MOHO Issue does NOT pass.

[wheel interested]

Is that when the entire units' votes are cast as a block? That certainly lends more votes over to one side and possibly an advantage over the units that represent the count. I think all unit votes should be collected and tabulated similarly for the International roster. I still am hoping to see one member one vote and members that don't vote don't get their vote cast for them and MALs also having a vote in the future.

I would like to know how many actual members voted and how many did not. Making voting issues known well in advance and all positions represented in our media the Blue Beret as well as from the units (and did I hear some units did not receive communications that should or were sent out but not received?) and simple procedures for submitting a vote not contingent upon attendance of a particular meeting or rally needs to be implimented. Also need to get the votes from the units to International when no delegate is able to attend the International Rally from their area. Then we need to campaign to get members to exercise their vote.

[azflycaster]

Originally Posted by Chuck

It works that way in a lot of units...defined in the local units constitution or bylaws...(not sure which). But yeah, its not a pure democracy. Kind of like how we elect the President (of the U.S). electoral votes...delegates, etc...NOT by "popular vote".

It may work that way in some units, but it is wrong. A delegate is required to report the vote of the members, not to vote based on majority rules. The club by laws are very clear on this. It may seem like a small point, but look at it this way:
If a unit has 33 members and the vote is 18 yes and 15 no and they use the majority rule they would vote 33 yes. Since changes require a 2/3 majority the members voted against the change but the unit voted for it. IMO the entire delegate proccess is flawed. In the case of this years vote, 14 units did not have a delegate present to vote. Why do the hundreds of members of these units have no say on matters like this?

[SilverRanger]

The block vote is apparently what happened in my former unit. I estimated there were roughly 10-12 members present when the issue was brought up and voted on, yet all 50+ unit votes were counted in favor of the amendment. According to their by-laws, it may have been procedurally correct, but it still doesn't seem right.

No notice was given to the general unit membership about the issue, or impending vote. Last year, they mailed out ballots for the name change issue, so I expected no less this year on the motor home amendment. I already knew about it and was prepared to voice my opinion, and cast a no vote, but then found out about the final results of the voting in our newsletter. It won't happen again (to me) in the future, because I transferred to a unit that counts all of its members votes. If block voting and this type of questionable tactic is permitted in the future, there can never be an accurate representation of the membership.

[ScottW]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Could it be that they not only want to be able to remain in the club, but that they want to be able to remain as officers in the club? If the article you mention above lets them stay as members then what is it they were really seeking?

If I got a new Class A MOHO to drive for two years for free, then had the option of buying it 'used' at a greatly reduced price, why NOT be an officer! That is what they seek!

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by ScottW

If I got a new Class A MOHO to drive for two years for free, then had the option of buying it 'used' at a greatly reduced price, why NOT be an officer!

Is Thor or WBCCI still going to provide new MOHOs for the officers after the vote?

[wheel interested]

Good question. I would think that perk had more than a little to do with driving the bus on the last motion.

[jcanavera]

Originally Posted by azflycaster

In the case of this years vote, 14 units did not have a delegate present to vote. Why do the hundreds of members of these units have no say on matters like this?

This is part of what needs changing. Many units operate with the same mindset. If you aren't at the rally where the meeting occurs, you don't get a vote. That's why here in St. Louis 12, or so folks controled 49 votes that were cast at the International. This is fundamentally wrong.

Jack

[azflycaster]

Originally Posted by jcanavera

This is part of what needs changing. Many units operate with the same mindset. If you aren't at the rally where the meeting occurs, you don't get a vote. That's why here in St. Louis 12, or so folks controled 49 votes that were cast at the International. This is fundamentally wrong.

Jack

That piece will have to be "fixed" at the local unit level. What I would suggest to members who do not like the way their unit operates is to push for a change at the unit level. If the unit does not want to listen, shop around for a unit that will listen.

[Motoman]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Is that when the entire units' votes are cast as a block? That certainly lends more votes over to one side and possibly an advantage over the units that represent the count. I think all unit votes should be collected and tabulated similarly for the International roster. I still am hoping to see one member one vote and members that don't vote don't get their vote cast for them and MALs also having a vote in the future.

I would like to know how many actual members voted and how many did not. Making voting issues known well in advance and all positions represented in our media the Blue Beret as well as from the units (and did I hear some units did not receive communications that should or were sent out but not received?) and simple procedures for submitting a vote not contingent upon attendance of a particular meeting or rally needs to be implimented. Also need to get the votes from the units to International when no delegate is able to attend the International Rally from their area. Then we need to campaign to get members to exercise their vote.

It seems that several people have stated their unit did not identify, discuss or hold a vote on the Motorhome issue. We can speak for the Sierra Nevada Unit as new active members who ar enot on the SNU Board; their monthly newsletter noted that the Motorhome issue would be discussed and voted on at their April rally which was a reasonable travel distance for many of their members how might only drop in for the discussion and vote. Four or five members did infact drop in for that purpose and other members traveled in excess of 450 miles for the rally (primarily) and the vote (secondary).

[Swanny]

What redeems my faith in the process is that when I looked at hour our unit president voted he did what he promised. We had 33% against this motion and that is how he voted.

Now it will be interesting to see in what form this resurfaces!!!

[Motoman]

Originally Posted by GT6921

Hey Kristine - I don't know all the details of this effort - I have stayed away from it - cause I can fly opinions with the best of them. But I would like to think that this whole thing was not just about a few executive members. That it went well beyond just the WBCCI and was most likely somesort of pushing from the Thor wings of power. Might even be something along the lines of using IBT as pawns possibly and the WBCCI membership base as the source for acceptance of the fact that Airstream is owned by THOR and thus the "club" should be owned by THOR as well - possibly.....

Being first year WBCCi members, third year Airstream owners and understandingly not aware of all the internal politics and linkage between the WBCCI and Thor we wonder if Thor really sees the WBCCI as an attraction for thier high dollar motorhome and trailer owners. Greater than half of the motorhome and trailer owners we know and meet don't know they still make Airstreams and none of them know what the Wally Byam Caravan Club international or WBCCI is! Further, many are concerned that they couldn't camp, RV or live with so little space and amenities. These same motorhome and trailer owners seem to have an entirely different pattern of travel than many Airstream owners.

We haven't made any converts yet even thought we have tried. We can't even convince many of them to abandon the freeways and travel the backroads, abandon or supplement the commercial venues for the local, state and national parks and consider using their rigs built in features without electrical, water and sewer hookups. Many even see Airstream owners as somewhat eccentric (that's OK by us, we also own several BMW motorcycles and one of us has been a member of that eccentric hobbiest group and commuted almost everyday to work for more than 30 years). Even the Mandalay club seem to believe that their members would not be attracted to the WBCCI rather than their brand only club.

So what's our point? Given that Thor is the self stated largest manufacturer of motorhomes and trailers why would they believe that the WBCCI would be attractive to their other owners? Those with the more exclusive and expensive brands already seem to have some brand linked club and many people now days are not joiners; don't want to be part of a group, don't want to be stuck helping or being a participating member; don't feel they have anything in common with other members, don't have the time.

This all could have been a sincere IBT initiated attempt to enable many of the core participating members to continue to belong. If many or all of the IBT board drive motorhomes they may rightly fear that their leaving the club over time would leave a vacuum which would not be filled by other members willing to volunteer their time and efforst on behalf the WBCCI.

Jut our thoughts, don't see the Thor connection but keeping an open mind for the evidence.

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by Motoman

. . . If many or all of the IBT board drive motorhomes they may rightly fear that their leaving the club over time would leave a vacuum which would not be filled by other members willing to volunteer their time and efforst on behalf the WBCCI. .

I think the "Volunteerism" thing that Shafer was talking about yesterday rings true with your comments. If the MOHOs loaned to the officers are a reward for the time and effort they put into the club, then I think it is a nice perk.

Defeat of the MOHO ammendment will make it harder to recruit top rank officers, if their reward is use of a $90K Classic Trailer instead of a $400K motorhome.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by azflycaster

That piece will have to be "fixed" at the local unit level. .......

NOPE that has to be fixed in the Constitution - you stated the voting procedures earlier in this thread to me - and that is what directs the local units.

Instead of the terrible waist of time and money this club has spent on the name change and the MOHO issue - this flawed constitution could have been completely revamped.

Another reality folks - is that NOT EVERYONE is cut out to belong to a CLUB.

The 1000 in and 1200 out membership averages is not a growth figure but it is not a seriously dwindling number either. This club reached a plateau and has struggled with its member numbers since - just as many other clubs do.

This number is also based on new sales purchases - but what about the USED market sales for new Airstream owners??? how can that statistic every be captured.

And the Vintage Market - through the VAC how do their memberships rank - having to be a wbcci member in order to join the VAC rule - how potential members does that deter!!! Huge I am sure. Why because there are several vintage/old trailer clubs out their that are not run the way this club is. And just look at the structure and how the VAC fits into the big picture - hmmm just a single joke I would say. Same with the other intra-clubs. I asked my local unit once what were the intra-clubs all about and they looked at me as if I was from Mars.


Structure Structure Structure - the whole thing is broke - find the good parts keep them trash the rest and start over....or better still go back to all the posts in 2004 and you we read the same stuff we are doing now over and over and over -

[Motoman]

Originally Posted by markdoane

I think the "Volunteerism" thing that Shafer was talking about yesterday rings true with your comments. If the MOHOs loaned to the officers are a reward for the time and effort they put into the club, then I think it is a nice perk.

Defeat of the MOHO ammendment will make it harder to recruit top rank officers, if their reward is use of a $90K Classic Trailer instead of a $400K motorhome.

Do IBT members in fact receive an Airstream, either motorhome or travel trailer, on loan from Airstream during their time on the board? That might change our opinion on what Thor would gain.

[markdoane]

I've seen that reported from more than one source, but i have no firsthand knowlege. I think the officers get use of either a Classic Trailer or a Motorhome while in office, and get to purchase it at the end of the term.

What does Thor gain? Darn little. I think it would be carried as an expense. And probably an expense for Airstream marketing, rather than Thor.

That begs the question of why you would continue to pay for something that says "our trailers aren't good enough for the WBCCI officers, so we put them in a Four Winds Motorhome". I still think Airstream is glad the motion failed, and had nothing to do with promoting the idea of the Four Winds ammendment. I will change my opinion if someone has a good argument for why Airstream or Thor would have wanted it to pass.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by Motoman

Do IBT members in fact receive an Airstream, either motorhome or travel trailer, on loan from Airstream during their time on the board? That might change our opinion on what Thor would gain.

I did not believe such a thing either , but it sure would be a big motivating factor now would'nt it.

I am starting to see the little light....

It is a privilage for the IBT to serve its members not the other way around!!!

[grannyred]

In our unit the actual voting numbers are to be apportioned to the active membership numbers. If 20 members voted "yes" and ten members voted "no" and our unit membership is 50, then the reported votes at International would be 33 "yes" and 17 "no". However, our President only reported the "yes" votes. In my example that would be 20 votes. We are still going to have our discussion. His voting record does not reflect the true feelings within his unit.

[wheel interested]

My former unit president flipflopped the name change vote as delegate after the amendment. I believe there was nothing insidious about it but the margin for error and miscommunication is too great as the present system stands. So much of this could be alleviated with simpler and specific votes per member.

Not sure precisely on what to type for the search engine but an officer from the Classic Airstream intraclub TincanTom mentioned the fall out from Thor withholding the vehicle perk during the term that AS manufactured motorhomes were originally voted down for acceptance in the WBCCI, think it was his friend's turn to have received it. After AS motorhomes were finally voted into the WBCCI, the perk magically reappeared.

Craftsman2 made a post about his conversation with a dealer about how unhappy the dealer was to sell units to WBCCI officers for the ridiculously large discounted amounts.

I have heard on several occassions about the huge ($100,000.+) contributions to WBCCI from Airstream, that can't be all travel cups and key chains and pens can it?

I want to know why we cannot be solvent regardless of the number of members we have in the WBCCI. Why do we need to be threatened with higher membership fees instead of cutting the spending? Camping is all about making do and improvising. (Alright, granted, on a grander scale in an Airstream! )

[47WeeWind]

Originally Posted by grannyred

In our unit the actual voting numbers are to be apportioned to the active membership numbers. If 20 members voted "yes" and ten members voted "no" and our unit membership is 50, then the reported votes at International would be 33 "yes" and 17 "no". However, our President only reported the "yes" votes. In my example that would be 20 votes. We are still going to have our discussion. His voting record does not reflect the true feelings within his unit.

So you must belong to either the Texas Hill Country Unit, the Texas Plains Unit, or the Top of Texas Unit. Those are the only three Texas Units that reported only "Yes" votes (22, 21 and 21 respectively) and zero "No" votes.

But in reviewing Richard's spread sheet on Unit voting available here: http://www.airforums.com/forums/atta...3&d=1183227703, I don't see any instance of any Unit in Region 9 announcing a total number of votes less than the total number of votes to which such Unit was entitled. So there is no evidence of any Texas Unit holding back or shortchanging "no" votes by not announcing any "no" votes at the Delegates meeting. Perhaps you unit uses "block voting" in casting the member's vote? Could that be your concern? Please clarify. Thanks!

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by Motoman

Being first year WBCCi members, third year Airstream owners and understandingly not aware of all the internal politics and linkage between the WBCCI and Thor we wonder if Thor really sees the WBCCI as an attraction for thier high dollar motorhome and trailer owners. Greater than half of the motorhome and trailer owners we know and meet don't know they still make Airstreams and none of them know what the Wally Byam Caravan Club international or WBCCI is! Further, many are concerned that they couldn't camp, RV or live with so little space and amenities. These same motorhome and trailer owners seem to have an entirely different pattern of travel than many Airstream owners.


We haven't made any converts yet even thought we have tried. We can't even convince many of them to abandon the freeways and travel the backroads, abandon or supplement the commercial venues for the local, state and national parks and consider using their rigs built in features without electrical, water and sewer hookups. Many even see Airstream owners as somewhat eccentric (that's OK by us, we also own several BMW motorcycles and one of us has been a member of that eccentric hobbiest group and commuted almost everyday to work for more than 30 years). Even the Mandalay club seem to believe that their members would not be attracted to the WBCCI rather than their brand only club.

We have noticed the same thing: our friends who do not own Airstreams are not interested in owning one. They think it is small and the space their trailer provides is almost like being at home.

Originally Posted by Motoman

This all could have been a sincere IBT initiated attempt to enable many of the core participating members to continue to belong. If many or all of the IBT board drive motorhomes they may rightly fear that their leaving the club over time would leave a vacuum which would not be filled by other members willing to volunteer their time and efforst on behalf the WBCCI.

I am not hearing that there aren't people who are willing to volunteer their time on behalf of the WBCCI. Our unit appears to be full of willing volunteers and with other organizations I have discovered that sometimes it takes the people who are always volunteering to back off a bit for others to step up. More often then not what I see happen is that the persons already in place aren't willing to let someone else step in and do things different then they did and in some cases they really like the perks.

Originally Posted by Motoman

Jut our thoughts, don't see the Thor connection but keeping an open mind for the evidence.

I am trying to keep an open mind about this also and it would be very enlightening to learn what the benefits (financial and other) really are for holding an IBT position.