Visit our Popular Forums

Buttercup · 05-31-2007, 07:47 AM

And I find it interesting that there are a few MAL's who have switched to being members - with the WDCU solely for the purpose of voting this down. How about that. I bet WDCU is one of the fastest growing units out there.

Minnie's Mate · 05-31-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buttercup

And I find it interesting that there are a few MAL's who have switched to being members - with the WDCU solely for the purpose of voting this down. How about that. I bet WDCU is one of the fastest growing units out there.

I assume that when their votes are counted, they will be voting against the ammendment. Or do we know how it is expected to go?

golddigger · 05-31-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yukionna

In the NEU, the majority was against the MH issue (there was one vote for the MH issue; 28 votes were against it).

That ratio is then pro-rated over the actual 113 regular members in NEU. As far as I know, the general message from Region 1 is: NO.

golddigger · 05-31-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buttercup

I bet WDCU is one of the fastest growing units out there.

Certainly does not hurt to charge $1/year for regular membership (last I looked). That beats $15/year for MAL plus you get a vote. Only problem, of course, is they technically operate in the Washington DC area (which basically means the central eastern corridor). So if you live beyond that it might be more of a token membership than one where you can realistically take part in their rally schedule.

WDCU is a fun unit and we've taken part in several of their rallies. But it is too far away for me to be a reasonable home unit.

>Per

Gator1 · 05-31-2007, 09:33 AM

Speaking as one of those who joined WDCU in order to vote -

1. I joined WDCU to have a vote after not being able to vote against the madness last year. I voted. It counted.

2. I will STAY with WDCU even though I am out of the area (currently in mid move from New Orleans to San Antonio) because:
-My active military lifestyle requires a move every two years or so. WDCU is cheaper than MAL.
-The WDCU leadership is up to date with technology and uses it! A mobile nomad can be in touch with the unit anywhere!
-Most important!--The people I have interacted with so far have been exceptionally pleasant, competent, and eager to have my family aboard!

I may even drive cross country to a WDCU rally some time soon. After all, what's the trailer for anyway?!

Jim

Buttercup · 05-31-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by golddigger

Certainly does not hurt to charge $1/year for regular membership (last I looked). That beats $15/year for MAL plus you get a vote. Only problem, of course, is they technically operate in the Washington DC area (which basically means the central eastern corridor). So if you live beyond that it might be more of a token membership than one where you can realistically take part in their rally schedule.

WDCU is a fun unit and we've taken part in several of their rallies. But it is too far away for me to be a reasonable home unit.

>Per

Actually, we live in Nevada and this is not really a problem. The president, Paul Waddell, encouraged us to host a rally out here on behalf of the WDCU. No reason we can't do that.

As for how WDCU is going to vote - I have little doubt that WDCU will instruct its delegate to vote no and to not vote yes on any amendments - no means no.

LuminumTraila · 05-31-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Actually, we live in Nevada and this is not really a problem. The president, Paul Waddell, encouraged us to host a rally out here on behalf of the WDCU. No reason we can't do that.

We don't think WDCU being based in the DC area will be any problem for us either. Since we joined, we've learned there are quite a few WDCU members who live in New England/New York. I'm hoping we can sprout a few WDCU rallies up in this area too.

- J

rideair · 05-31-2007, 11:31 AM

You all are correct!! The WDCU is one of the FASTEST growing units thanks to many people on this forum and savewally. At our Cherry Blossom Rally I think we had 106 members(don't hold me to that). Over the past month our number has gone to about 133-136(don't hold me to that) We have done everything from pay the WDCU dues ($1.00) until people could send it, to over-nighting paperwork to HQ. Yes, "any WDCU member" "anywhere" can host a WDCU rally. I and the other officers of the WDCU would love for our members on the westcoast and middle USA to host a WDCU rally. I even have members asking my why they don't. As for the voting, I have to wait until June 1, 2007 to tell you "officially", but I can tell you this:

All votes so far have been "NO"

If there is even a "single" word changed in the current motion, "ALL" votes go to "NO".

So, hope this answers a few questions.

We need some of you westcoast/middle USA guys to step-up and hold a WDCU rally. I would suggest making it a "buddy-rally". That way all of your forum friends can come too. You never know, many after a WDCU rally has joined, maybe you will too!

golddigger · 05-31-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buttercup

As for how WDCU is going to vote - I have little doubt that WDCU will instruct its delegate to vote no and to not vote yes on any amendments - no means no.

In this particular vote, I do not think the delegate has a choice but to present the tally of votes. As far as I know, the proposed amendment is a section 2 amendment in which case the votes of all members in all units will count regardless if they cast their vote, based on the ratio of those who did vote in their home unit. In our case, 29 votes were cast but we have 113 regular members. All 113 votes will be presented using the ratio of how the 29 were cast.

As you point out, the issue is how to deal with any amendments. That is where the unit has to give its delegate instructions, such as NO to any and all modifications. These instructions were presumably gathered from the winning camp of the unit vote, with abstains counting with the majority.

The big unknown in this vote is likely votes from somewhat inactive units. This is because it may take only a 10% quorum at the business meeting to cast the votes. So you might find units where a minority of members own MHs (and are in favor of the amendment) yet represent the majority at their business meeting and henceforth carry a multiplying weight.

Air Apparent · 06-01-2007, 08:12 PM

Doesn't this amendment require a 66.6666% to pass? If so the NO votes only need 33.3333% to defeat.

I believe that last years vote go 54% but was defeated because it needed 66%.

Am I correct?

Air Apparent

66Overlander · 06-02-2007, 08:50 AM

Units can choose to vote "proportional" or "block". "Proportional" casts votes in the ratio they were counted among those that voted in a unit and is the only true way to have a members votes properly counted. I think many or most units cast votes this way. Some however cast using the "block" method, where "winner takes all. If a vote goes 51%-49% at the unit level that unit votes all 100% of it's voted the "majority" way, disenfranchising those whose opposite votes were effectively never counted. Unfortunately, we are finding that some of the units that are "for" the MH motion are cast their votes as a block, probably out of despiration since they know this motion is going down hard.

Also, yes last year 54% of the votes counted at International were for the Name change (but bviously this missed the 66.7% requirement), but that was only after many unit Delegate's "flopped" their unit's votes from "no" to "yes" based upon an amendment made at the Delegate's Meeting that changed the proposal form AOAI to WBACI. The AOAI original motion probably would have gone down by at least a 3-1 raitio if it hadn't been modified at the last minute. Unfortunately, these last minute vote "flops" have cause strife in many units, causing officers to resign and members to transfer to other units. This last minute vote manipulation is wrong. The Delegate's Meeting does not provide the necessary time for research and consideration of the impacts of the amended proposal. This is the danger of the Delegate's meeting. We need to all instruct our Delegate's to vote "no" on any motion to amend the original MH proposal. And we need to instruct them to vote 100% "no" if somehow the proposal is modified. Have them tell the International Officers to draft a new motion and send it thru proper channels for full member voting if they feel there is a need to modify the motion. That is the only fair way to keep the full membership engaged and to avoid rifts in the units.