Want to Help Charter a New Unit in New Mexico?

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by azflycaster

Ken - Can you explain to me why the Regional 1st VP made the decision and not the Regional President? The WBCCI constitution clearly states:

Was Chester the decision maker or just the messenger?

Bill

[Forrest]

Bryan,

Would it be impertinent for me to ask how your response to the proposed Four Corners Unit comports with your new position as a "Communication Advisory Network Member?" The August Blue Beret stated that the Network Member's task was to, "be listening and looking for trends in member thought... [where] No topics related to WBCCI are sacred. Concerns accompanied with recommendations for positive solutions are requested."

If you are a part of that process then shouldn't you be communicating the concerns of these members with impartiality to Renee Ettline so that she can present them directly to President Don Shafer? Instead, your statements so far have the appearance of being defensive, biased and argumentative. Perhaps it is asking too much for you to advocate members suggestions and concerns, but is it asking to much of you to at least be impartial?

[bryanl]

list ... all the positive consequences flowing from [the ...] disapproval of a one year provisional charter for the proposed Four Corners Camping Unit?

This is a good question. I think it depends upon the goals you have in mind.

First, a hypothetical. If there were no positive consequences, why do you think Chester put in the work, took the risk, and made the judgment? Think carefully about what you have to assume about other people in order for the allegation of no positive outcome from their work to have any merit. Would you put yourself on the line in a known touchy area without any idea of positive outcomes? What do you feel like saying no to something and someone important to you? Do you really think others enjoy that feeling?

Consider what might be Chester's point of view. What could WBCCI be looking for in chartering a new unit? What is the purpose of a unit in the WBCCI? What are the risks? What are the benefits?

It seems to me that the Unit is a basic governance entity in the WBCCI. I think it reasonable that the organization would look for units that had good odds of longevity and could contribute to stable governance. What factors would be involved in deciding these things?

Then take a look at this thread. Consider the challenge quoted above and the hostility towards me when I suggest that a knee-jerk response might not be appropriate; when I suggest that trying to understand the decision would be a good idea; when I offer suggestions that might help understand that decision. Is the 'tone' conducive to good decision making? Is censorship as advocated by Jerry a good path towards good decisions? Is asking people to learn, to think. to be considerate of others, to be aware of the implications of what they are saying something to be condemned and despised as it has been here?

What is a simple answer to a 'positive consequences of denial' question when it isn't simple?

Here are some I can think of. Do some brainstorming yourself and you might come up with others. One might be better odds of a successful Unit by looking for a better resume. Another is less dissonance within the organization by looking for people who have shown an ability to use it effectively. Another might be reduce risk by demonstrated practice.
Another might be better and more efficient use of existing resources.

Put your thinking cap on and see if you can imagine what seems unreal to you. Just don't open mind so far the contents fall out! ;-)

Then think about the other side of the coin. What would WBCCI gain at what risk by approving this charter as it was supported and in light of this thread? Do you really know and understand the costs, risks, and benefits?

And, finally, consider yourself. Where are your feelings? What is their source? How do they flavor your perceptions?

Do you really want to go camping with folks whose fixation is on politics and dissing others and thinking bad thoughts of those who do not agree with them? Folks who don't listen carefully or try to understand what someone says?

Or would you rather go camping with folks who respect others, who know where they are coming from, who assume the best in others, and try to understand, learn, accept, and tolerate others?

[Forrest]

Richard,

Chester has been required to fulfill many of the duties of Region 11 President because the President, Ron Starcher, is recuperating from a stroke. In that light we ought to exercise some degree of patience and understanding in our comments. Having met Chester I can tell you that he is a gentleman, and gave the FCU proposal considerable thought. We may disagree with his decision (I do), but whether he wanted it or not it became his decision to make. In his defense we should be willing to admit that the proposal was politically charged (e.g. undoubtably the NM Unit and CO West Unit presidents were opposed). Given that Chester is 1st VP, acting in Ron's behalf, it shouldn't come as any surprise that he would favor a conservative approach that preserves the status quo.

[Goin camping]

Originally Posted by Leipper

This is a good question. I think it depends upon the goals you have in mind.

First, a hypothetical. If there were no positive consequences, why do you think Chester put in the work, took the risk, and made the judgment? Think carefully about what you have to assume about other people in order for the allegation of no positive outcome from their work to have any merit. Would you put yourself on the line in a known touchy area without any idea of positive outcomes? What do you feel like saying no to something and someone important to you? Do you really think others enjoy that feeling?

Consider what might be Chester's point of view. What could WBCCI be looking for in chartering a new unit? What is the purpose of a unit in the WBCCI? What are the risks? What are the benefits?

It seems to me that the Unit is a basic governance entity in the WBCCI. I think it reasonable that the organization would look for units that had good odds of longevity and could contribute to stable governance. What factors would be involved in deciding these things?

Then take a look at this thread. Consider the challenge quoted above and the hostility towards me when I suggest that a knee-jerk response might not be appropriate; when I suggest that trying to understand the decision would be a good idea; when I offer suggestions that might help understand that decision. Is the 'tone' conducive to good decision making? Is censorship as advocated by Jerry a good path towards good decisions? Is asking people to learn, to think. to be considerate of others, to be aware of the implications of what they are saying something to be condemned and despised as it has been here?

What is a simple answer to a 'positive consequences of denial' question when it isn't simple?

Here are some I can think of. Do some brainstorming yourself and you might come up with others. One might be better odds of a successful Unit by looking for a better resume. Another is less dissonance within the organization by looking for people who have shown an ability to use it effectively. Another might be reduce risk by demonstrated practice.
Another might be better and more efficient use of existing resources.

Put your thinking cap on and see if you can imagine what seems unreal to you. Just don't open mind so far the contents fall out! ;-)

Then think about the other side of the coin. What would WBCCI gain at what risk by approving this charter as it was supported and in light of this thread? Do you really know and understand the costs, risks, and benefits?

And, finally, consider yourself. Where are your feelings? What is their source? How do they flavor your perceptions?

Do you really want to go camping with folks whose fixation is on politics and dissing others and thinking bad thoughts of those who do not agree with them? Folks who don't listen carefully or try to understand what someone says?

Or would you rather go camping with folks who respect others, who know where they are coming from, who assume the best in others, and try to understand, learn, accept, and tolerate others?

This smells of political revenge. If I'm wrong I apologize.

[Alumaholic]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Richard,

Chester has been required to fulfill many of the duties of Region 11 President because the President, Ron Starcher, is recuperating from a stroke. In that light we ought to exercise some degree of patience and understanding in our comments. Having met Chester I can tell you that he is a gentleman, and gave the FCU proposal considerable thought. We may disagree with his decision (I do), but whether he wanted it or not it became his decision to make. In his defense we should be willing to admit that the proposal was politically charged (e.g. undoubtably the NM Unit and CO West Unit presidents were opposed). Given that Chester is 1st VP, acting in Ron's behalf, it shouldn't come as any surprise that he would favor a conservative approach that preserves the status quo.

Thanks Forrest for explaining the delicate situation that put this decision in Chester's lap. Your description of Chester is right on target. He is a real gentleman who I still respect deeply and consider a friend.
When Jerry and Ken asked me to spearhead this effort, I called Ron to get his take. His wife still screens all his calls, and she asked me to work through Chester, the 1st VP.

Chester conferred with others in Region 11 and made his recommendation to Ron. Ron responded to Chester by private letter. Clearly, Chester has followed the rules and done what he believes is best for Region 11 if not the greater WBCCI. Unfortunately, he has very strong loyalties to a small cliche of old timers in the NM Unit who very strongly desire to keep things just the way they are. We offered Region 11 a "win-win" proposal that would have given more Airstreamers more choices. Unfortunately, it looked "win-lose" to the NM Unit who feared we would tap their source of new members.
Since the NM Unit is more of a social club, and we seek a camping club; we saw room for both.

Bob Whitcomb, President of the Colorado Unit has expressed his regrets that we were not chartered. I think he understood that we would have energized the other units in the Region and stirred things up a bit.

Cheers

[jimmickle]

A week ago, we were on a rally with our local Iowa unit. This past weekend it was a forums rally. We enjoyed both, but they were totally different. The unit rally was in a nice campground next to an amusement park. It had planned meals, board and membership meetings (which we didn't attend) card playing and the typical WBCCI things. Except for the organizer, we were all senior citizens. Generally good weather.
The Forum rally, by contrast, was held in a beautiful forest park. Other than a pot luck on Saturday night, and campfires with s'mores every night, there were no planned activities. We just enjoyed the outdoors and good friendship. We had an age range from 17 months to 70's. Trailers varied from early vintage to a 2007 CCD. We all got along great! The weather was far from great. It was cool and damp most of the weekend. We coped and had a great time, under umbrellas when necessary. Both were fun, but if I had to choose only one to go to, it would be the forums rally. What seems to be proposed here is a unit that wants to do things more like the forums. I don't think that is a bad thing. Rather than trying to change a unit that is comfortable with what they do, and make the old members unhappy, form a new unit in the mold of what the younger people want. Then they can grow old and set in their ways together.

Jim

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by jimmickle

... Other than a pot luck on Saturday night, and campfires with s'mores every night, there were no planned activities. We just enjoyed the outdoors and good friendship. We had an age range from 17 months to 70's. Trailers varied from early vintage to a 2007 CCD. We all got along great! The weather was far from great. It was cool and damp most of the weekend. We coped and had a great time, under umbrellas when necessary...

This pretty much describes our unit rally held last weekend. It CAN be done that way, within the wbcci.

Originally Posted by jimmickle

What seems to be proposed here is a unit that wants to do things more like the forums. I don't think that is a bad thing. Rather than trying to change a unit that is comfortable with what they do, and make the old members unhappy, form a new unit in the mold of what the younger people want. Then they can grow old and set in their ways together.

Jim

AMEN to that!! What possible harm can this cause???? win/win for everyone. Let the old units stick to their old ways. They're having fun...why try to stop that?
But what they, and the WBCCI leadership don't seem to see is that they are winning all the battles, while losing the war. New units are not going to "tap" old unit's potential new members; These people aren't going to join your old stuffy unit, whether there's an alternative, or not. They're just NOT GOING TO JOIN WBCCI, PERIOD. THAT is what they are doing. It is well documented that the vast majority of new Airstream owners are just not interested in this status quo. If your unit is not growing and flourishing, don't point your finger at someone else; Look in the mirror!!!!
The WBCCI as a whole needs to allow these units to languish and die on their own, if they want the club as a whole to grow and flourish. Let it happen!

the previously mentioned analogy about taking the hill from behind...NO. The best way is to just "go around". Its not worth it. Life moved slowly in 1956...not so, today. We have prescious little leasure time in this day and age to bother with this foolishness. So we just won't do it. This is what these old attitudes are promoting. "don't bother". By attempting to prevent "competition"...the loss of members from one unit to another, they're letting the organization as a whole die.

[Over59]

I see nothing in article XI posted in #184? that allows a rejection. Rather it empowers the region to exercise a duty.

I hope you start your Unit anyway.

PS. May the agents of failure be defeated.

[47WeeWind]

Originally Posted by Leipper

This is a good question. I think it depends upon the goals you have in mind.

Thank you for finally acknowledging my question. The goals I have in mind are two: increasing WBCCI membership satisfaction and membership numbers; nothing political.

Originally Posted by Leipper

First, a hypothetical. If there were no positive consequences, why do you think Chester put in the work, took the risk, and made the judgment?

Because he voluntarily chose to run for Regional office positions whose known duties include such decision making responsibilities. It was his official duty to make the judgment in the absence of the Regional President. He should know and understand this.

Originally Posted by Leipper

Think carefully about what you have to assume about other people in order for the allegation of no positive outcome from their work to have any merit. Would you put yourself on the line in a known touchy area without any idea of positive outcomes? What do you feel like saying no to something and someone important to you? Do you really think others enjoy that feeling?

If Chester did not want to execute or exercise the duties of his WBCCI regional offices, he should not have sought those official positions. If he does not enjoy the uncomfortable feelings of making tough decisions that are in the best interests of the Club, then perhaps he should not have run for office.

Originally Posted by Leipper

Consider what might be Chester's point of view. What could WBCCI be looking for in chartering a new unit? What is the purpose of a unit in the WBCCI? What are the risks? What are the benefits? It seems to me that the Unit is a basic governance entity in the WBCCI. I think it reasonable that the organization would look for units that had good odds of longevity and could contribute to stable governance. What factors would be involved in deciding these things?

I assume Chester means what he says and says what he means. Neither longevity nor stability was mentioned as a factor in his disapproval, so I can only assume that he considered them and found those factors satisfactory.

Originally Posted by Leipper

Then take a look at this thread. Consider the challenge quoted above and the hostility towards me when I suggest that a knee-jerk response might not be appropriate; when I suggest that trying to understand the decision would be a good idea; when I offer suggestions that might help understand that decision. Is the 'tone' conducive to good decision making? Is censorship as advocated by Jerry a good path towards good decisions? Is asking people to learn, to think. to be considerate of others, to be aware of the implications of what they are saying something to be condemned and despised as it has been here?

My understanding is the organizers were very respectful and tone-sound throughout the entire process, and were especially sensitive in addressing the reasons why the existing units did not fulfill their needs as members. Nevertheless, even a kernel of truth, however gently packaged, can be discomforting to people who cannot tolerate any criticism.

Originally Posted by Leipper

What is a simple answer to a 'positive consequences of denial' question when it isn't simple?

Gobbledegook. I simply asked for positive consequences, but nevertheless am replying to your other penumbras.

Originally Posted by Leipper

Here are some I can think of. [Finally!] Do some brainstorming yourself and you might come up with others.

1. One might be better odds of a successful Unit by looking for a better resume.

I was not privy to the application process, so do not know what happened. Nevertheless, if a better resume would have improved the odds of success, I would hope that information would have been conveyed to the organizers during the application process so they could fine tune their resumes. Such helpful advice was given to the Texas Camping Unit by Region 9 officers, and those organizers tweaked their application appropriately. However, given Chester's ultimate finding of "no compelling reasons", I question whether any helpful resumes hints were given to the organizers, as you suggest.

Originally Posted by Leipper

2. Another is less dissonance within the organization by looking for people who have shown an ability to use it effectively.

It seems to me an effective solution to the dissonance that exists between the two nearby units and the organizers would be to separate them and let them each go their separate, but happy, ways. Chester's characterization of the new unit charter application process as a "mediation" instead of an "application" makes me wonder what his motives, objectives and goals were during the application process. His choice of words leads me to believe he was trying for a "kiss and make up" solution through denial instead of a forward looking resolution through separate paths for different approaches to unit governance. Brian, do you also get this same feeling about Chester's decision making objectives when you review his words?

Originally Posted by Leipper

3. Another might be reduce risk by demonstrated practice.

By "risk", I assume you mean risk of failure ... or is it risk of success? The new approach this unit proposes for its operations have been duly demonstrated by them on the Airstream Forums and in the camping location photographs posted by some of the organizers. Being from New Mexico himself, Chester should be aware of many of these remote locations. Additionally, we learn more from our failures than our easy successes.

The WBCCI should be looking for new unit templates to attract new and retain existing members, both well known problems. The level of risk the WBCCI now embraces only continues the downward spiral in membership numbers. If the club truly wants to change direction, it must assume more risk and experiment with new approaches than it is now comfortable according to you. If the club remains risk adverse, it will continue to lose members until all its risk adverse members die off. The club should embrace some creative destruction as one way to enhance it chances for survival. Continuing down the present risk adverse path is a recipe for extinction.

Chester never mentioned "demonstrated practice" as a factor for his disapproval.

Originally Posted by Leipper

4. Another might be better and more efficient use of existing resources.

Yes, driving off members can result in greater efficiencies of existing resources. However, when existing resources are demonstrably causing member discontent and probable non-renewals, goals other than efficiency should become more paramount. Moreover, Chester never mentioned "efficient use of existing resources" as a factor for disapproval. Instead, his concern seems to be that of geographical monopolies, take it or leave it. The club apparently cannot see fit to offer area members a choice in units. The reason for that is never stated, but my guess is that the club seeks to force all area members into a "one size fits all" unit as Buttercup mentions. A likely unspoken reason to me is that Chester wants to protect his friends who now run the existing Colorado West and New Mexico units from embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Leipper

5. Then think about the other side of the coin. What would WBCCI gain at what risk by approving this charter as it was supported and in light of this thread? Do you really know and understand the costs, risks, and benefits?

My thinking coin says the Club would gain a new alternatives for members run by enthusiastic and dedicated members who would implement their new vision of how things can be done better. The costs would be minimal, the risk of success would be great, and the benefits would be tangible and exciting. What risks do you see, Bryan?

Originally Posted by Leipper

6. And, finally, consider yourself. Where are your feelings? What is their source? How do they flavor your perceptions?

My feelings are the club is blind to and has unreasonably rejected a great opportunity to let innovative members try something new to stem the known 25 year downward spiral of membership numbers. Their source is my heart and my brain. Those feeling make me take an objective look at Chester's decision and compare and contrast it to the stated membership goals of the WBCCI. I see a glaring disconnect.

Originally Posted by Leipper

7. Do you really want to go camping with folks whose fixation is on politics and dissing others and thinking bad thoughts of those who do not agree with them? Folks who don't listen carefully or try to understand what someone says?

No I don't, in both practice and desire. Who do you have in mind?

Originally Posted by Leipper

8. Or would you rather go camping with folks who respect others, who know where they are coming from, who assume the best in others, and try to understand, learn, accept, and tolerate others?

Yes, which is why I want to go camping with the Four Corners Camping Unit and many of its organizers, whom I know personally and really enjoy. They are the future leaders of the WBCCI who are bring squashed under the heavy thumb of "keep up the good appearances" Region 11 officers.

If the WBCCI is going to grow and prosper, present leadership must encourage new future leaders to step forward and try new ideas. Instead, all they are doing is hewing to the 25 year old path of declining membership numbers, which is truly sad to witness.

My first hope is the Region 11 officers are listening and will reconsider their disapproval of the Four Corners Camping Unit provisional charter. If they are emotionally too close to the situation and people involved to separate their feelings and strong friendships from making an objective decision that is in the best interest of the Club, then my next hope is the National Officers who may be more objective on this matter will step in and apply some pressure on the Regional 11 officers and then take the heat from the one existing Region 11 New Mexico Unit which may become upset at having to finally face some competition. The Colorado West Unit seems fine with having a new kid in the neghborhood. Will the Regional or National Officers step up to the plate? I certainly hope so.

[Forrest]

Over59,

Article IX obviously does give the Region President the ability to deny a "provisional" charter because the wording used is "may" and not "shall."

That said though, I think you have a point. The chartering of the Four Corners Unit should not be dead simply because it was denied a provisional charter. The Article states, "Applications for Unit Charters shall be made in writing to the Board of Trustees through the President of the Region in whose geographic area the proposed unit seeks to organize." It appears to me (as I think it did to you) that the Region President has an obligation to present the application to the Board because that is the entity that must consider it. Granted, the Board is unlikely to approve the application unless the Region President supports it.

Still, it looks to me like everyone is giving up too early. Just because the provisional charter was not approved does not mean that a Four Corners Unit can not get a charter.

[47WeeWind]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Still, it looks to me like everyone is giving up too early. Just because the provisional charter was not approved does not mean that a Four Corners Unit can not get a charter.

Good observation, Forrest. If the ITB asks the new unit applicants why they did not first obtain a provisional charter, the answer is that they tried but the Region 11 officers found no compelling reasons to give the applicants any opportunity to demonstrate feasibilty. Therefore, any Regon 11 officer objections before the IBT to granting a permanent unit charter would be unsupported by any credible evidence based on actual performance. Instead, Region 11 officer objectons would be based wholly on speculation as to what might have occured, not on evidentary facts. Seems to me that absence of facts supporting Region 11 officer's objections, coupled with Region 11 disapproval of giving the applicants any opportunity to establish facts favorable to their application, would strengthen the hand of the applicants before the ITB. However, the above analysis assumes a rational world as opposed to a political world.

[jimmickle]

I have contacted three past international presidents and one future president and have requested that they look into this problem. I hope that this will put pressure on the region to get your approval

Jim Mickle, wdcu 6980

[05ModPod]

Again we travel down a road of emotion on yet another seemingly contraversial subject matter.

From where I sit opinion and conjecture once again seem to cloud the rules of order.

I don't have a blue book at hand but I do know that all articles are guided by detailed by-laws and regulations.

For many who don't want or understand procedure - it is easier to provide opinion and muddy up the waters by doing so on both sides.

Regardless of the reasons for a new Unit - In order for a new or provisional unit they are "bound by the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution and By-Laws of the International Club.

Next is a basic interpretation. The Region President or 1st vice in his/her absence is an "Agent" of the Board of Trustees.

Simply put the Region should look at the proposed "Unit" relating specifically to the existing Constitution
* "upon being satisfied that the proposed Unit has complied with the minimum qualifications as fixed by said Board, issue to such proposed Unit a provisional charter.

It has really nothing to do with the litteral context of "may or may not" but rather the decision should be applied against the "Qualifications"

Clearly define those to whom ever it is needed such as the FCU steering committee and ask from the region - have they met the qualifications and from the steering committee ask of themselves have we met the qualifications?

And that should be the determining decision. If it is clear that a particular minimum qualification has NOT been met then that should have appeared in the response to the proposed unit request. And that said the proposed unit would be given guidance as to how they could meet the minimum qualifications.

If we all just ran by the constitution in the first place there would be no need for all this tripe.

The basics of the constitution relating to the new/provisional units - "be deemed in the best interest of the club" how this can be interpreted in many different ways is a problem in itself.

Maybe it is time that all our members are educated a bit better in the rules in which govern the club by those who are mandated to by us to facilitate the club.

I am not saying rules are the answer - but they are there to provide consistency and fairness.

The big question for this thread.

What are the "minimum qualifications"? and has the FCU complied with the "minimum qualifications"?

[Alumaholic]

Originally Posted by GT6921

Again we travel down a road of emotion on yet another seemingly contraversial subject matter.

From where I sit opinion and conjecture once again seem to cloud the rules of order.

The big question for this thread.

What are the "minimum qualifications"? and has the FCU complied with the "minimum qualifications"?

In a word, Yes!
Thanks for your thoughtful and informative input.
The Blue Book is always at hand. It is on the Internet.
We followed it to a "t."
I could not agree more about following the constitutional process.
Whether or not I agree with their approach or their decision, Region 11 was within their constitutional rights to disapprove our request.
That is why you don't hear me appealing the decision or asking for intervention from on high.
I suggest we all get on with our lives.

Moderator, can we close this thread, please.

[bryanl]

re Going Camping: "This smells of political revenge. If I'm wrong I apologize."
Nope. nothing political but no need to apologize, either.

Fred, good rundown, good stuff. But look through this thread for the kinds of things said, the forms of argument, and the manner of response that deserve careful consideration. They cover the gamut but there is some odor IMHO. Do the messages in this thread set a good standard for reasonable, tolerant, and accepting behavior? I think there is work to be done.

I think Peter&Sharon have some good ideas, too, but I worry about the rule chasing. That doesn't often turn out well.

I think Bill's advice to a marine is good to consider as well. Understanding the 'enemy' and finding the less costly approach tends to yield much more satisfactory results - especially if that enemy end up your friend.

[05ModPod]

Originally Posted by Leipper

I think Peter&Sharon have some good ideas, too, but I worry about the rule chasing. That doesn't often turn out well.

Not neccessarily "chasing" but a means to reach some common ground or consistency - and perhaps better interpretation of the rules as they were originally meant possibly.

But then as Klevan states - the thread was started by him and now he wishes it closed - and I think we should grant his wishes.

It was nice to see the "chatter" always provokes innovative thinking and different approaches to all sorts of WBCCI matters.