Want to Help Charter a New Unit in New Mexico?

[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

[GT1963]

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"?

[klevan]

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.

[GT1963]

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.