July 5th IBT Seminar and Meeting Simulcast

[wheel interested]

"This motion came from Region 4 units, was approved by the Region 4 Board, 13 out of 14 units voted 'yes'."

"Since this motion is a motion to create a committee to study only and since it has come from the membership and 13 of 14 units approved it, I would support this."

"I would like to support what Louise had to say about it. This is to appoint a committee and they would bring a report, not a motion, a report to the winter IBT on what options, Larry Huttle opened this door. He was at our May region rally and he's been talking to Thor and going through one of their divisions to try to solve this problem."

All this discussion about the motion makes it sound as if this could and should have been on the agenda. If Larry Huttle opened the door in May at the region rally he was more than likely approached before then.

I want to know when the members of the units got approached about this. The Region 4 unit majority was stated as fact and then built upon during further discussion and reaffirmed by the motion maker. If 12 unit presidents approved this on behalf of their unit members then I would like to see that verified and ask why it was kept quiet from their members.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

"This motion came from Region 4 units, was approved by the Region 4 Board, 13 out of 14 units voted 'yes'."

"Since this motion is a motion to create a committee to study only and since it has come from the membership and 13 of 14 units approved it, I would support this."

"I would like to support what Louise had to say about it. This is to appoint a committee and they would bring a report, not a motion, a report to the winter IBT on what options, Larry Huttle opened this door. He was at our May region rally and he's been talking to Thor and going through one of their divisions to try to solve this problem."

All this discussion about the motion makes it sound as if this could and should have been on the agenda. If Larry Huttle opened the door in May at the region rally he was more than likely approached before then.

I want to know when the members of the units got approached about this. The Region 4 unit majority was stated as fact and then built upon during further discussion and reaffirmed by the motion maker. If 12 unit presidents approved this on behalf of their unit members then I would like to see that verified and ask why it was kept quiet from their members.

Exactly, and thank-you, Transcriber-Extraordinaire.

It was not last minute, it appears to have been quite deliberate.

The information on which unit presidents in Region 4 approved this has got to be accessible and public for other members. How to we obtain that information?

Maggie

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

Exactly, and thank-you, Transcriber-Extraordinaire.

It was not last minute, it appears to have been quite deliberate.

The information on which unit presidents in Region 4 approved this has got to be accessible and public for other members. How to we obtain that information?

Maggie

Maggie,

You write all of the international officers and the region 4 president requesting that information.

It would be interesting to see what response would be received if all those concerned about this matter wrote them requesting additional information.

Bill

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

Maggie,

You write all of the international officers and the region 4 president requesting that information.

It would be interesting to see what response would be received if all those concerned about this matter wrote them requesting additional information.

Bill

Hmmm, I think I'll write the Region 4 President, as it was his motion and his representation that it "came from the members" and "13 of his 14 units passed this".

I'll report back here.

Maggie

[HowieE]

As mentioned before, I wrote the 2nd VP of each of the region #4 units asking them if they were the dissenting unit. So far those that have responded never even heard the subject mentioned at the unit level.

Looks like the Region #4 President may have had an Epiphany.

[Lily&Me]

Sorry, HowieE, if I am duplicating your earlier efforts, as I did not recall you stating this.

I have sent the following email to the 11 Region 4 Unit Presidents who have an email address listed on their website. Did not find one for John Turner.

"Greetings Region 4 Unit Presidents,

On July 5th, John Turner, as President of Region 4, moved that the IBT create a committee and that the International President appoint the committee members to study the acceptance of a Class A motorhome manufactured by Thor Manufacturing into the WBCCI for current and past members.

Turner asked that this move forward as soon as possible as it would be beneficial if the committee could bring a report to the mid-winter IBT in January 2011. He further stated that his motion came from the membership of Region 4 units, was approved by the Region 4 Board, and that 13 out of 14 Region 4 units voted 'yes'."

As a WBCCI member who is aware of the controversy of this issue within the WBCCI, and that it was defeated several years ago, it is puzzling to me that this was not properly on the Agenda July 5 and that because of this the general WBCCI membership was unaware it was coming up. We are all aware of how seriously the trust in and credibility of the IBT has suffered in recent years, and so it is important to clarify this matter to avoid further damage.

As Unit Presidents for Region 4, I am asking that you advise me as to the history of this issue in your Unit. Specifically, was it presented to your members and when did that occur, also what and when their vote on the matter was, if that occurred.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter."

Maggie

[HowieE]

Go for it Maggie.

You should at least get a Cease and Desist Letter from one of their lawyers for using those secret e mail addresses with have first used your decoder ring for permission.

My Cease and Desist letter is framed and hanging in the bathroom as an inspiration when I need one.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by mistral blue

Was this motion on the agenda for the Region 4 rally this past May and did the Region 4 membership have any notice that it would be discussed and voted upon?

Was there in fact a Moho motion that was voted on at the Region 4 rally this past May?

I hope this information will be forthcoming. These are all the right questions. Thanks mistral

Maggie and Howie we all appreciate your efforts to continue to find the answers.

Rick I wonder what an artifical errorstream decal will look like. For those who want to stay with the Airstream icon I should like this for my decal. So those SOB PIPs need a new badge to make their personal agendas "legal"? Can we use the club's lawyer to find out about not circumventing the club's premise of a single brand recreation club for the members' protection? And the IBT wants validation for delegates and alternates and candidates, pulleeze. Now who is being disingenuous?

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Go for it Maggie.

You should at least get a Cease and Desist Letter from one of their lawyers for using those secret e mail addresses with have first used your decoder ring for permission.

My Cease and Desist letter is framed and hanging in the bathroom as an inspiration when I need one.

Well, their email addresses are posted on the Unit website, which is public, so I am not anticipating an issue with using them for WBCCI business.

Maggie

[Lily&Me]

Just forwarded the email to Region 4 Unit Presidents on to John Turner, Region 4 President and maker of the Motion, courtesy of a pm-provided email address for John.

No responses yet, will keep y'all advised.

Maggie

[Buttercup]

I did email each posted unit president as listed on the Region 4 web site and asked what was voted on. Waiting for replies now... I did this last night.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

I did email each posted unit president as listed on the Region 4 web site and asked what was voted on. Waiting for replies now... I did this last night.

This is not looking as if there is going to be a positive outcome.

At the Mid-Winter, only the IBT will vote on recommendations of the committee on this Motion, correct? Delegates don't go to these?

Maggie

[wheel interested]

It's not a motion yet, the approved motion was only to bring the report to the IBT. Someone will have to make a motion, if it is the committee it will not need a second. I think. I don't know if they can change anything without sending it back to the units or their presidents or delegate for a vote. Someone help me out. This would be a change to the constitution and what is then required to pass it? Discussion from the floor from members would probably be far less because of who would be in attendance at the mid-winter IBT rally.

[HowieE]

It is foolishness like this backhanded dealing that warrants the movement of Forrest McClure's amendment to separate the creation of bylaws and the power to pass on the constitutionality of those bylaws from the IBT and place it in the hands of the Deligates.

You may want to read up on this amendment

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f286...ion-59520.html

After which time you may want to look to

defendwally.org

and see how you can help curtail future such misconduct.

[azflycaster]

Membership is defined in the Constitution of the club.

ARTICLE VI
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
Sec. 1 An adult who owns a hard sided recreational vehicle manufactured by Airstream, Inc. shall be eligible for membership. (6/30/06)

Changes to the constitution would have to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the delegates. The earliest this could be done would be June 30, 2011 in De Quoin, IL.

[wheel interested]

Thanks Richard. I wonder how this committee will find out how the membership feels to present the report to the IBT at the midwinter. Or perhaps that is a formality to precede the motion regardless. Why would anyone think in this short time membership would have changed their minds? I don't think they do think membership has changed its minds. I think some influential members are influencing other IBT members to keep at this. Isn't there a way to insure the same motion does not come up for a length of time if and when this fails again? If this is legit it was a waste of time except for mouth service and placation. They don't have to study the acceptance they already know it is not acceptable to the majority. Futile exercise to absolve themselves from the ire of some PIPs, or is there some fancy flim flam that could get this turned about if we are not careful? Why has Larry Huttle, chairman of Airstream (?) opened the door again? Where does this originate really? With all the business and improvements that time and expense could be devoted to in doing their best for the membership this is what comes up again. And it seems clear to me why it was reintroduced as a members' action and not their own. But it remains to be seen. I don't think it will take much longer to be validated. I want to know which unit of region 4 did not want the motorhome issue revisited...just like Maggie and Howie want to know. It is very interesting to study the club's governance and stay informed. It is the members' responsibility and is good to step up.

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Thanks Richard. I wonder how this committee will find out how the membership feels to present the report to the IBT at the midwinter. Or perhaps that is a formality to precede the motion regardless. Why would anyone think in this short time membership would have changed their minds? I don't think they do think membership has changed its minds. I think some influential members are influencing other IBT members to keep at this. Isn't there a way to insure the same motion does not come up for a length of time if and when this fails again?

While I disagree with this probable motion, I don't want a limitation on re-presenting a motion. This would have prevented the new definition of alternate delegate and the revised requirements for numbered caravans from reappearing also. One passed and one still failed.

Bill

[Smartstream]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

While I disagree with this probable motion, I don't want a limitation on re-presenting a motion. This would have prevented the new definition of alternate delegate and the revised requirements for numbered caravans from reappearing also. One passed and one still failed.

Bill

I don't know if the motion is as much a problem as the way it was presented. Motions are made and voted on as a routine in conducting meetings. On the other hand lieing about votes and misrepresenting members is another issue. This if proven true should be a cause of grievance filed by leadership if the ever was one. Removal from office and even suspension would be appropriate for misuse of ones official position.

Just my opinion, Dan

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

While I disagree with this probable motion, I don't want a limitation on re-presenting a motion. This would have prevented the new definition of alternate delegate and the revised requirements for numbered caravans from reappearing also. One passed and one still failed.

Bill

Bill that is a great perspective on that issue that never came to my mind. I agree with you. It makes sense not to add a provsion that could be more harmful than helpful.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by Smartstream

I don't know if the motion is as much a problem as the way it was presented. Motions are made and voted on as a routine in conducting meetings. On the other hand lieing about votes and misrepresenting members is another issue. This if proven true should be a cause of grievance filed by leadership if the ever was one. Removal from office and even suspension would be appropriate for misuse of ones official position.

Just my opinion, Dan

Dan I think you have hit on a big part of the issue. I'm hoping for clarification asap and hopefully archived in the past at the time of the vote.