I don't think Chester Haughawaut's Disapproval Memorandum is too long to post here, so here it is in its entireity:
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Kenneth Levan, Mr. Jerry Heald, Mr. Ken Johansen
From: Chester Haughawaut, Region 11 1st Vice President
CC: Mr. Don Shafer, International President
Dr. Ron Starcher, Region 11 President
Mrs. Janie Lichtfuss, Region 11 2nd Vice President
Date: September 21, 2006
Subject: Proposed New Unit
After studying your proposal, discussing advantages and disadvantages, and reading "Airstream Forum" responses to your solicitations I find no compelling reasons to grant your request for a provisional charter. Your vision of a "non-traditional" unit certainly differs since your intent is to manage, plan, and conduct unit business primarily via electronic technology. While this strategy appeals to certain segments of a population it is not a sufficient reason to form such a unit within this region. In addition, most Region 11 units employ some level of electronic technology for communication and business.
Units across Region 11 visit unique destinations on a regular basis. Levels of planning for a rally or caravan to those sites is a function of leadership within individual units. Planning each and every element of an event (over planning?) can be just as aggravating as minimal or no planning at all. Without a doubt some level of planning must occur as evidenced, for example, by extended and repeated posts on the forum between individuals
and/or groups planning(?) to meet somewhere.
There are valid issues in your proposal and countless controversies that are discussed at length via internet sites and also during actual encounters. The forum is undoubtedly a worthy sounding board to air issues and remedies in an instant response medium. However, most actual solutions still rely on conventional methods where people meet and
generally decide the issue or reach agreement.
One very important element of your proposal is the location of the unit. By default that location is Albuquerque and there is continuing discussion about how to deal with the impact of two units in the same city. You assert that no other unit will be affected particularly if the proposed unit has an appropriate name in order to mitigate recruiting competition. Whether internet-based or local, competition between those units for membership will occur if they are located in the same place. Indeed because of this proposal competition is occurring now. Moreover, two units are directly affected if discussion in the "Airstream Forum" is credible. Colorado West Unit has membership primarily in Cortez and Dolores, Colorado, the "Four Corners" area that draws continuous attention by your
group.
The "Airstream Forum" is referenced frequently in this response because of the importance you placed on posts submitted to support your proposal. I have read all the submissions to your title "Want To Help Charter a New Unit In New Mexico?" Most of that posting is interesting including one that discusses a strategy for proposing new units. New ideas or strategies, according to the submission, are usually tried, tested, and possibly perfected within the unit before branching into a new organization. Rather than originating within the New Mexico unit this particular proposal seems to be the result of conflicting planning styles personality differences instead of natural growth and development.
It seems clear that Messrs. Levan, Heald, and Johansen intend to change their membership to another unit. However, for a few dollars more why not continue as affiliate members and develop a "no frills" style of Airstreaming? Is there a framework or guide for "outback camping" or is it purely a sink or swim experience for that novice Airstreamer?
Mediating this proposal has not been a pleasant experience. Certainly some individuals will not agree with this decision and also reject all attempts to reconcile. I am sure you know it is the responsibility of elected members at all levels to consider the membership, while also considering the merits of a given issue. Therefore, as stated in the opening paragraph, I do not approve or recommend a provisional charter for your proposed unit.
Here are the take-away points as I see them:
1. New means of electronic communication and conducting business is not a sufficient reason for forming a new unit within Region 11.
2. Present units in your area already visit unique desitnations, what more do you want?
3. Real people meet and decide issues conventionally, i.e., in person, and not by modern means of communication or over the Internet.
4. Competition among new and/or existing units for members is forbidden in Region 11. We cannot have new units that give members what they want take members away from existing units who may not be giving members what they want. How can the existing units survive if new ones arise to take their place?
5. New ideas should only originate from and be tried, tested and perfected within an existing unit before being implemented. Ideas that originate from conflicting planning styles or personality differences lack merit because they are not the product of natural growth and development within an existing unit itself.
6. Even though you all intend to leave your present unit, you should pay more money to remain as "affiliates" of your present unit and do your own thing anyway. But for heaven's sake, don't invite along any Airstream novices for "outback camping" unless you have a framework or guide. [Like Wally never would have done that!]
7. Performing the duties of a Regional Officer is not always a pleasant experience. Even if you cannot reconcile your differences, stay married for the sake of the unit.
I, for one, am disappointed in the above decison of my Region 11 officers. Region 11 has lost 4 units since 1993: the Colorado [Springs] Unit # 023 (merged into the Denver Unit 024); the Southern Arizona Unit # 004, the Southern New Mexcio Unit #146, and the Mexcio Unit. Region 11 has 7 units for 2006. With our seeming Regional policy of extinguishing innovation, smothering new ideas and approaches, and denying existing WBCCI members the ability to form a new unit to suit the trailering wants and desires of their generation (and others), perhaps we'll be the first Region to dry up and blow away. It's sure headed that way, and Chester's above disapproval is keeping it right on track. 
The only bright spot is that perhaps upon Region 11's disappearance, it will be taken over by or assigned to Region 9, whose officers understand creative destruction and the need for new ideas and new units (like the Texas Camping Unit) to supercede and/or supplement existing units.
Sadly, the longer I'm in the WBCCI (going on 8 years), the more discouraged I become over its prospects for survival, especially in light of decisions like the above disapproval of a growth idea that bubbled up from current WBCCI members who sought to work within the club's existing framework. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Region 11 offiicers disapprove membership innovation and a promising new unit in their Region. I would have thought they would have been giddy at the prospect of new leadership welling up from the ranks within their Region. Tell me it ain't so, Don!