I am Andy Neumann , Past President of the Metro Detroit Unit of the WBCCI and this is only my opinion and I do not speak for the general membership of the unit, however, I believe that the motion to change the constitution is invalid, and not in accordance with the Blue Book Article XVI Section 1. Per the Blue book an amendment must raise through The ranks from a Unit, to the Region and then to Headquarters before it can be presented to the IBT.
Below is the motion as posted on the official WBCCI web site, note the use of the pronoun “I” , to me this indicates that Mr Emlinger made the motion on his own behalf and not that of a Unit of his Region. It is not the function of the IBT to amend the Constitution the function IBT to ratify proposed amendments made by the general membership.
“I move that the International Board of Trustees bring forth to the WBCCI delegates at the June, 2007, Delegates Meeting to amend the WBCCI International Constitution to include the words after “manufactured by Airstream, Inc.” as follows: “as well as the Class A motorhomes manufactured by the Four Winds International Division of Thor Industries, Inc. The Class A models of Four Winds motorhomes will be labeled “Airstream Edition” at their respective factory or by an authorized dealership in order to make their owners eligible to remain or become WBCCI members.”
The original motion, made by Region 12 President Jim Emlinger, limited eligibility for WBCCI membership to owner of Four Winds models Mandalay, Presidio, Valencia, Hurricane, Windsport and Magellan, which are both diesel and gas models and range in length from 30 feet to 40 feet.
The original motion was amended by Region One President Robert Thompson to eliminate the reference to Four Winds models and include all Class A motorhomes manufactured by Four Winds. Thompson said that in the future Four Winds could change model names and this would result in having to have another constitutional amendment. Thompson’s amendment also passed by a unanimous vote.
Below is the Article and Section of the Blue Book. It clearly states that Proposed Amendments follow a path that begins at the Unit level not the other way around.
ARTICLE XVI AMENDMENTS
Sec. 1 Proposed amendments to this Constitution may be submitted to Headquarters in writing by any chartered Unit of the club. Any such amendment(s) shall bear a certification by the Unit President that it has been approved by a majority vote conducted in accordance with the Unit's Constitution and Bylaws. The proposed amendment(s) shall also bear a certification by the President of the Region of which the
originating Unit is a part, that the amendment has likewise been approved by a majority of the Units within that Region. Upon receipt of the proposed amendment(s) bearing the required certifications, Headquarters shall distribute copies to the Presidents of all other chartered units for ratification or rejection. When two-thirds of the club's chartered Units have ratified the proposed amendment(s) by majority votes according to their Constitution and Bylaws and the Unit Presidents have so certified to Headquarters, such amendment(s) shall be deemed to be adopted. If two-thirds of the Club's Units do not ratify the proposed amendment(s) within one year following the distribution to the Unit Presidents, the proposed amendment(s) shall be deemed to have been rejected and to be of no further effect. (6/30/93)
Wow, interesting point. So the IBT leadership really can't do a thing constitutionally unless the motion arises from the rank and file, so to speak? (And does this also suggest anything about last year's move to alter the WBCCI name?)
Lynn
__________________
WBCCI 21043
-------------
If you're WBCCI, come visit us at the park (and get more cool air and less oxygen and ... a 50% discount!)
Andy -
First of all, I am not a supporter of this amendment by any means.
The amendment IMO is covered by section 2 which allows for a member of the IBT (Region Presidents are IBT members) to fast track an amendment without going to any unit for appoval. This is the same method used last year that failed to change the name of the club.
Quote:
Sec. 2
Amendments to this Constitution may also be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members represented by Delegates present and voting at the annual Delegates Meeting voting in accordance with Article XII of the Constitution. Such proposed amendment(s) may be submitted in writing by any chartered unit, by the Board of Trustees and by the International President. Any such amendment(s) submitted by a Unit shall bear a certification by the Unit President that it has been approved by a majority vote conducted in accordance with the Unit's Constitution and Bylaws. The proposed amendment(s) shall also bear a certification by the President of the Region of which the originating unit is a part, that the amendment has also been approved by a majority of the members of the Region Board of such region. Such proposed amendment(s) shall arrive at Headquarters by March 1. Headquarters shall distribute copies to the Presidents of all chartered Units by April 1 (90 days prior to the Delegates Meeting to which such proposed amendment(s) are to be presented, in order to give the units ample time to vote and instruct their Delegates. (6/30/93)
I belive section 1 covers how an Amendment can be proposed and section 2 covers how it can be addopted. Of course I have been wrong before I just am so strongly against it the way it is currently proposed that I am looking for any way possibe to make it go away without tearing the club apart.
Yes Andy I agree. How can this be a positive for the club? I think they broke the code of ethics. This is not promoting the club. And telling them we want the club to stay Airstreams is turned around upon those in favor as if they are making trouble. This did not originate from the members. The only people I know with motorhomes don't like the idea of SOB motorhomes let in either. How can our officers at the top supposed to be representing the whole of the club do this?
__________________ -Carol
Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
In the latest Arizona Unit newsletter a former Region 11 President was reporting the news from the mid-winter meeting. He made a statement about what would the club look like without and then he listed a group of names. He also stated that he would be interested in a MH someday and this would allow him to stay in the club. At the bottom of the article he then states that he is just the messinger. Interesting message.....
This whole ammendment started after a survey was sent out to current MH owners and they were asked for their opinions. Has anyone seen the survey or the results? I would be interested in how it was worded, how many responded and what were the results. This board has plenty of MH owners who are WBCCI members. Did you get a survey and what did it say?
In the latest Arizona Unit newsletter a former Region 11 President was reporting the news from the mid-winter meeting. He made a statement about what would the club look like without and then he listed a group of names. He also stated that he would be interested in a MH someday and this would allow him to stay in the club. At the bottom of the article he then states that he is just the messinger. Interesting message.....
This whole ammendment started after a survey was sent out to current MH owners and they were asked for their opinions. Has anyone seen the survey or the results? I would be interested in how it was worded, how many responded and what were the results. This board has plenty of MH owners who are WBCCI members. Did you get a survey and what did it say?
I was told that the "survey" consisted of calling the unit presidents and asking them how many motorhomes were in their unit.
Bill
__________________
Bill Kerfoot, WBCCI/VAC/CAC/El Camino Real Unit #5223
Just my personal opinion
1973 Dodge W200 PowerWagon, 1977 Lincoln Continental
1979 23' Safari, and 1954 29' Double Door Liner Orange, CA
NO survey was ever sent. Bill is correct. HQ polled Unit Presidents roughly the beginning of December to get a head count.
That encompasses the entire interaction of SCCAM (Study Committee for Class A Motorhomes) with the 860 motor home owners they pretend to be protecting.
It's a lot like the Name Change Committee coming up with AOAI. Who the hell cares what the membership or those 860 MH members will think -- we've got some busy work ahead of us -- yippee -- pass the gavel...
We have three MoHo's in our unit. One member is seriously considering moving back to a trailer when it's time to replace their MoHo. Another member owns a classic MoHo and will not be buying a new anything. A third member couple just bought a new MoHo in '06. They're away on a cruise so we don't know what they'll be doing 5-10 years down the road but they're already both retired...
Alas, the procedure used to enable the motion is proper according to Sec 2. What wasn't correct is SCCAM even considering bringing this forward without the proper research, member feedback, and consideration for the negative ramifications of their actions.
Let's face it -- two years in a row and these folks simply just don't get it. Why do we keep electing them? VOTE NO on the entire International slate when it comes to your unit in April. They're going to win anyway -- might as well make them sit through a 45 minute roll call and let them hear YOUR voice. Especially if you won't be in Perry! If they get in through another club-wide unanimous YES election they're just going to fumble around and find another disaster for '08. When is enough, enough?
VOTE NO to SOBs! One Brand -- One Club -- the Wally Byam Caravan Club!
In the latest Arizona Unit newsletter a former Region 11 President was reporting the news from the mid-winter meeting. He made a statement about what would the club look like without and then he listed a group of names. He also stated that he would be interested in a MH someday and this would allow him to stay in the club. At the bottom of the article he then states that he is just the messinger. Interesting message.....
This whole ammendment started after a survey was sent out to current MH owners and they were asked for their opinions. Has anyone seen the survey or the results? I would be interested in how it was worded, how many responded and what were the results. This board has plenty of MH owners who are WBCCI members. Did you get a survey and what did it say?
Richard if you don't mind maybe I can piggyback here on your post and in stead ask whoever here is a motorhome owner if they will tell us how they feel about letting other brand motorhomes into the club. Maybe we can do our own motorhome survey, complete with WBCCI number.
__________________ -Carol
Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
There is another point here (per the Constitution) on how a Constitutional ammendment is to be approved. It does not require a 2/3 vote of the membership. It requires a 2/3 majority of the units to approve the amendment per their bylaws and then submit a certified copy to Headquarters. There is no mention in the constitution of a vote taken at the Deligates' meeting. Therefore, the amendment should be voted on by the local units during the spring when Headquarters distributes it and then they can send their certified responses back to Jackson Center. The whole thing could be resolved before the Perry Rally occurs.
From Section 1
Upon receipt of the proposed amendment(s) bearing the required certifications, Headquarters shall distribute copies to the Presidents of all other chartered units for ratification or rejection. When two-thirds of the club's chartered Units have ratified the proposed amendment(s) by majority votes according to their Constitution and Bylaws and the Unit Presidents have so certified to Headquarters, such amendment(s) shall be deemed to be adopted. If two-thirds of the Club's Units do not ratify the proposed amendment(s) within one year following the distribution to the Unit Presidents, the proposed amendment(s) shall be deemed to have been rejected and to be of no further effect. (6/30/93)
Sounds like the SOB motorhomes proposal should not be an item that appears on the agenda of the Delegates' meeting. This could also prevent the adhoc changes and mixups occurring like they did with the name change at last year's meeting.
The issue is covered by section 2 not section 1. Under section 2 a motion needs to be voted upon by the members and the delegaates bring that vote to the meeting.
The issue I still can not understand is how the amendment for the name change was allowed to be modified at the last minute in Salem. The section is very clear about the time table for getting the motion out to the units for a vote. If a motion was to be changed (this one included), the motion would at that time need to go back to the units so that the deligates could get the votes of the members.
Section 2 is what is in play here. You can move a proposed amendment by either section 1 or section 2 (originator chooses).
Section 2 dictates the decision will be made by the Delegates
Section 2 specifies three sources for an amendment. Unit, IBT, or International President.
Section 2 clarifies that only a proposed amendment coming from a unit requires the unit's passage and the region board to pass it. The motion may then be scheduled for the delegates meeting
IBT and President motions go directly to HQ for disbursement by April to all Unit Presidents. Units are not involved.
If you don't trust (or despise) the amendment process at the delegates meeting as a motion author you can bypass them and their process (Sec 1). You can specify that your motion goes as written and is either passed or rejected by the majority of units. You may be responsible to make sure your proposed amendment actually makes it through the process though. You could be expediting 140+ units on your own, or doing a hell of a lot of praying it actually comes back out within a year.
If you'd like to leave the details of your motion to others (Delegates) then the fast track would simply be to get it passed by our unit. If your Region board sees merit, they may also pass it and get it on the slate for the Delegates.
Jim Elmlinger acted properly to get his motion going. The fact that the motion has no backbone is completely irrelevant (in the process).
Backbone should be required for proposed constitutional amendments but that is currently NOT a requirement. We've tried to implement that in 1M1V, but got slammed because we put that requirement in the constitution where it actually didn't belong.
It's now been pulled out and instead we'll be proposing amendment justification (as opposed to rationale) as the follow-on amendment to the Bylaws and Policy (where it actually does belong).
The issue I still can not understand is how the amendment for the name change was allowed to be modified at the last minute in Salem.
Once a proposed amendment makes its way to the Delegates meeting parliamentary procedure takes over with guidance from the clubs Bylaws and Policy.
Bylaws & Policy
ARTICLE VI
DELEGATES
Sec. 1: "...The delegate should be instructed with respect to the wishes of the Unit on matters to come before the meeting."
The amendment is there. 140+ unit representatives are there. If each Delegates membership restricts their delegate from negotiating an amendment then that delegate's hands are tied (a good thing by the way!). If the unit does not specifically instruct their delegate to hold to their wishes on any item before it, then...
Bylaws & Policy
ARTICLE XVII
DELEGATE VOTING
Sec. 1: "...Except that a delegate may cast the total entitled vote of the constituent unit in whatever manner he determines proper on any matter which has not been previously determined by a vote of the constituent unit."
Once Delegates make motions to amend proposed amendments anything that your unit members decided back home comes off the table. Now what is before the delegate is something NEW (hence AOAI became WBACI). YOUR delegate now has full rights to play God with your units votes. All of your units votes even as a unanimous block for or against, UNLESS you specifically restrict your delegate from voting on any issue that the unit membership hasn't already predetermined. You could also give your Delegate some leeway, but seeing as you could never know the exact wording that might result in negotiations why would you do that?
If you restrict your Delegate's voting ability you maintain control over what is a very bad situation regardless. Your delegate will be much happier on their return instead of wondering if he/she will be handed their head for their actions without the unit membership approval...
This is the hard way to implement 1M1V at the International level but it's better than the alternative. I can see the puzzled look on many when they thought they were voting on AOAI only to turn out what got voted on was WBACI. What a mess!
Send Delegates restricted or face the trials and tribulations of units that flipped their votes like the WMNH Unit, Metro Detroit, & SNU after willy-nilly negotiations took place. It wasn't a crisis or a problem for all the units aforementioned, BUT it caused quite a stir and led to membership loss in TWO of those units...
Quick Links
Motor Home Amendment Invalid
Linear Mode
