Curtailing frivolous grievances

[LI Pets]

I learning how the IBT just reported spending $29,000 in legal fees in relation to grievances I thought of way to save the clubs money.

Anyone wishing to file a grievance would pay a filing fee to the club of say $500.

That way only very serious issues would be filed.

[Lily&Me]

That's not a bad idea. The whole grievance thing needs overhauled, IMO.

Maggie

[Aviator]

Call me Nieve, but as a new member of this social club (WBCCI), I don't understand why there even is a grievance process or committee. All who are members join of their own volition. It isn't like a job with a contract between management and employees which is the only other setting I have experienced a grievance committee.

[joecolao]

Originally Posted by Aviator

Call me Nieve, but as a new member of this social club (WBCCI), I don't understand why there even is a grievance process or committee. All who are members join of their own volition. It isn't like a job with a contract between management and employees which is the only other setting I have experienced a grievance committee.

I agree with Aviator. I just don't see the need for any such procedure. It is a camping club. I think we sometimes forget that.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Aviator

Call me Nieve, but as a new member of this social club (WBCCI), I don't understand why there even is a grievance process or committee. All who are members join of their own volition. It isn't like a job with a contract between management and employees which is the only other setting I have experienced a grievance committee.

Yes. As 25 year state employees, grievances were only filed up, not down.

Doug & Maggie

[bryanl]

I don't understand why there even is a grievance process or committee.

Consider these forums and the efforts taken to try to get lurkers to participate and how they define what they are all about and what they do to maintain that identity and attract participants who will contribute in desired ways.

What is one to do when one offers an opinion or idea but is then subject to a hate campaign and personal attack? Should the forums leadership just ignore such things? Should the only remedy be to just leave the forums to the bullies?

Do you really want to put the onus or burden on the bullied or would you rather there be some sort of process so that those who feel abused can at least get a third party opinion and, perhaps, some support if they are indeed being bullied? Do you want that process ad hoc or would you rather it be considered and composed of steps that encourages impartiality and fairness?

It is a camping club. I think we sometimes forget that.

exactly the point. But there are folks that think it is something else and take on the behavior of a political activist (or worse). How do you remind them that it is a "camping club" when they just don't listen to polite requests? When they refuse to engage in two way dialog? When they refuse to accept group decisions? When they engage in promulgating bias towards their views even to the point of being disingenuous? When they dismiss established procedure and imply (or even directly assert) near criminal abuse of those procedures by others sans any proper evidence?

Look at the problems with words just in this thread. When an unspecified grievance is judged "frivolous" you have a problem with extreme language not based in a matching severity incidents. That is the sort of imbalance that creates misunderstandings. Judgments like that should not just be tossed around willy-nilly IMHO.

Then there is the question "Why should there be a mechanism to throw out a member?" above which completely ignores the rights of association that we all have. Should a 'camping club' be forced to be composed of folks who don't want to go camping? Should an Airstream RV club be forced to accommodate SOB's?

You have two ways to go here. One, which seems popular in threads like this, is what I call the sore loser approach. That is to complain and judge and spout poorly thought out platitudes. Folks get to jumping up and down and getting a lot of exercise. The issues get frothed, personal attacks start to predominate, and that does not lead to anything constructive.

Another, less traveled road (or so it seems to me), is to stop to think about what is being said, consider the implications of assertions and questions, and to look at the history of, and reasons for, the social mechanisms that are being assaulted.

[Ganglin]

Do you really want to put the onus or burden on the bullied or would you rather there be some sort of process so that those who feel abused can at least get a third party opinion and, perhaps, some support if they are indeed being bullied? Do you want that process ad hoc or would you rather it be considered and composed of steps that encourages impartiality and fairness?

Wait for it..........

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by bryanl

Do you really want to put the onus or burden on the bullied or would you rather there be some sort of process so that those who feel abused can at least get a third party opinion and, perhaps, some support if they are indeed being bullied? Do you want that process ad hoc or would you rather it be considered and composed of steps that encourages impartiality and fairness?

This question exposes the disingenousness that is at the root of WBCCI's problems. The Ethics and Grievance Committee lends an appearance of "impartiality and fairness" to the disciplinary process but in reality the decision is entirely up to the Executive Committee. Read the Blue Book. The outcome has more to do with the connections of the complainant than the merits of the grievance.

This parallels the WBCCI "election process" which provides and appearance of democracy when in reality the candidates are selected by their predecessors, and others need not apply.

[LI Pets]

+1.

[Buttercup]

Do you really want to put the onus or burden on the bullied or would you rather there be some sort of process so that those who feel abused can at least get a third party opinion and, perhaps, some support if they are indeed being bullied? Do you want that process ad hoc or would you rather it be considered and composed of steps that encourages impartiality and fairness?

You mean like the Miserable Users hack that is so well documented for the several users it was ascribed to that WBCCI just had to look the other way and pretend - no wait, ignore the issue even existed. You mean when WBCCI is truly looking after the members best interests by actually threatening that blocked member against further "frivolous" actions when that member properly grieved the situation? Yea, that's exactly who I want looking after me.....

[Goin camping]

Bryanl,

I understand the position you posted. I still disagree with the need for the grievance procedure and committee.

In my involvement with other special interest clubs. I have noticed that even though folks may share a common hobby. Everyone does not always get along. Thats to be expected.

One club has a very formal process. Which I have seen used as a club by one member against another. Very unpleasant to witness and in another club. People that don't like each other just avoid one another. No drama and a better experience for those around.

[Aviator]

Bryanl

I have belonged to many clubs, and this is the only one with a grievance committee. In all the other clubs, differences were resolved between members one way or another. There wans't any "ganging up". The question in my post reply was why WBCCI has a grievance committee. Here on the forums, and the web to a greater extent, there is a need for moderators (the Airforums Moderators seem to be doing a good job) as cyberspace is anonymous to the extreme. It lends it self to flaming and other less than pleasant actions. Those types actions are much more difficult when you are speaking face to face.

Worrying that someone will say something I don't like or that offends to the extent that an entire committee is needed doesn't make sense to me when viewed against the history and maturity expected of WBCCI members.

I joined at the invitation of a couple of people whom I respect, if it turns out not to be enjoyable, I simply won't renew my membership when the time comes. It is that easy.

If someone in my new to me unit and I don't get along, I will make every effort to iron out whatever the difference may be. If that doesn't work, again I simply need not renew.

That said, I have every anticipation that all those I will meet through this process will be delightful to be associated with. Hopefully one day I will be able to reinstall the stars that were on my trailer from when my in-laws owned it.

[bryanl]

re: "lends an appearance of "impartiality and fairness" to the disciplinary process but in reality the decision is entirely up to the Executive Committee." -- here we have the typical very serious allegation sans any evidence to support it so common in these attack threads.

The challenge for those who feel that the allegations like this have some merit is to provide support for their allegations that is in line with their weight. It is one thing to not like the outcomes of an organization's process and entirely another to express that dislike by alleging corruption or collusion or conspiracy or other malfeasance.

re: "I have belonged to many clubs, and this is the only one with a grievance committee." -- read Robert's Rules Chapter XX, Disciplinary Procedures (9th ed). That chapter answers the question about "why WBCCI has a grievance committee" and addresses many of the 'issues' that some have raised about how it functions and why it does the things it does in the way it does. WBCCI, as well as most other modern organizations of any size, depend upon the experience and wisdom that was put together by Henry Robert and proven in practice over time.

[Frank's Trailer Works]

Originally Posted by bryanl

.

How do you remind them that it is a "camping club" when they just don't listen to polite requests?

Should a 'camping club' be forced to be composed of folks who don't want to go camping? Should an Airstream RV club be forced to accommodate SOB's?

Another, less traveled road (or so it seems to me), is to stop to think about what is being said, consider the implications of assertions and questions, and to look at the history of, and reasons for, the social mechanisms that are being assaulted.

You bring up the issue as I see it right there. The club you are referring to is not a camping club, it is a caravan club. No where in the name does camping appear. Almost every member and former disillusioned member discussing this, wants to see it as a camping club. The club was formed by people that went on caravans with Mr Byam, not by people who go out on the weekends to camp socially. Remember the phrase "he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it" ? Well, many do not really know the history of the club with Mr. Byam's name in it. Some where along the road the history was lost and this ensuing fight began. It is impossible to make a corvette club into a VW club, but many are trying hard. I think if a camping club is wanted, than one should start it them selves, or join one of the various Airstream focused clubs formed in the past few years. There are more than a few now all over the country. Most are small, but offer a camping experience with out frivolous grievances or frivolous law suits.

I will now be told my opinion does not matter because I voted with my wallet and left the club. I however have put my words to action. I hope others will do the same.

[Lily&Me]

bryanl, what you say seems very rational and makes a lot of sense, but you aren't refuting the allegations with facts of your own. People are saying what they know and believe to be true. Are disciplinary decisions not "entirely up to the Executive Committee", and where would one find that spelled out or in practice?

What seems to be missing from the process within WBCCI is the elusive "level playing field", where an uninvolved party without a stake in the outcome reviews complaints/evidence/testimony and makes a decision as to whether charges are supportable and warrant the action which has occurred. With the State, this is an outside arbitrator, whose rulings are enforceable and can be appealed via the court system. Many adverse actions taken against employees are resolved just prior to arbitration, when attorneys review evidence with an eye toward what an arbitrator will see. Arbitrators are expensive and the process is time-consuming, but they are a critical piece of due process.

The current process seems tantamount to a police force making laws for the people, enforcing them on the street, then being the judge, jury and appeals court for those they arrest.

Maggie

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

s

The current process seems tantamount to a police force making laws for the people, enforcing them on the street, then being the judge, jury and appeals court for those they arrest.

Maggie

That pretty well sums it up.
But in addition it is all done under a cover of secrecy, excuse me, confidentiality.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by RickDavis

That pretty well sums it up.
But in addition it is all done under a cover of secrecy, excuse me, confidentiality.

That happens sometimes within the state, as well. Due process doesn't exist anywhere unless those in power choose or are forced to provide it, and it is usually the latter, in my experience. At least with a proper grievance procedure, eventually someone can be accessed who has the power to right a wrong.

And then, of course, there are always the courts. Some of what is happening now may have been able to be avoided if there were a rational and uninvolved 3rd party to listen to both sides and get to the bottom of issues.

It has all rather run amok, IMO. I firmly believe there are times when power runs amok because those who have it believe that those who don't have no effective recourse. Limits and accountability must be in place.

Maggie

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by bryanl

The challenge for those who feel that the allegations like this have some merit is to provide support for their allegations that is in line with their weight.

I think that's about to be done in federal court.

[Buttercup]

Bryan, what support would you like to see. You are web savvy, what could I show you to demonstrate for example that my grievance on the miserable users hack was dismissed as baseless when it was in fact not. That impartiality does not exist in the EGC. When faced with irrefutable proof that members in good standing were blocked from using the club's supposed forums. I have 8 gigs of stuff on that grievance... Where can I start?
My experience has been (as I do believe other experience has also been) that the EGC does not act with neutrality, but rather with what THEY believe is in the best interest of the club leadership. And therefore, members with a legitimate grievance are not guaranteed a proper resolution.
You can put whatever Socratic spin on this that you want - but the reality of the experiences some members have had deny the reality you would like some people to believe.

[wheel interested]

Gosh I was banned from WBCCI forum before I was even registered!! Then I also had the miserable hack run on my IP address as others.