WBCCI Board Lawsuit

[LI Pets]

Carol, he's trying to derail the thread, you (we) maybe better off not playing into him.

most of his posts are so cryptic most folks here don't understand them anyway

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Try as I may I cannot see the objection. There are links here on Air Forums ALL the time to help aliviate discomfort from heavy pockets...

well at least you've FINALLY identified the PURPOSE of this thread (alleviate some1s discomfort with MONEY)...

admitting the issue IS a first step to recovery.

Airstream Forums - Airstream Owners Community- Community Rules

read the LINK above or any of the mod posts INTO the thread.

so politics is a no no, LIES and unsubstantiated rumors are a no no.

REdirects are a no no, the money stuff is a no no and so on.
__________

now, the PROBLEM with this approach (asking u a question) is i am encouraging a reply...

don't be confused, that's not the intent.
__________

none of that (tos/tou/cr) even touches on the BULLYING ("deal with it" "not a member" "don't sidetrack us")

directed toward those apposed to the thread OR the lawsuit OR the methods of resolving club conflict used in THIS thread.

see those opposed to this thread do NOT all come from one 'group' as howieE incorrectly labeled "us"...

in fact MANY of us may not agree or ANY other issues and probably have never met each other.
__________

more vague but just as palpable is the continually REwritten history just to serve the purpose of the cry/save/defend/crymore group.

1. your own posts HERE have admitted only coming HERE for the mud wrestling.

and while that surely includes some humor or sarcasm it's also reasonably true and supported by 100s of post.

2. on the mal thing again u rewrite history.

the kingpin at cry/save/defend/crymore was NEVER in real supportive of mals.

and USED those threads and posts HERE to encourage mals to JOIN a unit or go to the cry/save/defend/crymore site...

and eventually posted AGREEMENT with the wb' bobble heads that the MAL section should be eliminated (forced to join a unit)

or COERCED by UPPING the fees charged for mals, who CONSUME/D NO club resources.

3. the cry/save/defend/crymore site also advocated NOT using air forums, except to PROMOTE the club and other sites...

the AIR forum community was regularly referred to as the "anti club" on the c/d/s/crymore site.

it fact wb' members who showed the SLIGHTEST public support for air rallies were encouraged NOT to do that.

because the "anti club" gatherings and popularity as an ALTERNATIVE to the wb' was and IS threatening....

((someone mentioned an AIR rally briefly in their wb' unit newsletter and got SCOLED,

not by the wb' or the ibt, but by the cry/save/defend/cry leadership, 4 PROMOTING the competition...))

4. the point being the group NOW under duress and CRYING here...

have a LONG written/documented and KNOWN history of only USING the airforums site for THEIR OWN GAINs or GARBAGE...

and you know this stuff is ALL true carol, so there is no point in yes buttin' it.
___________

vendors/classified/sales and so on aren't the issue HERE now.
___________

but along with what the REAL issue is here, is the simple fact that the cry/save/defend/crymore core...

only comes here to defecate and solicit eyes toward their personal issues with the club and to redirect folks to another website.

all the while having ANOTHER PLAN aimed at HURTING this forum and the larger community HERE,

and these are MOSTLY folks who could care LESS about the opera playing elsewhere.
__________

it's no fun to sling mud without a audience right?
__________

and 'pets is figuring out that the scream/holler/cry/accuse/insult tactic isn't gonna cut it directed thisaway.

he's got nothing to counter these thoughts so NONthoughts or insults are used....

and compared to prior insults, the last post is NOT very neeeeyukish...

cheers
2air'

[Aage]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Carol, he's trying to derail the thread, you (we) maybe better off not playing into him.

most of his posts are so cryptic most folks here don't understand them anyway

And once again, we see more proof of what 2air clearly explained: when you can't really argue with the facts, the easiest tactic is to use snide insults and a dismissive attitude to belittle them.

In other words, if you can't bully them, question their motives, call them useless idiots, and tell people to ignore them.

Oh, and send money! MO' MUNEE!

I'm surprised that the money-begging has continued to be allowed, despite it being prohibited in the TOS. When I protested at getting an email asking for a money, I was told it was because I had posted something that had made the writer think I supported their cause. I don't, in case that isn't clear.

So fire away...

[markdoane]

At least we're learning some new words. Can't say it improves my vocabulary though.

[Ganglin]

From an insurance perspective:

1. there was a mention that the WB Board may be liable if they don't settle when the insurance carrier wants to - D&O doesn't work that way...

2. one of the major claims I believe is financial mismanagement? and I think the plan is to file in NY? - how do you plan to address issues such as these...

Derivative lawsuits are claims against a board member on behalf of the corporation. The typical claim here would be mismanagement of assets. But, under New York State law only a few people have "standing" or the right to bring such claims. They are: 1) board member(s) suing other board member(s) 2) members of an organization suing a board (if at least 5% of the total membership join the lawsuit), and 3) the state Attorney General.

A non-pecuniary, or non-monetary claim, is one where a plaintiff is not asking for monetary damages, but is ideological in nature, i.e.: a suit against the board for not fulfilling its mission. These types of suits, although rare, are usually lengthy and costly in legal fees.

[byamcaravanner]

Originally Posted by Ganglin

2) members of an organization suing a board (if at least 5% of the total membership join the lawsuit)

Getting 300 members to sign on is certainly in the realm of possibility.

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by byamcaravanner

Getting 300 members to sign on is certainly in the realm of possibility.

Would it be correct to assume that would only require a signature somewhere and not necessarily require any financial support ??

I seem to recall something in the wbcci bylaws about requirement of 1000 signatures for some actions. Probably not unreasonable when the membership was at a peak in the 70's (30k or so?) but is certainly not reasonable with only 6 k members.
It would seem to me that a properly written rule would require a percentage rather than a fixed number.

Any one want to try to run that one through the system ?

[Gene]

While a lawsuit may be filed in NY, the law used may be that of another state. The WBCCI may be incorporated in Ohio or Delaware, for example. Issues like conflict of laws, choice of laws and jurisdictional questions are too complex to begin explaining here.

So far as insurance goes, policies are different in different states. The "hammer clause" is inserted into many policies to force an insured to settle, or pay part of a recovery himself. Similar requirements about monetary settlements exist in some states' laws to force settlements. Once of the first things to look at in your insurance policy when there's the possibility of litigation is whether there's a hammer clause—it may be there, it may not. Whether there will be a monetary claim in a lawsuit against the WBCCI is not known to me, but is a potential claim.

Gene

[HowieE]

If there is any chance you have failed to grasp the reasoning behind the intended lawsuit against the Leadership you may want to start following this thread. The exceptions noted there clearly indicate the general contempt the Leadership has for what they refer to as the "Mere Members" and any attempt they might want to be represented in the process.
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f286...tml#post830377

[HowieE]

Another demonstration of superior leadership and their continuing effort to bring Value to the membership at ever increasing cost.

The Midwest unit, a veteran of 50 years, has disbanded.

Relive the fun and freedom of Airstream travel at museum in April

This means one less stop on the annual around the country crusade to exhaust the bank account. This may force then to stop at a WDCU rally, the 4th largest unit in the country, for the first time in the quest to keep the expensive as high as possible.

[pmclemore]

?

The website says the unit disbanded in 2007. Is this new news?

Pat

[wheel interested]

The putting of the lifestyle as an exhibit in the history museum and invitation to relive the fun and Airstream travel is new. Some of the details of the club may also be new to some. I didn't know about that unit. It must have been very large. Changes in units and their geographic location restrictions must have been added some time over the 50 years when units got too big and had to be divided.

"The Midwest Unit of the Airstream Travel Trailer Club, known as the Wally Byam Caravan Club International, was founded in Michigan City in 1957. Named for the inventor of the Airstream travel trailer, the unit grew to include nine states in the Midwest. Club members proudly toured the country together in their shiny streamlined travel trailers, made of aluminum, for many years until the unit disbanded in 2007."

[hampstead38]

You make some good points, Gene. If the WBCCI expects the D&O carrier to foot any of the bill, they'll have a seat at the table. Of course, if the insurance company takes a position they don't like, it sounds like they have enough cash reserves to put a spear in the ground and finance the litigation defense without the carrier.

I'm a skeptic when it comes to litigation... mostly based on my professional experience. It's a hammer... and not every problem is a nail. From my observations, the problem of the WBCCI is cultural. There seems to be a fundamental divide between the old guard leadership and an increasingly large group of dissatisfied members. When I really don't know is: How big is the "lump" in the middle... the people who mail in a check every year but really don't know and/or care about what the Int'l leadership is doing?

Let's say litigation (or settlement) breaks the current monopoly on board seats. If there were truly open elections, how would the Int'l leadership change? Would the old guard have enough "keep things the way they are" votes to stay in power or would the power shift to members with a different agenda?

Here's my thing, Gene. Whatever happens with the litigation, I see this as a fight over the red numbers. One side is going to win. The other side is going to pick up their toys and go home. The winners get to keep the name, numbers, legacy, stuff. The others don't. When the dust settles, I just don't see one unified club... I see a splintering of the organization... even if that really isn't what people want in the end.

[Gene]

Hamp', your analysis is probably correct. The insurgents may win and may get some board seats out of it, but the cultural fractures will be long standing.

I don't understand the details of the WBCCI election system, but it appears it takes many years to move to the top and the nomination procedure is tightly controlled. These procedures to protect existing leadership are not uncommon in nonprofits. I doubt a court would or could change them but there may be state laws that would apply giving a court power to change them.

More likely an outcome of a lawsuit is better financial management and reinstatement of an expelled member. Then what? As Hamp' suggests, getting a majority of seats for the insurgents is hardly assured.

The movement toward decentralized clubs will continued along with the increasing use of the internet will result in alternative clubs, groups and forums. Regardless who controls the WBCCI, I think it will continue to shrink. It may be a better WBCCI, but not a markedly different WBCCI.

Gene

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Ganglin

2. one of the major claims I believe is financial mismanagement? and I think the plan is to file in NY? - how do you plan to address issues such as these...

Derivative lawsuits are claims against a board member on behalf of the corporation. The typical claim here would be mismanagement of assets. But, under New York State law only a few people have "standing" or the right to bring such claims. They are: 1) board member(s) suing other board member(s) 2) members of an organization suing a board (if at least 5% of the total membership join the lawsuit), and 3) the state Attorney General.

The suit will be brought the Eastern District Federal Court, Islip NY.
The law basis is interesting and I don't know if they follow Federal, New York, Ohio (the incorporated state) or Nevada.

It maybe that Federal may be applicable due to the members being nationwide.

There's certainly enough yacht, golf club case law on the subject.

The plaintiffs will get that answer from their legal team shortly.

.

[halimer]

ALL CONCERNED,

My wife and I were at the Florida State Rally in Sarasota this February 2010. We listened to WBCCI IP Collier give the state of the club to all those attending. We asked why Leo Garvey was being expelled. IP Collier mentioned 2 previous and 1 current grievance. IP Collier would not say what the grievances were about. Also, Leo was not a member while he appealed the most recent grievance. As per IP Collier, even if he was successful in appealing grievance #3, another one was waiting to be filed. What kind of crap is this??
The control that the IBT has over the club is like the former Soviet Politburo. As IP Collier continued to answer questions from the floor, he made one statement that clearly showed the mind set of the IBT. He said he was very busy since becoming IP and had to deal with other WBCCI business instead of 'HIS INTERNATIONAL'. What a glaring admission. I spoke to him later during the rally and expressed my anger at his statement. I said, 'it was not his international, but every members rally'. IP Collier said that his wife told him of his gaffe. He said he made a mistake by saying that. It was not a mistake. It is the way the IBT feels. We are just the mere members.
My wife and I remain members because of our friendships in the club. Leo is our friend too and now we "can't" camp with him anymore.
We don't want to see the club's demise, but we need the lawsuit to stop the IBT from it's mismanagement.
BTW we started wearing black ribbons on our badges at the FL State Rally and also wore black arm bands in memory of Leo's explosion. We have pledged money for the lawsuit.

Mark & Debbie
WBCCI 2437

[RickDavis]

I was also at the "State of the WBCCI" meeting referred to by Halimar and can confirm that is what happened.
There was no doubt that the intent was to "get rid of Leo" no matter how many grievances it took.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by halimer

As per IP Collier, even if he was successful in appealing grievance #3, another one was waiting to be filed.

Originally Posted by RickDavis

I was also at the "State of the WBCCI" meeting referred to by Halimar and can confirm that is what happened.
There was no doubt that the intent was to "get rid of Leo" no matter how many grievances it took.

Yes, and if the lengthy pattern of political abuse against Leo is ever presented in court, I think it will be a "slam dunk" for Leo. For example, the remarkable coincidence of the IP suddenly deciding that non-International Nominating Committee-selected candidates would have to buy full-page ads in the Blue Beret to present their positions when Leo announced he was running for INC. And then refusing Leo's ad for publication because it was "too divisive".

Originally Posted by halimer

He [IP Collier] said he was very busy since becoming IP and had to deal with other WBCCI business instead of 'HIS INTERNATIONAL'.

If the International officers would like to be free to pursue their main goals without a massive outcry from the membership, they can learn the lesson that they should avoid blatant political backstabbing.

Jerry Larson, to his great credit, understood that fairly quickly and arranged for Bob Thompson's suspension to be overturned on appeal.

Tom Collier says absolutely not--Leo is history. Fine, his choice--but he shouldn't expect smooth sailing.

Originally Posted by halimer

We don't want to see the club's demise, but we need the lawsuit to stop the IBT from its mismanagement.

Hear, hear!

[hampstead38]

This is a bit off topic, but one of my pet peeves is leaders who use the first person singular. In real life, I manage a small city. Every so often, I hear another city manager talk about how "I" did this or "I" did that. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. This is a team sport. The only time I'm going to the first person singular is when it's time to take responsibility for a mistake, problem or goof. We did a great job. And when we didn't do a great job, the buck stops here.

Collier calling it "his" international was an oversight. It was an inadvertent acknowledgement of his perspective on the organization. If the WBCCI were a government, he would be a public master, not a public servant.

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

Collier calling it "his" international was an oversight. It was an inadvertent acknowledgement of his perspective on the organization. If the WBCCI were a government, he would be a public master, not a public servant.

When I was growing up, the idea of stewardship was actively taught. Today one hears little of that and a great deal of ego-centrism. I think we are much poorer for it.