An Amendment to the WBCCI Constitution

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by Janet

Several recent posts have been removed from this thread. Please keep your remarks on the topic of this thread and suitable for polite company.

Janet, thanks for moderating. I do appreciate it.

[Forrest]

Here is a flow chart of the procedure nogotiated for Article XVI, Sections 1 & 3. Section 2 is the Delegate procedure and is not part of this flow chart. Section 1 has not been utilized often and there was no precedent to follow (or written procedure). The flow chart outlines the resulting political compromise.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Update - the motion, the C&BC report and DENCO Unit rebuttal are in the hands of the Unit Presidents in Region 11. There are only six Units left in Region 11 (Colorado West merged). We need four Units to pass the motion for it to go out to all the other Units in the country.

DENCO does not have to vote on this again though, so we have already approved it.

I have received emails from four Units (Arizona, 4cu, NM, Utah) that it is on their agenda and should be voted on no later than the end of April.

Given what happened at the Mid-Winter IBT, I firmly believe that the DENCO Motion is the last, best hope for saving our Club. It will, at the very least, give the membership the feeling that they have control of its destiny. It has the potential of developing into a full blown convention process where knowledgeable, assertive delegates resolutely represent the desires of their respective Units.

At this point there are three proposed amendments to the WBCCI constitution in play. "Can't tell the players without a program", so briefly,

Amendment 1 is the new revised constitution proposed by the IP and the Constitution & Bylaws Revision Committee.

Amendment 2 is an amendment proposed by the IBT to open up the international officer nomination process.

Amendments 1 and 2 above are scheduled to be voted on at the Delegates Meeting at the 2011 International Rally in Du Quoin. They are described in the 85-page Delegates Meeting packet on the WBCCI web site here:

http://www.wbcci.org/documents/Deleg...3-30-20111.pdf

The third amendment is the one proposed by Region 11 and the subject of this thread. (For the sake of consistency let's call it Amendment 3 even though it began its way through the process before Amendments 1 and 2, which are named that in the Delegates Meeting information.)

Does anyone know where Amendment 3 is in the ratifications process? In particular, will it be distributed to the units anytime soon? Our unit's spring business meeting is coming up in a month and I wonder if there is any chance it will be on the ballot. If not the next chance will be this fall.

I recognize, of course, if Amendment 1 is ratified at the Delegates Meeting that Amendments 2 & 3 are rendered moot since the constitution they would have amended will have been replaced by something else.
.

[Gene]

Nuvi,

The amendments 1 and 2 only amend, not replace, the constitution, so I would think #3 would still be alive. And if they conflict, the last adopted should supersede any others. If all were adopted simultaneously (pretty much only possible in a state or municipal election) the one with the highest vote controls.

Gene

[Nuvite-F]

Gene,

What is called Amendment 1 in the Delegate Package (which I have read, and I believe you have stated you have not, and were not about to) is the "revised constitution" which has been talked about on these forums for so long. Yes, it does replace the existing constitution.

Amendment 2 amends the chapter of the existing constitution pertaining to the nomination of candidates for international office. If "Amendment 1" passes, that chapter will no longer exist as such.

The amendment proposed by Region 11, which I am calling "Amendment 3", amends the chapter of the existing constitution describing the duties and powers of the Delegates. If "Amendment 1" is adopted at Du Quoin, the Delegates no longer exist.

If, on the other hand, "Amendment 1" is not adopted at Du Quoin, both Amendments 2 and 3 are still viable, and IMHO, good ideas.
.

[Gene]

Calling it an "amendment" seems to me to make it an amendment even if it replaces the whole thing except perhaps for the title: "Constitution". But maybe not, depending on state law. I think this has been said before, but changing the whole thing by "amendment" instead of a procedure for replacing or restating may render the amendments out of order. A fun question for a judge.

And then if the delegates are eliminated and #3 gives them more power, another fun question for a judge.

To avoid some of this, it would make more sense for #3 to be voted first and then vote on the others, but making sense does not seem to be at a premium.

I'll go back to not reading and playing with my new laptop. It's so pretty (and fast).

Gene

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Calling it an "amendment" seems to me to make it an amendment even if it replaces the whole thing except perhaps for the title: "Constitution". But maybe not, depending on state law. I think this has been said before, but changing the whole thing by "amendment" instead of a procedure for replacing or restating may render the amendments out of order. A fun question for a judge.

I quite agree with you--Problem Number One is the utter confusion factor.

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

And then if the delegates are eliminated and #3 gives them more power, another fun question for a judge.

Yes, but it will never go before a judge. The last guy who was going to take the WBCCI in front of a judge ended up writing one of the amendments! All very strange.

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

I'll go back to not reading and playing with my new laptop. It's so pretty (and fast).

Best course of action by far. I wouldn't be paying any attention to any of this except for a sense of duty.

Cheers,
Nuvi
.

[Coloradobus]

Nuvite, Your calling Forrest's motion, or now called The Region 11 Motion , Amendment Number #3 for the Delegates Meeting at Interantional furthers the confusion.
The Region 11 MOTION will be discussed/voted on at upcoming unit business meetings in Region 11 soon.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by Coloradobus

Nuvite, Your calling Forrest's motion, or now called The Region 11 Motion , Amendment Number #3 for the Delegates Meeting at Interantional furthers the confusion.
The Region 11 MOTION will be discussed/voted on at upcoming unit business meetings in Region 11 soon.

I did not call it "Amendment Number 3 for the Delegates Meeting at International". I just called it Amendment #3 to give it a simple name. Sorry if I added to the confusion. There is more than enough of that already.

I am aware that it will not be discussed at the Delegates Meeting--it is progressing down a different path to ratification.
.

[Coloradobus]

Nuvite, the sting of the disingenuous IP's actions at the Robstown Mid Winter are still on our minds here in the West,.
The Region 11 Motion, and lets keep calling it that, ( Formerly Forrest' motion) will be discussed at the unit level.
This Motion still has to go again thru all the Region 11 Units ( except Denver Unit 024), and then if it passes again, it will be disseminated thru out the rest of Club's Units thru HQ as originally crafted. One problem now, is we have less Units in Region 11 which can change the dymancis of the vote tally.
The antics at Mid Winter ,I believe to stall Forrest's Motion by the IBT-EC-7 was deliberate. The mere fact, that the processing of this Mtion that was taking place, using Article XVI Section ONE and not Section THREE, even tho had never been done in the history of the Club as mentioned in the Bylaws' Committee report, does't mean it couldn't be done.

Anyhow, being still hot under the collar about IT, and the loss of the McClures as Denver Unit members, the Motion in a sense is in limbo, and even ruder, as you say, its NOT on International Delegates agenda.
The words of Region 11 President Neumarkel at Mid Winter still ring, Beware of a Firestorm from the West!!

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

I did not call it "Amendment Number 3 for the Delegates Meeting at International". I just called it Amendment #3 to give it a simple name. Sorry if I added to the confusion. There is more than enough of that already.

I am aware that it will not be discussed at the Delegates Meeting--it is progressing down a different path to ratification.
.

Why can't Forrest's amendment take a different path and be accepted and implimented as part of the revision constitution?

[LI Pets]

Carol it can, an amendment can be proposed to that process.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Why can't Forrest's amendment take a different path and be accepted and implimented as part of the revision constitution?

The two amendments are mutually exclusive. Forrest's amendment increases the power of the Delegates and the revised constitution eliminates the Delegates.
.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

The two amendments are mutually exclusive. Forrest's amendment increases the power of the Delegates and the revised constitution eliminates the Delegates.
.

I know that but our delegates are free to change the revision and keep the delegates status.

[mbmbstreamer]

Our unit would support that change!

[LI Pets]

In all fairness you should read the explanation from the committee.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that somehow direct member voting would preclude discussion of issues at the Unit. This is incorrect.
While the Constitution cannot mandate that Units hold these discussions (the current Constitution doesn’t do this either.
Discussion is fundamental to good decisions. We believe that the Members’ Caucus would add a further level of discussion after the Unit meetings, where members from various Units and MALs could also discuss the issues, in both cases before the direct member vote takes place.
The Members’ Caucus is an important part of the governing process. It is here where procedures are discussed and opinions and points of view are shared before members cast their votes.
It would be streamed and the strengths and weakness debated for any member with a computer to hear.
The importance of this meeting justifies it's inclusion in the Constitution.
Members would need to attend the meeting to enter into the discussion.
There have been many suggestions that the International Rally needs more flexibility in setting dates and some question whether it should be held annually.
While we would expect that the Caucus would normally be held at the Rally, what if a Rally is not held or is cancelled? This provision would give the Club the flexibility to schedule another venue for a Members’ Caucus.

On July 5th, the major business would typically be the Budget. The meeting on July 5th has never been well attended by the membership. There are usually less than 10 members present other than those that have to be there because of their office. This move disconnects the International Rally from July 1-5. The Budget must be approved at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The committee strongly feels that only by having a direct vote can we assure every member can have a voice. The weakness of the Delegate system was that a delegate was free to represent their Unit’s or their personal views. It was clear from the actual vote that some personal views often won out.

The current delegate system is being replaced by both direct member voting and the Members’ Caucus. They are fully linked. Direct member voting obviates the role of the delegate and we want to retain a deliberative forum through the Caucus. We are encouraging broad discussion throughout the Club so that members can decide if these combined changes are an improvement.

We are also optimistic that we will again have a WBCCI forum where members can discuss issues and help to arrive at broader agreements. We are trying to encourage more discussion, not less.


.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

The current delegate system is being replaced by both direct member voting and the Members’ Caucus. They are fully linked. Direct member voting obviates the role of the delegate and we want to retain a deliberative forum through the Caucus. We are encouraging broad discussion throughout the Club so that members can decide if these combined changes are an improvement.

The current delegate system is proposed to be replaced. A committee has no power unless the delegates vote for those changes. I encourage units to retain their representation. Again 1M1V as represented by the revision committee can only vote upon what is presented to them to vote upon. Membership did not ordain or solicit a committee's input and as such represents 4-5 co-members opinions and should not be revered as more than opinion of a very few individuals made into an incomplete document for consideration. You do not represent my choices or support.

[LI Pets]

So now you don't like 1M1V carol?

You did before what's the difference now?

Originally Posted by wheel interested

I still like 1 member 1 vote best.

[dwightdi]

Is the only way to achieve 1m1v is by abolishing the delegates meeting? Since the streaming audio is only one way, a member must pay his own way to wherever and whenever the EC7 decide to hold the members caucus meeting so that they can express their opinions? It would seem more economic to have a two way open forum over the net than just one way streaming. The current method of letting the membership speak through their elected representative is also more democratic. That is the way our US Congress is set up and caucuses and town hall meetings are where the representatives hear from the voters. What the Committee is proposing is a direct democracy, like they had in ancient Greece. We are all familiar with is what, in modern times, is called a democracy but is actually a representative democracy. Both have their weaknesses.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by dwightdi

The current method of letting the membership speak through their elected representative is also more democratic.

What do you do if your delegate in not present, no vote.

What if your delegate doesn't understand the process, no vote or wrong vote, happens a lot.

What if your delegate doesn't speak out or know RONR on how to speak to that assembly?, no vote or point of view recognized.

With the cost of gas and less folks going to the International year over year you can extrapolate that to less delegates being there.


.