Name change fact sheet

[Buttercup]

No, I believe that the logo is a given providing the new name passes - but we all know that won't happen.

[yukionna]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

No, I believe that the logo is a given providing the new name passes - but we all know that won't happen.

Actually, the logo isn't a "given" and is subject to delegate vote too. Hypothetically, the name change to "AOAI" could go through and the logo COULD still fail.

[Buttercup]

From R. Bernd's write-up in BB. Disacussion, part 6, item d

A new logo should be included in the package presented to the delegates, even though that is not part of the task. The IBT has the authority to make a selection, but because it is an emotional issue affecting the entire membership it is this committee’s strong recommendation that a new logo should also be approved by the membership through the delegates at the 30 June 2006 meeting. This will speed the process of name changeover and completely unify the entire procedure.

If this helps...

[yukionna]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

From R. Bernd's write-up in BB. Disacussion, part 6, item d


If this helps...

Thanks for posting that information. I did read that in the BB last month and I guess I just assumed our delegates would be voting on it too.

[yukionna]

Originally Posted by yukionna

After sorting through forum threads, websites and WBCCI correspondence, I've compiled a list of the three motions which our delegates will vote on at International this year:

1) Do we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI (Airstream Owners Association International)?
2) If we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we adopt the new logo as defined by the IBT?
3) If we disagree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we allow our delegate to vote on a different name decided on by delegate debate?

These three options should be voted on at each unit's spring business meeting. Please let me know if this is not correct. Thanks!

I've further fine-tuned my list based on a private msg feedback I received -- in the event that a delegate debate is approved, you may want to decide during your spring business meeting how you want your delegate to debate.

Here is my updated list of items WBCCI members need to be consider and vote on during their spring business meetings:

1) Do we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI (Airstream Owners Association International)?
2) If we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we adopt the new logo as defined by the IBT?
3) If we disagree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we want to approve a delegate debate for the delegate to vote on a different name?
4) In the event a delegate debate is approved, how do we want our delegate to debate?

Again, I'm just trying to get the facts straight so they can be presented clearly and accurately at the spring business meeting. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

[Safari64]

I am considering joining WBCCI. If I do, as individual not attatched to any "local" unit, do I get a vote??

Didn't Wally subscribe to the One Trailer, One Vote idea?

[jcanavera]

Originally Posted by Safari64

I am considering joining WBCCI. If I do, as individual not attatched to any "local" unit, do I get a vote??

Didn't Wally subscribe to the One Trailer, One Vote idea?

If you don't belong to a local unit, you get no vote.

Jack

[Pschoerrn]

Safari64,
that´s what we thought of, but the WBCCI Headquarter told us that we would them be members-at-large and although we would have to pay $70 we would not have the right to vote...
So we saved the $70 and subscribed to AirstreamLife Magazin instead of the BlueBaret and we can/have to live without rednumbers on our trailer... We would like to join, but not as a fullpaying - not voting member!!

Bjoern

[InsideOut]

Originally Posted by Pschoerrn

<snip>the WBCCI Headquarter told us that we would them be members-at-large and although we would have to pay $70 we would not have the right to vote...<snip>
We would like to join, but not as a fullpaying - not voting member!!

Bjoern

So why not join a unit? The Int'l dues are $55 and the Unit dues vary, usually about $20...but the Wasahington DC Unit is only $1. They are mostly an internet based Unit and you would get a vote. Just a thought...

Shari

[Janet H]

Originally Posted by yukionna

I've further fine-tuned my list ....Here is my updated list of items WBCCI members need to be consider and vote on during their spring business meetings:

1) Do we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI (Airstream Owners Association International)?
2) If we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we adopt the new logo as defined by the IBT?
3) If we disagree to change the Club’s name to AOAI, do we want to approve a delegate debate for the delegate to vote on a different name?
4) In the event a delegate debate is approved, how do we want our delegate to debate?
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

OK - here's my 2 cents...

1) Do we agree to change the Club’s name to AOAI (Airstream Owners Association International)?

The language of this statement is fuzzy. If this is a vote at your business meeting are you voting to agree ...??

How about:

• 1. Change the name to AOAI? Yes, No.

If yes on item 1 then:

• 2. Adopt the new logo as defined by the IBT? Yes, No

If no on item 1 then:

• 3. Approve a delegate debate for the delegate to vote on a different name? Yes, No.

If yes on item 3 than:

• 4. How do we want our delegate to debate? As this is an open ended question you will have more motions and discussions, yada yada...

The intent here is the same - just a little more linear...

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by 65GT

RGesch was good enough to scan and post the exact motion as handed down here:

http://homepage.fcgnetworks.net/rgesch/motion.jpg

Hi Leo and all...
getting a bit confusing here. The information - that is contained in that link does not actually provided the "exact" wording of the motion.

All it does is provide the Pro and con -for each of the options available on the voting of the so called motion. And at the end it re-states the constitution on weighted votes.

The motion - should be in the IBT minutes - and once the motion is passed by IBT it then becomes a recommendation to the Unit. The unit must state a new motion to put the recommendation on the table i.e. I move to accept the IBT recommendation mover and seconder. Discussion, and Vote - if there is a 2/3 majority vote is in favor it is carried and that unit delegate can take a weighted yes vote to the Delegates meeting. If there is a 2/3 majority in vote against then the recommendation is not approved - and the delegate can take a weighted NO vote to the Delegates Meeting.


This business of the 3 option - is something entirely different and should really not even be entertained. At the delegates meeting - again the recommendation must be written into motion form and moved and seconded by attending delegates for the IBT recommendation to be entertained. Dicussion must be allowed and then a vote is called on the motion to accept the recommendation. YES or NO

Now the "clan" has come full circle - there should be no more debate - they asked if the members wanted to Add Airstream to the Name - we apparently said yes via a weighted vote - we then instructed IBT to choose where the "aistream" should go - they did and have come back to us with thier recommendation - if we do not like that recommendation and in light of all the NEW information that has either been provided re: licensing and the information that has NOT been provided such as detailed financial information. I would hope that the delegates at the meeting will be prepared to put a few directive motions to the IBT - to get this situation back under control.

Move that a proper research be done - on the validity of changing the name in the first place.

Move that the Voting Articles and By-Laws be reviewed immediately and remove the weighted voting system - as it is discriminate to the smaller units.

Move that at the delegate meeting they represent the Unit with ONE VOTE as the individuals will have the opportunity to vote at their Unit level casting their vote ONCE.

Move that all Units include in their constitution that if the IBT deem it necessary for a "counted/ballot" vote that the Units comply.

And these are the motions that should be taking up the time at the delegates meeting.

The "re-organization" committee is still (I assume) hard at work deciphering all the questionaire results. And quite possibly maybe a new shorter questionnaire could be recirculated to narrow down the improvements needed in the WBCCI to assist in moving the Club forward rather than backward.

Just my 1000 cents

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by GT6921

Hi Leo and all...
(snip)
Move that the Voting Articles and By-Laws be reviewed immediately and remove the weighted voting system - as it is discriminate to the smaller units.(snip)


Just my 1000 cents

Peter and Sharon,

True the weighted voting system does discriminate against the smaller units. This weighted voting system is similar to the American House of Representatives and not the American Senate which has two votes per state regardless of population. If the By-laws were to eliminate weighted voting then there should be a maximum number of members per unit. We belong to the El Camino Real Unit which has about 80 members and we belong as an associate member to the South Coast Unit which has about 25 members. I believe in one member-one vote and not that a member of South Coast should be worth 3.2 times a member of El Camino Real.

Bill

[66Overlander]

Originally Posted by GT6921

Move that the Voting Articles and By-Laws be reviewed immediately and remove the weighted voting system - as it is discriminate to the smaller units.

Move that at the delegate meeting they represent the Unit with ONE VOTE as the individuals will have the opportunity to vote at their Unit level casting their vote ONCE.

If I understand your wording, you are suggesting that each unit be required to vote 100% of their votes FOR or AGAINST, not split them IN RATIO to the way members voted within the unit. If my understanding is correct, I could not disagree more. This would be like the U.S. Electoral College, where by winning a few key "Units" a vote could be passed (defeated) with a majority of individual members actually voting against (for) it. The vote must be the will of the people - the full membership.

On the other hand, if you mean something different by "weighted voting system", I am sorry I misunderstand your intent. Could you possibly mean that each unit be given one vote, such that a unit with 15 members would get the same voting "weight" as one with 200 members? I also cannot agree to this idea, as it discounts the weight of the votes cast by the members in the larger unit. The only true way to solve this is "ONE MEMBER - ONE VOTE", and include the "Members At Large" in the vote.

By the way, forcing Units to vote IN RATIO is the closest thing we can get to ONE MEMBER - ONE VOTE under the current rules, so I endorse this as the only logical choice units should exercise until their ByLaws can be updated to mandate this method of casting votes at the International level by Unit Delegates.

[yukionna]

Originally Posted by Janet

OK - here's my 2 cents...


The language of this statement is fuzzy. If this is a vote at your business meeting are you voting to agree ...??

How about:

• 1. Change the name to AOAI? Yes, No.

If yes on item 1 then:

• 2. Adopt the new logo as defined by the IBT? Yes, No

If no on item 1 then:

• 3. Approve a delegate debate for the delegate to vote on a different name? Yes, No.

If yes on item 3 than:

• 4. How do we want our delegate to debate? As this is an open ended question you will have more motions and discussions, yada yada...

The intent here is the same - just a little more linear...

Thanks Janet. I like it -- it is clearer.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

Peter and Sharon,

If the By-laws were to eliminate weighted voting then there should be a maximum number of members per unit....
Bill

..but why?

If each unit has a single interest such as a single charter to the International body - they represent all the members within that Unit. Thus if their voting system is such that all members are able to cast their vote - then the votes would represent the full membership.

149 Units - would then have 149 votes - 98 votes being a 2/3 majority and 75 votes being a simple majority.

At the unit level regardless of the number of members individually - they speak as a collective - as long as they all have an opportunity to cast their vote.

On constitutional matters it requires 2/3 majority vote - which constitutes a YES or in favor vote or [NO or against vote]. It is this vote that is carried to the IBT Delegates meeting to be cast against all the other Units votes to determine the International vote in a compact version - rather than requiring over 8000 people to be present to vote at a single event.

I think we all want the same means to an end here. I did however forget about the issue of Members-at-Large not voting - I think it is unfair and that this member status should include full voting privilege.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by 66Overlander

If I understand your wording, you are suggesting that each unit be required to vote 100% of their votes FOR or AGAINST, not split them IN RATIO to the way members voted within the unit.

Nope this is not it...

"winning a few key units"??? no I would say the simple majority or 2/3 majority of Units vote is the voice of the members.

For example our unit has approx 207 members - if we vote yes by 2/3 majority then our Delegate vote will be yes - not 136.66 yes and 70.38 No - as only approx. 70 will be in attendance.

IF all our members were able to cast their vote - maybe this would work - but to count members who have NOT cast their vote is well just a big FARCE. In a real world. But we are entering a Delegate meeting that is still in another world - thus the weighted votes will be included and the MAL's will not even thought many many units this go around will be making extra effort to educate their unit members in the decision before them.

[LuminumTraila]

Originally Posted by GT6921

For example our unit has approx 207 members - if we vote yes by 2/3 majority then our Delegate vote will be yes - not 136.66 yes and 70.38 No - as only approx. 70 will be in attendance.

IF all our members were able to cast their vote - maybe this would work - but to count members who have NOT cast their vote is well just a big FARCE.

So if you hold your voting at a rally, and only 70 of your 207 members are able to attend to vote, and 2/3 of them (47) vote yes, and 1/3 (23) vote no, then 47 members are casting a yes vote for 207 members? 47 members are deciding for 70 members who voted, and 137 members who did not vote. That doesn't sound like democracy to me; it sounds dysfunctional.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by dougjamie

So if you hold your voting at a rally, and only 70 of your 207 members are able to attend to vote, and 2/3 of them (47) vote yes, and 1/3 (23) vote no, then 47 members are casting a yes vote for 207 members? 47 members are deciding for 70 members who voted, and 137 members who did not vote. That doesn't sound like democracy to me; it sounds dysfunctional.

I did not say I agreed with this - but this is what the constitution is and approved by WBCCI. - As our Unit does not allow Proxy votes - for those who do not attend.

Now on the other side of the fence who are we to say what those other 137 votes should be i.e. 90 of them yes and and 47 no? As this is what the vote would be when the delegate casts his vote at a delegate meeting - with the weighted vote of 207 based on a required majority vote 137 to 70 - so explain the difference - there is NONE - IMHO.

And this unfair voting process will be this way until the Constitution is changed and new direction is provided to all Units - to allow all members to cast their vote.

I am hearing from you that we should by-pass the Unit on voting totally?

This would make room for a dictatorship would it not. The members would vote on all issues but who would govern the business of the Units? The Region? The IBT?

This is why the Units have "business" meetings to deal with all business that involves the members be it locally, regionally and Internationally.

PS you could not have picked a better word - "dysfunctional" as a descriptive of the present voting procedures - and I totally agree you.

However I do believe that members of the unit if all have cast their votes that the majority rules and the delegate takes the voice of the members of that Unit as ONE voice for or against regardless of the number of members per Unit. Units make up the WBCCI Structure the Members are what makes it tick...

[LuminumTraila]

Originally Posted by GT6921

I did not say I agreed with this - but this is what the constitution is and approved by WBCCI. - As our Unit does not allow Proxy votes - for those who do not attend.

Now on the other side of the fence who are we to say what those other 137 votes should be i.e. 90 of them yes and and 47 no? As this is whatvote would be when the delegate casts - with the weighted vote of 207 137 to 70- so explain the difference - there is NONE.

And this unfair voting process will be this way until the Constitution is changed - to allow all to cast their vote.

What I am hearing from you is that we should by-pass the Unit on voting totally.

It seems to me that the only fair way to take the vote is to allow each membership (each WBCCI number) one vote and give each voting member a fair opportunity to vote whether in person at the business meeting, or by absentee ballot, mail, or internet voting. Each vote should count. What I was trying to say (and not doing a very good job of it ) was that whether the delegate places 1 vote yes/no for the unit, or 207 votes in some breakdown determined by the vote that was taken in the 70/207 voter example, it's still a decision made by a minority on behalf of a majority who never actually voted. I think we're in agreement that the WBCCI electoral process is broken, it's dysfunctional, but I thought I was hearing from you was that one way of doing it would be more fair than the other and I disagree with that. I believe that either way you do it, it's not a fair vote if all members don't have fair opportunity to hear all sides of the issue and place their vote.

[Over59]

Originally Posted by yukionna

Actually, the logo isn't a "given" and is subject to delegate vote too. Hypothetically, the name change to "AOAI" could go through and the logo COULD still fail.

Actually it seems clear some on the IBT were ready to change the logo at the last meeting but stopped short because it was an "emotional issue". Them believe they can so this by their own vote.