requirements for Class 1 membership to PEVOA, according to their by-laws (summarized):

para. 4. Class 1 members must be directly involved in the pilot car industry.

para. 4.1. They must pay their dues and be elected to membership by the board of directors.

para. 4.2. They must comply with the pilot car drivers best practices guidelines.

para. 4.3. They must hold at least one state pilot car certification.

para. 4.4. They shall have the right to vote on issues before the association.

The back of the application form (http://pevoa.com/class%201%20membership%20application_110308.pdf) <if you click on this, you will go to the USPILOTCAR.COM site and view their application form. You will need to press the BACK arrow to return to this article>has a block of text in red entitled PEVOA CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS. It has four points. Here they are in summary form: (1) a member will agree to adhere to all the standards established by PEVOA including the best practices guidelines; (2) a member will not misrepresent his/her business; (3) a member will show due regard for other members and do nothing to harm other members’ business or reputation through misrepresentation or other means; (4) a member will cooperate with other members in sound and lawful programs intended to improve the quality of the service of our business.

To my knowledge, I qualify under all of those requirements (except for the board approval part)…and yet the PEVOA Board of Directors rejected my application for membership. I am unable to scan and present their original rejection letter, so I will summarize what they had to say. (I have nothing to hide, unlike the PEVOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I WILL BE HAPPY TO SEND A FILE COPY OF THEIR FIRST REJECTION LETTER TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS IT BY PRIVATE EMAIL TO ME.)

They said that they can consider not only the information on the application letters, but also other sources of information. They pointed out that I agreed to comply with the Association by-laws as well as the ethical conduct as described on the application form. They then listed the items which they used to reach their decisions: (1) the completed application form; (2) 30 internet posts that I made in which PEVOA was mentioned; (3) one private email that I sent to a member of the PEVOA BOD. It concludes by saying that the Board voted unanimously to reject my application, but also encouraged me to appeal their decision.

Here is the body of the email I sent to Randy Stirrett on September 25, 2007:

Randy:

I understand why you ask the question and I will answer it privately. I have no wish to voice this among the pilot car groups because it’s old news.

My problem is with Randy Sorenson. I question his motivation, and in fact, his ethics. I am not saying anything to you that I have not already specifically addressed with Randy Sorenson.

I feel there is a conflict of interest…a serious conflict of interest when Randy goes around the co, representing the state of Utah and PEVOA while trying to negotiate reciprocal agreements…and then presenting his own company’s services to implement the 8 hour training courses.

It may not be with direct intent, but there certainly is the appearance of a conflict of interest. THIS SENTENCE DELETED AT THE REQUEST OF MR. SORENSON’S ATTORNEYS. I have a serious problem with that. I have asked Randy either to cease presenting his own business proposals when on these visits, or to resign as president of PEVOA. To my knowledge, he has done neither, and therefore, I will not join PEVOA until there is another person named as president.

There is another issue, as well. Immediately prior to the implementation of PEVOA, I was asking some directed questions about Randy’s connections with the UTAH DOT. Randy then approaced me directly and asked me to sit on the PEVOA board of directors. I suspected that he was trying to shut me up, and I told him that while I would be honored to be on the board, I would not cease asking pointed questions if necessary. Randy said that is the very kind of member that he wanted on the board…and yet…when the board was formed, I never heard a word from him…not an apology…not an explanation…nothing!

Randy consulted me on the draft of the PEVOA by-laws and on the first couple of newsletters. I was happy to help, until I came to feel that Randy had his own personal interests at heart and intended to use his position as PEVOA president to promote those interests.

Despite that, I strongly supported Randy and PEVOA on the pilot car groups.

Personally, I find Randy to be charismatic, intelligent and enthusiastic. I think we could be friends under other circumstances. I simply view this as an ethics issue on which I am not willing to negotiate. I think ultimately, Randy’s actions will hurt PEVOA…and if you read between the lines on Mr. Wilson’s posts since last Friday, you will see I am not the only one with that opinion. I assure you, I have NOT contacted Mr. Wilson with my specific concerns.

I hope this explains my viewpoint without being too offensive. Again, I have said nothing to you that I have not already directed to Mr. Sorenson.

I would ask that you ask the board to consider entering into the Arkansas bridge ticket situation. Without supporting me, PEVOA might enter the issue as a “friend of the court” to present its own position on this issue.

I am not asking for PEVOA’s financial support. Several other people have offered support privately, and I will pay as much of my own costs as I can. This is an opportunity for PEVOA to demonstrate their committment to the INDUSTRY I think this is a key opportunity for PEVOA to grow because a lot of people will

Elton Boyd

Randy Stirrett <randystirrett@yahoo.com> wrote:

Elton,

I have been reading the posts on the groups. You say you support the concept of PEVOA in principal, but have a problem with a certain individual in the PEVOA leadership. May I ask who this individual is, and what the problem is? I very interested in knowing what the problems are.

Thanks

Randy Stirrett

I am confident that you have the same problem that I have with PEVOA’s first rejection letter: it does not clearly state their objections to my membership and/or their reasons for rejecting my application. As suggested by the board of directors, I appealed their rejection. Here is my appeal letter to them:

ELTON L. BOYD

dba

ALL AMERICAN PILOT CAR SERVICES

2117 LA VEGA DE RANCHOS

PORTALES, NM 88130

C. 505-850-3167

C. 972-814-1003

Allamericanpilotcarservices.com

elton_l_boyd@yahoo.com

October 24, 2008

Randy Stirrett

Secretary

PEVOA

11576 South State Street, Suite 301

Draper, UT 84020

Dear Mr. Stirrett:

I am in receipt of the rejection by the PEVOA Board of Directors of my application for membership. I hereby formally appeal the Board’s decision.

First, I challenge your statement that the Board considered this application in an unbiased and straight forward manner. Your letter is unclear with regard to the specific reason for my having been rejected. Your letter implies, vaguely, that there may be some ethical violation involved in the Board’s decision. It refers, again vaguely, to “other factors” that may also be taken into consideration. Since I don’t know of ANY ethical violation of which I have been accused, I assume that you are referring to the box on page 2 of the application which addresses PEVOA code of ethics, item 3. I will address that point after I address the “qualification” issues.

I am well known among pilot car companies and brokers across the nation and enjoy a good reputation. Insofar as ethics are concerned, I believe my reputation is very clear. I even have been recognized by certain brokers and pilot car companies for my honesty and integrity. Therefore, on the face of my application, I qualify for a Class 1 Membership.

While you refer to some 30 public postings by me with regard to PEVOA, you do not provide a list of those postings, just as you do not identify the board member to whom I allegedly sent a private email regarding PEVOA.

First, I want you all to know that I was exceptionally proud to have the opportunity to be “in on the ground floor” when Mr. Sorenson launched PEVOA nearly 3 years ago. I have a deep interest in the welfare and advancement of the pilot car industry. I strongly believe in the need for a unified voice to represent our industry. I have put myself at risk before the Arkansas courts so that our industry as a whole could have some useful guidelines in that state.

I was excited when Mr. Sorenson invited me to sit on the board of directors, because I thought it would be the chance to help shape the direction of the board, the organization and therefore the industry. Secondly, I want you to know that I strongly believe that for PEVOA to be credible, it must be completely transparent and above board in its operations. I believe the officers in general, and the president to be specific, MUST be “squeaky clean” in their character and behavior. The officers and members of the board of directors must project the highest in integrity and honesty. In my opinion, any failure to meet those standards will tarnish the image of PEVOA and therefore the pilot car industry.

In fact, I do not recall ever posting anything negative about PEVOA itself. I confess to having posted many times about my belief that the PEVOA president, Randy Sorenson, is using his position for the benefit of his private enterprise. If you review ALL of my postings regarding PEVOA and Mr. Sorenson since early 2006, you will find that I in fact defended both in the early days of PEVOA’s inception. At the risk of losing some very dear friendships, I defended Mr. Sorenson publicly when his detractors were attacking him. I emailed him private encouragement when I felt that he was being unfairly attacked. I only changed my attitude regarding Mr. Sorenson after I realized that he was promoting his private business venture while representing PEVOA at various pilot car industry related gatherings around the country. My posts state my objection to that quite clearly, so I will not reiterate those objections here.

I HAVE said, in my posts, that if Mr. Sorenson changed his behavior vis a vis promoting his private business while representing PEVOA as its president, that I would join PEVOA and vigorously promote and support the organization. While I see no indication that Mr. Sorenson has changed his behavior, I have decided to seek membership regardless, so that I may contribute to the growth and development of PEVOA, and therefore the pilot car industry. I will comply with the by-laws and will act within the by-laws.

I reject any accusation that I might be trying to harm Mr. Sorenson’s business. In fact, I have posted a suggestion whereby Mr. Sorenson could continue his private enterprise while acting as PEVOA president. I believe my suggestion would completely eliminate any appearance of conflict of interest. He has never responded to that suggestion to me privately or publicly. I have not misrepresented him consciously or knowingly in any way. I tried to address these issues with him privately before I ever went public with my concerns. Has he shared those emails with the board? If you wish, I probably could produce them for you.

Before PEVOA was officially launched, Mr. Sorenson called to invite me to become a member of the board of directors. While I accepted his invitation, I also stated that I would not be a “yes man” and would challenge him when I felt he was wrong. He said at that time that it was okay. Ultimately, he never formally made me a board member. I don’t know the reasons, because he never offered any. I do know that afterwards, he asked me for feedback with the by-laws draft, and I willingly offered some suggestions. He even asked me to help edit the first couple of newsletters that were published. In other words, at some point, Mr. Sorenson thought that I would be an asset to PEVOA. He has changed his mind, now that I have publicly challenged his use of his position of the association president for personal gain.

I ask the board as a whole to reconsider and approve my application for membership. I already have agreed to comply with the bylaws. Therefore, any objections that I have will be presented within those guidelines. As I review the bylaws, I do not see any which say that I must agree completely with the association president, or that I must suppress my personal opinions, views, and concerns, to be a member. It seems to me that any organization that disallows dissident views within that organization will stagnate and not survive the test of time. Furthermore, it becomes the instrument of its officials, in this case, its president. In that case, it no longer represents our industry in an unbiased manner.

I urge you to approve my application for Class I membership immediately.

I look forward to your timely reply.

Elton L. Boyd

Owner

All American Pilot Car Services

It took the PEVOA Board of Directors two months to respond to my appeal. They rejected my application and my appeal for a second time. Here is the second rejection letter:

I ask that you be the judge: does it appear to you that the Board has applied some unwritten rule that now, we must prove how we, as applicants, can further the goals of the association? I have reviewed the by-laws AND the application, along with the board’s initial rejection letter, and I still cannot find where that is a requirement. How could I have addressed their concerns if they never clearly expressed them, nor ever published this new requirement? I would be interested in knowing if they apply this same rule to all applicants for membership, or just a select few.

They told a PEVOA member that I was rejected because I was going after Randy Sorenson’s business, in violation of their code of ethics. First of all, I am NOT going after Randy Sorenson’s privately owned business. I AM asking that he, and the PEVOA BOD, take some action to remove the appearance of a conflict of interest. Those are two different things.

But above all that, the board is holding me to a standard that applies to MEMBERS, not applicants. They have assumed that I will violate the code of ethics before it ever applies to me. They are punishing me before I have ever become a member. Big unions generally allow a person to join and THEN hold them to their ethical or performance standards.

Furthermore, it appears that the board fears my attitude toward them. In other words, they appear to be rejecting my membership application because I publicly and openly disagree with them and that I expect them to attain high standards of conduct in their positions on the board. Based upon heir actions, they clearly do not want opposition within PEVOA on matters of significance.

I strongly support the concept of an organization of and for pilot car operators. I thought PEVOA would be the unified voice for our industry. In fact, when Mr. Sorenson first launched PEVOA I strongly and publicly supported him at the risk of losing some very dear friendships. At Mr. Sorenson’s request, I reviewed the by-laws and recommended some minor changes and some changes in the basic philosophy of the document. Later, Mr. Sorenson invited me to review and edit at least one PEVOA newsletter. So, at some point, Mr. Sorenson must have felt that I offered some value to the organization. Now, the Board of Directors has decided that they do not want members who disagree with them. They only want quislings who follow but do not question them. I am told that when the general membership was told that my application had been rejected, one member of the board threatened to resign because some of the members were questioning that rejection. They simply cannot stand opposition to their views and they will do anything to prevent people from becoming members if they challenge the board.

Just as I am a passionate and determined opponent, I could be a passionate supporter. I think I could have brought in more members for PEVOA because I joined even after pointing out some of their failings for so long. I think it would have lent credibility to the organization not because I have any following…but because it would let the general pilot car population that PEVOA feels strong enough to welcome in people with dissenting views.

I certainly would be an active member and would work to promote the agenda I think will benefit the pilot car operator who is out there day by day, rubber on the road, trying to earn an honest living. Of course I would openly advocate changes (WITHIN the organization) if I felt they were necessary because I feel it would be my obligation to do so. Membership does not imply total agreement with everything that is done and said within an organization. Loyalty to an organization would REQUIRE airing of opposing views, for the benefit of the organization. Any time you stifle opposition or alternative ideas, you begin to wither on the vine.

Tagged as: active member, agenda, agreement, application, benefit, best practices guidelines, big unions, by-laws, changes, code of conduct, code of ethics, concerns, conflict of interest, credibility, dear frienships, determined, dissenting views, founder, goals, honest living, jdge, launched, leadership, member, misrepresent, misrepresentation, necessary, obligation, opponent, opposition, passionate, performance standards, PEVOA, pilot car industry, Profesional EscortVehicle Operators Association, Randy Sorenson states' certification rules, rejection, reputation, resign, rubber on the road, solutions, standard, standards, supporter, unified voice, unwritten rule, value quislings, wither on the vine

MrBoyd is a professional pilot car/ vehicle escort driver licensed in the 48 contiguous states. He offers high pole service, professional demeanor, and is NUTS about your safety!!!
Email this author | All posts by MrBoyd

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 30th, 2009 at 11:10 pm and is filed under Blog, Editorials, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.