July 5th IBT Seminar and Meeting Simulcast

[airstreamhobo]

I have written several letters to officers and this was one reply I got and he said I may use it on the internet....

Dennis

I happened to be at the Region 4 Rally May 18-23, 2010, when the motorhome subject was discussed during the Region Business Meeting. When discussion was over and the vote was taken, 13 of 14 hands went up. What discussion took place by the 14 Units before the Region 4 Rally is not known to me. Thanks for asking the qustion. Now I hope that you will help me to set the record straight on the Internet.

Norm Beu

[dwightdi]

I am glad that Norm chose to answer you. Region business meetings are not streamed, but there should be minutes from that meeting to collaborate what Norm said. If there was a vote where the president's raised their hands, then there must have been a motion to vote on and that should be in the minutes. At a Region business meeting the unit presidents are supposed to be the representative of their units and vote the will of their members to the best of their ability. However; there is no requirement that they discuss the motions with their members. If there are motions that are planned to be discussed and voted on, it would make good sense to present them to the unit members via e-mail, snail mail, and open discussion at a unit rally before the Region Rally and business meeting are held. That would be the ideal. I did it when I was president and my wife will do it this year, as she is now president. I have no way of knowing whether other unit presidents are that diligent.

[wheel interested]

Thank you Dennis and thank you Norm Beu for setting the record straight with actual time place and vote. This ends the speculation and conjecture of who what where and when.

If there is disappointment at this stage we know to whom to address our concerns, to the unit representatives at the region rally. Now who these hands belonged to as in the roll call and what unit did not agree would also be useful facts to know. Members can also inquire to their representatives of the discussion and their vote and why...

13 of 14 hands approved this motion and not necessarily a majority of the members of Region 4 when examining the specifics.

The next time this will definitely be addressed will be at the mid-winter IBT when the report is given. I am certain there will be discussion for and against at that time again. I suggest we concentrate on instructing our representatives of the choices to be made on our behalves and supporting new candidates for the next election, and possibly drafting new motions to persist in forwarding the club in the directions many would like to see it take.

Dwight I agree with your comments whole heartedly and I wonder why the unit presidents did not discuss this even after the fact with their units. I wish they would all have the same sense of obligation as you and your wife have in office to bring unit members the issues and then carry back the decisions of the members of this club. We need more just like you two.

[RickDavis]

So what this means is 13 of 14 unit officers voted for this.
What is not known is if the unit members these officers serve had any idea whatsoever of what was going on. I suspect the majority did not know and that this vote may or may not actually represent the wishes of the region.
While there is probably no harm in having a committee look at this issue again there is little doubt that if they come forward with a recommendation to allow SOB motorhomes there will once again be much disharmony and ill will among the membership.
Due to the majority required to change the constitution I would be surprised if it will pass when and if it ever gets to that point.
I very nearly went to that rally as I was nearby the previous week end. Kind of wish I had.
It will be interesting to see if any more unit presidents reply to the requests for more information.

[Buttercup]

Nothing is known at this point other than 13 hands went up for this folly! It is not a representation of 13 out of 14 units UNTIL we know just who voted and what was expressed to them at that meeting. I see nothing valid in these results and I still see it as misleading at best. Tim

[wkerfoot]

At last October's Region 12 rally, a motion was brought up at the meeting. Jim Emlinger commented at that time that motions are to be sent to the units some months prior to the region rally so that they can be discussed with the membership. Approval was granted at the meeting to waive notice to the units and the motion failed.

I would hope that the notice requirement is part of every region's bylaws and constitution.

Bill

[Lily&Me]

Good for Norm Beu for coming forward to clarify this. It doesn't explain why this was a last minute agenda item for the IBT only, after Unit representatives had left.

Being open, honest, member-inclusive, direct and above-board is critical, guys. There is about zero tolerance out here for anything else.

Maggie

[LI Pets]

Ok so it was clarified that a vote took place see post #156.

two questions that remain;

1 Is it required or not that the unit members be polled prior,
is it stated in the bylaws as to the procedure?

2 Why is it that none of the unit members are aware of this issue and vote after?

May 18th till July 5th is a lot of time to disseminate this info, if it had been known it would have been discussed earlier..

[RickDavis]

The June 26th meeting was over 2 weeks ago. The July 5 meeting a week ago.

Members, past and present have been chastised (or worse) for posting meeting recordings or text of what has been said at the meetings.

The WBCCI.org web site says the following:

"An archive of each of the meetings will be made and posted on the WBCCI Web Site as soon as possible after each of the meetings. "

Is there some technical problem that keeps the audio from these meetings from being placed on the web site within hours of when the meeting happens?.

If 'upper management" is concerned about what is said on the web, it might help if they diseminated information to the membership in a timely manner.

[Coloradobus]

I appreiciate Mr Beu's contribution. However, during our 13 days in Gillette we heard from several sources, the motorhome topic was rumoured. Thenwe heard that is was DEAD, again. It was a REAL surprise to hear it re-surfaced the day we left, after we left and arrived home and fired the computer up. WE WOULD HAVE STAYED for this HOT TOPIC and driven home later that day. Maybe things would be differnet and we could have travelled with our Region 11 outgoing president and husband. Maybe if this was our time line they wouldn't have wrecked on I-25 between Ft collins and their home. They are OK, sore, but the trailer is a gonner and the towcar was beaten up.

[Buttercup]

There probably isn't a technical reason, but rather because the club depends on OTS to make those changes, it is not done in a timely manner. Those recordings could be published mere minutes after they are completed.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Coloradobus

I appreiciate Mr Beu's contribution. However, during our 13 days in Gillette we heard from several sources, the motorhome topic was rumoured. Thenwe heard that is was DEAD, again. It was a REAL surprise to hear it re-surfaced the day we left, after we left and arrived home and fired the computer up. WE WOULD HAVE STAYED for this HOT TOPIC and driven home later that day. Maybe things would be differnet and we could have travelled with our Region 11 outgoing president and husband. Maybe if this was our time line they wouldn't have wrecked on I-25 between Ft collins and their home. They are OK, sore, but the trailer is a gonner and the towcar was beaten up.

Yep, just a little too slick and underhanded for me. Shame on them.

Maggie

[Lily&Me]

I just received this, rather oddly, from John Turner. It came via a Failure Notice, this message below:

"Sorry to take so long to answer, but we just got back home from WY. The Motion was to set up a committee to talk to Thor and Airstream to see if they are going to build Airstream Motor Homes. As far as I can tell everything you said was true except the part about the unit members. I was given this motion by a unit member and I presented it to our Region 4 Board at our Rally and business meeting.12 of our 14 Unit Presidents voted to form a committee to find out if Thor was willing to change. Nothing else was discussed or implied it is only a fact finding committee. They will present a report not a motion. I will never support any motion to let other brands into the club, but if Airstream and Thor would be willing to start building again I think it would be great to keep the motor home members in the club. I have an 83 trailer but I have a lot of friends that have motor homes. I hope this answers your questions. If not let me know and I will keep trying.

Take Care
John Turner"

Maggie

[LI Pets]

That sheds a different light on the issue

[wkerfoot]

I agree that this puts the whole thing in a different light. But why does WBCCI need to form a committee to find out what Thor and Airstream plans for an Airstream motorhome? Why not just ask them, doesn't the club have a personal relationship with the executives at Airstream?

Bill

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

That sheds a different light on the issue

Different yes; good, I dunno.

Now we know one member and 12 unit presidents supported this motion in May. It appears nothing was mentioned before the region 4 rally or the results after and it didn't get warranted to be listed on the meeting agendas or sent to poll unit members or be discussed during the general attendance meetings at the International.

This is only a fact finding report and not the bringing forth of a motion it has been stated over again. Basically we are told we didn't need to know or concern ourselves or be involved with this motion and it was represented to have the support of the membership and it was put through without membership discussion, because we are told it isn't necessary it is only fact finding. But who is to say what is our business or is not? Who is to say it's not so bad so we just did it, it won't be a motion just a report, it came from membership they want it, it's only going forward so it's OK, it's of no concern because we are only checking with Airstream and Thor no need to consult or bother the members of the club that might cause a bruhaha. Why drag them all in to comment and get worked up again. We, the IBT can just get it all ready and set it up so we know how to fix this. Why ask the members? Yes it's new business and procedure but it's really not necessary to make a big deal out of this. They are kind enough to spare us from superfluous thinking and voting and they are able to make those determinations of what is important and what isn't for us. But hey if not...it's from the membership, they want it, afterall, that's why we, the IBT, did it and did it this way...

Different yes; good, I dunno.

Of course if Airstream and Thor make Airstream motorhomes the problem is solved. The motion was for motorhomes for past and current members, but it doesn't matter it's just fact finding. And it really wasn't voted upon by the members of region 4, but it doesn't matter it's just fact finding. Well many think it doesn't matter, but I think maybe it does. Trust the membership enough to bring them into the decision making if you are going to say they are the ones that wanted this committee to be formed to do this and to bring it to the midwinter IBT prepared. The IBT will be prepared, but it's not necessary that membership prepare or even know about it. It's just fact finding. Well hey and so is this just another fact finding expedition. Since we know that decisions are made on our behalf without our knowlege than it is even more important to dig out the facts that are not spontaneously forthcoming and transparent. Who knows what other actionable items may be accepted without our having known about it and decisions made in private discussion.

[Smartstream]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

John Turner: "John Turner, President Region 4
I move 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.

To move this forward as soon as possible it would be beneficial if the committee could bring a report to the mid-winter IBT in January 2011."

IP: "Is there a second? June Ryan. Is there any discussion from the board? Excuse me. Please read your rationale."

John Turner: "Rationale: We are representing only 2/3rds of the membership by not having a Class A motorhome available to current and past members to replace the units they have or had. As time passes we are losing alot of motorhome members and potential members. The motorhome owner could be issued a special decal by WBCCI designating it as a Special Edition Airstream. The member owning one of these motorhomes would be able to continue in the WBCCI.

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

IP: "Thank you. Is there any discussion from the Board?"

I'm a little confused about just where it says anything about talking to Thor and Airstream about building an Airstream motorhome. Maybe it was lost in the transcription from the broadcast. Maybe I'm just don't understand what "the acceptance of a Class A Motorhome manufactured by Thor Manufacturing into the WBCCI" means. I hope somebody can explain it to me.

Cheers, Dan

[wheel interested]

It sounds like they are going to ask Airstream if they will allow their name to be put on an SOB albeit the mother company it still is not an Airstream. And as in the discussion it was reiterated that Airstream refused before and wanted no part of guaranteeing another Thor division product.

But the explaination given most recently mentions Airstream and Thor building a motorhome, which is also problematic. What happens when the next person thinks their motorhome has timed out or if a person of that motorhome model wants to be in WBCCI (lord only would know why though...)or any other motorhome owner, for that matter. Is Airstream to put on trim and a badge per custom order on a different brand motorhome whenever someone wants a new one? Wasn't it Thor that pulled the plug on the anniversary iconic shaped Airstream motorhome and new factory in favor of a Thor corporate office but now they will sell some of their boxed brands to AS for the WBCCI? Will they continue the deep discount program for the SOB models to officers as they did with the Airstream motorhomes? So many questions and no way to have them answered. Hmmm. A fortuitous accident perhaps? Pay your dues and pick up a decal and voila the SOB instantly becomes a sanctioned Airstream. What's more cozy still is not only can they stay in the club but they can still continue to run it. They can still be IBT, or even EC7 and preside from their special places.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

I agree that this puts the whole thing in a different light. But why does WBCCI need to form a committee to find out what Thor and Airstream plans for an Airstream motorhome? Why not just ask them, doesn't the club have a personal relationship with the executives at Airstream?

Bill

WBCCI has office space at Airstream at Jackson Center, as I understand it. It would be interesting to know exactly what the appointed committee is looking into---i.e. what they are asking of Airstream and Thor. It just makes no sense, as currently explained.


Maggie

[Frank's Trailer Works]

You make that sound as if they are at the Airstream Factory. The club office is down the street and it has been a number of years since the company Airstream gave financial support to your club. Thor is not located in Jackson Center Ohio either, just one of many RV companies they own is.