Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-30-2012, 02:21 PM   #71
VAC President
 
Buttercup's Avatar
 
1977 27' Overlander
1954 25' Cruiser
1990 34.5' Airstream 345
VC Highlands , Nevada
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,149
Send a message via Skype™ to Buttercup
Either it's real quiet and boring or it's very contentious and hot.
__________________

__________________
Buttercup's Web Site. WBCCI #17330, 11281 & 7830. VAC Past President, TAC NV-2 & NV-3
Buttercup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 03:16 PM   #72
Rivet Master
 
RickDavis's Avatar

 
1961 24' Tradewind
1969 29' Ambassador
1970 21' Globetrotter
Jamestown , Tennessee
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,781
MoHo sent back to constitution and bylaws. Will be back again
__________________

__________________
Rick Davis 1602 K8DOC
61 tradewind, plus a few others
13 Ram 2500 TD
99 Dodge TD 577K miles

RickDavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 03:19 PM   #73
Moderator
Commercial Member
 
eubank's Avatar
 
1967 30' Sovereign
Bosque Farms , New Mexico
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,426
Somebody keep use us to date on this. We're buried in arrivals today, so trying to listen in is turning into a frustration exercise. We did get to listen to the 3VP voting this morning , but since then it's been pretty crazy here!

Lynn
__________________
WBCCI 21043
eubank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 03:20 PM   #74
Rivet Master
 
1977 31' Sovereign
1963 26' Overlander
1989 34' Excella
Johnsburg , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,941
Motor home problem

They voted to sent the motorhome amendment to the Constitution and Bylaws committee for study. Report to be given at the Winter IBT and it will be reintroduced at the next Delegates' meeting next June. It continues the discussion for another year, without resolution.
__________________
dwightdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 03:38 PM   #75
Moderator
Commercial Member
 
eubank's Avatar
 
1967 30' Sovereign
Bosque Farms , New Mexico
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,426
Oh, groan. I had hoped that this would disappear for good.

Lynn
__________________
WBCCI 21043
eubank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:22 PM   #76
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
I sure am going to missTOG if this forces me to drop club membership. Jim
__________________
avionstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:33 PM   #77
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
So some units voted against the new const because the delegat amend was not discussed? So the whole thing was thrown out because of a procedural thing? Sounds like a set up if the powers that be new the vote would be no if no discussion took place. Please tell me I am wrong. Jim
__________________
avionstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:41 PM   #78
4 Rivet Member
 
1955 22' Flying Cloud
1977 23' Safari
1986 34' Limited
Idaho Falls , Idaho
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 497
442?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickDavis View Post
There would have been at least 441 if they hadn't gone full hookups only
There would have been 442 if we hadn't been rear-ended on our way home from the Resto Rally in Albuquerque...

Vivian
__________________
Richard and Vivian
Caliban The Wonder Dog: gone but not forgotten
Cerberus
Too many vintage A/Ss...
Landshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:42 PM   #79
Site Team
 
azflycaster's Avatar
 
1975 25' Tradewind
Dewey , Arizona
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,126
Images: 62
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi View Post
So some units voted against the new const because the delegat amend was not discussed? So the whole thing was thrown out because of a procedural thing? Sounds like a set up if the powers that be new the vote would be no if no discussion took place. Please tell me I am wrong. Jim
Jim,
It was a proceedual thing that was brought forth by a delegate. The procedure to bring it to a vote was approved by 2/3s of the delegates. The bottom line is that the revision did not have enough support to pass. I believe that the final vote was around 35%.
__________________

Richard

Wally Byam Airstream Club 7513
azflycaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:51 PM   #80
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
WOW! Jim
__________________
avionstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 04:59 PM   #81
Rivet Master

 
Southwestern , Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi View Post
So some units voted against the new const because the delegat amend was not discussed? So the whole thing was thrown out because of a procedural thing? Sounds like a set up if the powers that be new the vote would be no if no discussion took place. Please tell me I am wrong. Jim
Here's what happened.

You will recall that the Revised Constitution was brought to the delegates meeting in 2011 and then the motion to introduce it was withdrawn at the last minute by then-IP Norm Beau. You can ask him why he withdrew it. My feeling is that he had been talking to the delegates and realized it had no chance of passing. (If he had wanted it to pass the Executive Committee could have been talking it up in the Blue Beret and at region rallies all year--but they didn't.)

Then the whole thing lay in limbo for a year until the current IP put it on the agenda for this years meeting. Still no sales pitch from the EC, just put it on the ballot.

My thought going into this years delegates meeting was that there was no way it was going to get the 2/3 majority necessary for passage. That's a tall order.

What happened was that as soon as the IP introduced the amendment, a delegate moved to call the question, that is, vote on it. A motion to call the question requires a 2/3 majority to bring the matter to an immediate vote. It actually got closer to 80%, which should tell you something.

The actual vote on the revised constitution was 1425 in favor and 3429 against, or in other words, it got 29% of the vote. I don't think any number of amendments would have gotten that up to 67% of the vote.

And despite last minute exhortations that the sky would fall if it passed, I think most of the delegates simply voted what their units told them to vote. If the revised constitution had ever had a chance of passing it needed to have been sold to the units--and it wasn't.
.
__________________
Nuvite-F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:04 PM   #82
VAC President
 
Buttercup's Avatar
 
1977 27' Overlander
1954 25' Cruiser
1990 34.5' Airstream 345
VC Highlands , Nevada
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,149
Send a message via Skype™ to Buttercup
I am processing the audio now. I will upload it as soon as it is done.
__________________
Buttercup's Web Site. WBCCI #17330, 11281 & 7830. VAC Past President, TAC NV-2 & NV-3
Buttercup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:21 PM   #83
Rivet Idiot
 
AirHeadsRus's Avatar
 
1999 34' Excella
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
On The Lake , Georgia
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 902
How many MH

Quote:
Originally Posted by eubank View Post
Somebody keep use us to date on this. We're buried in arrivals today, so trying to listen in is turning into a frustration exercise. We did get to listen to the 3VP voting this morning , but since then it's been pretty crazy here!

Lynn
Lynn,
One of the ladies speaking on for the MH amendment said something about all the MH's across the street. Were those SOB's that were at the rally or was she talking about Airstream MH's?
Be careful out there!
Joe
__________________
AirHeadsRus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2012, 05:55 PM   #84
Rivet Master
 
1977 31' Sovereign
1963 26' Overlander
1989 34' Excella
Johnsburg , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,941
I do not think there were SOB motorhomes at the rally. It does seem that some of the reasons to own a motorhome is caused by diminished physical condition and therefore the average age of motorhome owners is older and she felt that as our average age of our members continue to rise, more of the members would not be able to continue to use trailers and would be forced to buy motorhomes. Since no new Class A Airstreams are being made they would be forced to buy SOB's. The logic is flawed in the fact that Airstream make very nice smaller motorhomes which are quite good for older people. It is also flawed in that there are still quite a few newer Airstream class A motorhomes with very low mileage on them available at a greatly reduced price. It is true that motorhomes, because of their complexity and obsolescence, do not have as long a useful life as trailers. Older people in general are not up to keeping up with more complex maintenance themselves and therefore have to rely on dealers to perform that function.
__________________

__________________
dwightdi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.