Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-18-2011, 10:47 PM   #15
Moderator
Commercial Member
 
eubank's Avatar
 
1967 30' Sovereign
Bosque Farms , New Mexico
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,428
I don't know what the error is (and really don't think there was one), but it's not something that can be held secret.

As for the other, my question would be whether rendering an opinion about the "necessity" of a proposal is even within the purview of the committee. In any event, it would not be a basis for refusing to consider a proposal, but rather basis for the written evaluation of the proposal, at best (as per Article XVI, Sec. 3):
Quote:
A copy of any proposal to amend the Constitution pursuant to the provisions of this article shall be submitted by Headquarters to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee prior to being submitted to the Unit Presidents. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee shall provide Headquarters with a written report containing its recommendations(s) regarding the proposed amendment(s) by March 20. Headquarters shall submit copies of this Constitution and Bylaws Committee report to the Unit Presidents with the copies of the proposed amendment(s) distributed in accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of this article. (6/30/93)

Lynn



Quote:
Originally Posted by wkerfoot View Post
Lynn,

I agree about the procedural error, correctable if you know what the error is.

Refusal to forward the motion because you disagree with the necessity is harder to overcome. That is what courts are for. Not that I want to go there.

Bill
__________________

__________________
WBCCI 21043
eubank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 11:05 PM   #16
Moderator
Commercial Member
 
eubank's Avatar
 
1967 30' Sovereign
Bosque Farms , New Mexico
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,428
Oh, I just looked some more. There is a section of the Blue Book dealing with rendering a judgment of "necessity" on changes to the Constitution. However, that section seems to be somewhat in conflict with the section I quoted above, viz., the requirement that the committee render a written evaluation of a proposal.

Lynn
__________________

__________________
WBCCI 21043
eubank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 04:58 AM   #17
3 Rivet Member
 
DFDureiko's Avatar
 
2004 34' Classic S/O
Brooksville , Florida
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 195
Images: 3
Ok, what am I missing here. The whole point of this method of making a motion, is to circumvent having to have the motion "approved" to go to the delegates by the IBT. The will of the people if you will. So, if something is wrong with it, are they not obligated to explain why? and if there is in fact nothing wrong with it.......they have no right whatsoever to stop it.....again the whole point of using that method right?
__________________
DFDureiko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:57 AM   #18
Moderator
Commercial Member
 
eubank's Avatar
 
1967 30' Sovereign
Bosque Farms , New Mexico
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFDureiko View Post
Ok, what am I missing here. The whole point of this method of making a motion, is to circumvent having to have the motion "approved" to go to the delegates by the IBT. The will of the people if you will. So, if something is wrong with it, are they not obligated to explain why? and if there is in fact nothing wrong with it.......they have no right whatsoever to stop it.....again the whole point of using that method right?
Pretty much, but the current constitution includes that section indicating that the proposal has to go through the C&BLC before it's sent out to everybody else. If I read it correctly, that part of the constitution was amended in 1993, though heaven knows how or what it was like before that point.

Lynn
__________________
WBCCI 21043
eubank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 12:01 PM   #19
Rivet Master
 
Lily&Me's Avatar

 
2006 22' Interstate
Normal , Illinois
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 13,563
It seems very subject to interpretation, to me, and not terribly artfully clearly concisely worded.


Maggie
__________________
🏡 🚐 Cherish and appreciate those you love. This moment could be your last.🌹🐚❤️
Lily&Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 02:01 PM   #20
Rivet Master
 
Forrest's Avatar
 
1986 32' Excella
Aurora , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 636
Images: 21
President's latest message

The following was just released via President Beu's Constant Contact:

Friends

In my January International President’s Newsletter, distributed to the membership via Constant Contact, I touched on the subject of the Denver Colorado (DenCo) Unit proposal to amend the WBCCI Constitution. As I see it, there are two discussion topics – the proposal itself, and the processing of that proposal. None of what follows deals with the merits of the proposed amendment.

In my attempt to explain what the Blue Book says and to discuss all the related misunderstandings and issues, my position paper became 4+ pages. Too long. I’ll see if I can develop a shorter, clearer version. Here goes.

The WBCCI Constitution, Article XVI, is unchanged since at least 1993, and it describes two methods to amend the Constitution. Those who propose amendments must choose one method or the other.

Section 1 of the Article states in part that, “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.” Up to one year is allowed for this process. This method uses votes from each of the chartered Units. Headquarters keeps the tally. Neither the International Board of Trustees (IBT) nor the Delegates are part of this process. I believe this method is the more complicated of the two. It may be for this reason that in our Club’s 50+ year history, the WBCCI Constitution has never been amended using Article XVI, Section 1 procedures.

Section 2 states in part that, “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.” All amendments to the WBCCI Constitution have used Section 2 procedures.

I accept the contention that DenCo’s work was done in good faith. I apologize to the DenCo Unit if incorrect information was provided to them. At this point, I don’t know who said what to whom. It is my understanding that all units, except Wyoming, in Region 11 have voted on the proposal. Letters have been written, effort has been expended, and time has passed. I accept all of that. I also agree that the Article should be rewritten for clarity. That is why on December 14, I asked Dona Garner, Club Parliamentarian and Chairman of the Blue Book Revision Committee, to add Article XVI to that Committee’s tasks.

I believe that the initial DenCo proposal got off track by attempting to comply with processing requirements of both Sections 1 and 2. As mentioned above, one method or the other is to be used. For example, if the original intent was to get the proposed amendment before the Delegates at the annual June 30 meeting, then none of the letters of certification from all Units in the Club were required. But that process was begun. If the original intent was to obtain Unit votes over the allowed one year period, then Region and International Board action is not required. But the Region 11 Board voted last October.

So where are we today? I recently had a most useful email exchange with Patti Reed, the new Denver Colorado Unit President.

I have directed Cindy Reed, Corporate Manager to return the original proposal to her without action. Patti is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is now a Region 11 motion because it was accepted by all units in Region 11. Don Shafer, Chairman of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, stated that the proposed amendment became a Region 11 motion when it was received a majority vote by the Region11 Board. Friends, it looks like we have agreement. What is currently on the table is Motion 5 (Revised), which is on the agenda for the 24-28 January, 2011 IBT Meeting in Robstown, Texas.

Safe Travels

Norm Beu President, WBCCI
__________________
Forrest
Out for coffee!
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 02:05 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
Forrest's Avatar
 
1986 32' Excella
Aurora , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 636
Images: 21
Angry My reply to President Beu

The following letter I sent to the President and all members of the IBT:

Dear President Beu,

I am dismayed at the confusion that has occurred at the International level of our club and its lack of communication with the Denver Colorado Unit. It is only now, with your recent letters that we seem to be having direct dialogue.

I am the author and original maker of the motion. Yet, not once, not ever, has anyone from the Constitution and Bylaws Committee directly contacted me. I (and the DENCO Unit) would be completely in the dark if not for Region 11 President Dan Neumarkel’s attempts to keep us informed. Until now, we were not aware that his certification letter made it sound as though the Unit Presidents voted on our motion at the Annual REGION 11 BOARD Meeting. Had anyone pointed this out to us it could have been immediately corrected, but because of Chairman Shafer’s insistence that communications follow “the chain of command,” that problem was never made known to us – until this moment.

It is, however, a matter of record that President Neumarkel asked Chairman Shafer to communicate directly with us. More than once I know I included him in correspondence and even wrote to him directly. There was never a reply. Again, this is a matter of record as I have kept all correspondence.

From the very beginning, the DENCO Unit made it clear that our motion was to proceed according to the requirements of Section 1, NOT Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution. This was also clear to Corporate Manager Cindy Reed, whose instructions I asked for and that all the units in Region 11 followed – to the letter.

As for whether or not there was a requirement that it first go to the C&BC prior to being certified there is, by your own admission, no precedence to follow. There likewise are no guidelines, forms, or directions of any kind in the Blue Book. There is only the Constitution and we have followed its procedure as it is laid out, in numerical order, as it is written, not as Chairman Shafer or Parliamentarian Garner would prefer it read. I won’t belabor this as I have already written extensively about it.

Their opinion is just that – an opinion. If it is not obvious to everyone involved, then let me say it directly. Chairman Shafer has a conflict of interest regarding our motion. He is chair of the C&BC and our motion, if ratified, would remove some of that committee’s authority.

Our motion has not been withdrawn. If President Neumarkel needs to resubmit his letter to correct a clerical error, then he should be allowed to do so. A motion should not be rejected because it was not processed correctly after it has left the control of the maker.

Yet, you wrote, “The matter became so twisted that I asked WBCCI Corporate Manager Cindy Reed to return the original proposal to DenCo President Patti Reed without action.” Your order is ex parte, done unilaterally, without permission of the IBT. Taking a motion out of “action” is something that is properly done at a business meeting, following RONR. To do otherwise, interferes with the “Means by Which Business Is Brought Before the Assembly.” [See RONR (10th ed), p.26, MOTIONS]

It creates the impression, at least, that you are not following the principle of impartiality required by RONR (10th ed), p.21, l. 30-35, “Customs of formality… serve to maintain the chair’s necessary position of impartiality and help to preserve an objective and impersonal approach, especially when serious divisions of opinion arise.”

It circumvents the Constitutional authority of the International Board of Trustees to meet and exercise its, “supervision of all officers and committees,” specifically the Constitution and Bylaws Committee and its chair, International Past President Don Shafer. [See Article IX]

You wrote, "Processing was flawed from the beginning, and I don't know whose advice they were following." Really? You don't know? Again, I have written about this several times, but I'll repeat it now. Then Region 11 President Janie Lichtfuss, a certified parliamentarian, was present at the time I made my motion. She confirmed that we were following procedure and even just recently, in light of everything that has transpired, wrote that she remains convinced that we did everything correctly.

The screw up, as many members see it, is at the International level. Its officers and chairs and committees and staff seem confused, uninformed, the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Chairman Shafer wrote that he is following the precedent set by his predecessor. Yet you write that the Constitution has never been amended taking the path of Section 1. So, is there precedent or not? President Neumarkel appears to have written that the motion was voted on by Unit presidents at the Region board meeting. Yet, that did not happen. Corporate Manager Cindy Reed gives us one set of instructions, yet Chairman Shafer tells us otherwise. But, the blame falls on us. We are told, we don't know what we are doing, or that we don't really know what we want, and that we don't know how to do it.

This is a betrayal of our good faith actions, plain and simple. I and members of the DENCO Unit board have worked on this proposal since 2009, the members in Region 11 discussed, debated, voted on it at their business meetings. It was passed unanimously and represents a mandate that must be honored, but you write that we are just emotional and should resubmit it. If that is done, you certainly will not have to concern yourself with the issue since by the time we might be able to do so it will be 2012.

You and Chairman Shafer have written about your honor. What about ours? I will not let go of this, I owe it to everyone in my unit and region to see to it that their efforts and mine are not wasted.

Sincerely,

Forrest McClure
DENCO Unit Trustee and Unit Past President.
__________________
Forrest
Out for coffee!
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 04:00 PM   #22
Certifiable
 
mistral blue's Avatar
 
. , .
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,460
Once Again...

Betrayal.

No Dignity
No Integrity
No Honor.

Failure!

Once Again...
__________________
"IT'S A MAGICAL WORLD, HOBBES, OL' BUDDY... LET'S GO EXPLORING!" ~ CALVIN
mistral blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 05:15 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
wheel interested's Avatar
 
2007 23' International CCD
Lapeer , Michigan
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,039
Forrest, thank you for keeping us up to date on your continued effort and club actions. All eyes are upon these matters and the principal players. It is worth noting that even after dotting all "i"s and crossing all "t"s, working ethically and respectfully, strictly according to leadership's own Robert's Rules, the results still expose the EC once again shifting the playing field as the game remains in progress and changing the rules and interpretting them as they go along to suit their devices to give themselves advantage over membership. Different tact, different characters, but still the same resulting obstructionism by hook or by crook that we have come to witness repeatedly...

Coincidently I just was reading about such duplicity and deception. In the wake of a very challenging year, also for her, Dr. Laura has written a book, "Surviving a Shark Attack (On Land.)" I know many are experiencing feelings of shock and mistrust as actions do speak louder than the words of communication that barely surface in the WBCCI and then leave bewilderment and frustration in their aftermath. It was noted that, “There is a reason Dante made betrayal the deepest level of hell.” Betrayals are frightening, destructive, painful, humiliating, demoralizing, and so very, very hard to repair. Betrayals undermine people, relationships, institutions (churches, schools, businesses, government, politics) — everything. The entire fabric of humanity depends upon people depending upon each other for their word, honesty, and loyalty.

Wrong doing has no rules of engagement, no morals or values to monitor or measure its actions. It has the gall and the sense of entitlement to enjoy the winning and recognizing the pain it has caused and feeds off confrontation. It is able to persist ultimately because most people won’t stand up to it. Worried about being targeted next, they deny the existence, potency, or significance of a betrayal because it hasn’t touched them — yet...ergo apathy. We are fortunate that the membership has Forrest's commitment to continue to hold leadership accountable for their actions using the club's own set of rules to further members' interests and to bring to light and oppose the misdeeds and inappropriate proceedings that are often quickly pushed forward to deflect and forestall the will of general membership as it crosses the personal desire of what should be "our very own elected club representatives."
__________________
Caroljb



photography
wheel interested is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 05:39 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
Forrest's Avatar
 
1986 32' Excella
Aurora , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 636
Images: 21
Very elegantly stated Carol, thank you.
__________________
Forrest
Out for coffee!
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 06:42 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
Forrest's Avatar
 
1986 32' Excella
Aurora , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 636
Images: 21
Talking This just in!

In a continuing effort to fight misinformation, I obtained the minutes from the Oct. 2010 Region 11 Board meeting.

Under, New Business it reads: "Forrest McClure of the Denver Colorado Unit has made a motion to amend the Constitution. Region XI does not need to vote on this, but we need a vote to ratify the results of this vote. The count is 6 units have voted to approve the amendment. Michael Glenn moved to ratify the vote and Tom Stalling seconded. The motion to ratify was passed."

While perhaps the wording might have been a bit more clear, it is apparent that the Region 11 Board did not vote on the Motion itself, but only voted to validate that the Unit Certification Letters were received, in good order and in sufficient number to authorize Region 11 President Neumarkel to mail them and his letter of certification to HQ.

I have even just asked current Region 11 First Vice-President Richard Girard to verify that. Here is his response, "Exactly. Dan was very clear that this was not a vote on the motion, but merely a vote to ratify the voting of the Region 11 units. This was done at the suggestion of Andy Richers (Past Region 11 President) who was filling in for Janie Lictfuss as Parliamentarian."

I would also note that the minutes show that Past Region 11 President Don Mantle was present.

Here's a couple of questions to ponder: How many more Past Region Presidents do we need present at board meetings to insure that the correct procedures are being followed? Why is it too difficult to ask what transpired, what the vote was for, or what the board's intentions were?

Yet, President Beu wrote, "The matter became so twisted that I asked WBCCI Corporate Manager Cindy Reed to return the original proposal to DenCo President Patti Reed without action. Processing was flawed from the beginning, and I don't know whose advice they were following."
__________________
Forrest
Out for coffee!
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 10:53 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
66Overlander's Avatar
 
1962 22' Safari
2016 30' Classic
Somewhere , in the USA
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,975
Images: 41
I am not a parlimentarian, and perhaps am a bit of an optimist, but I am reading the following statements differently how most others apparently are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forrest View Post
The following was just released via President Beu's Constant Contact:

. . . Section 1 of the Article states in part that, “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.” Up to one year is allowed for this process. This method uses votes from each of the chartered Units. Headquarters keeps the tally. Neither the International Board of Trustees (IBT) nor the Delegates are part of this process. . .

. . . I believe that the initial DenCo proposal got off track by attempting to comply with processing requirements of both Sections 1 and 2. As mentioned above, one method or the other is to be used. For example, if the original intent was to get the proposed amendment before the Delegates at the annual June 30 meeting, then none of the letters of certification from all Units in the Club were required. But that process was begun. If the original intent was to obtain Unit votes over the allowed one year period, then Region and International Board action is not required. But the Region 11 Board voted last October. . .
It seems to me that the door has been opened for the Denver Unit or Region 11 President to just bypass HQ entirely and send this to the other 11 Regions or to each Unit in the other 11 Regions for their consideration and vote. It sound to me that if 2/3rds of the Units certify to HQ within a 12 month period that they have approved this motion it is "ratified" and must be implemented.

Am I missing something? Maybe it is just simpler to bypass HQ and the CBL Committee entirely.
__________________
Joe
Wally Byam Caravan Club International Historian
Vintage Airstream Club Historian
WBCCI/VAC #6768

(Looking for a vintage 1960's fiberglass front window guard)
66Overlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 11:02 PM   #27
Site Team
 
azflycaster's Avatar
 
1975 25' Tradewind
Dewey , Arizona
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 12,127
Images: 62
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Overlander View Post
Am I missing something? Maybe it is just simpler to bypass HQ and the CBL Committee entirely.
Joe - What you are missing is contained in Section 3.
__________________

Richard

Wally Byam Airstream Club 7513
azflycaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 11:18 PM   #28
Rivet Master
 
Forrest's Avatar
 
1986 32' Excella
Aurora , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 636
Images: 21
Hi Joe,

What the President seems to be saying is that it appears to him that the Denver Unit presented the motion so as to comply with Section 1, but that the Region Executive Board voted on the motion in a manner complying with Section 2 and a motion must follow one or the other, not both.

However, my last post uncovered the truth. The Region Board didn't vote on the motion. They voted to accept the certified votes from the Units as being valid and in sufficient number for the Region President to certify them to HQ.

Section 3, is admittedly poorly worded in that is states all motions must go to the C&BC. It does not contain the word "certified." So, Don Shafer and Dona Garner feel that means the motion should go to committee prior to being certified (voted on). There are all kinds of problems presented if it is done that way and requires reading Article XVI backwards (Section 3 first, then Section 1 or 2).

But you are right in wondering if the C&BC shouldn't be bypassed altogether. You are not the only one reading it that way. Even though I'd prefer it that way, I don't read it that way myself. Not just me, but others, including Past Region President and certified parliamentarian, Janie Lichtfuss, believe Section 3 requires a letter of recommendation AFTER the Region Units certify the motion.
__________________

__________________
Forrest
Out for coffee!
Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2011, president's remarks, wbcci


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.