WBCCI Feb. Presidents message

[Forrest]

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Our motion has not been withdrawn.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.

[mistral blue]

Betrayal.

No Dignity
No Integrity
No Honor.

Failure!

Once Again...

[wheel interested]

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."

[Forrest]

Very elegantly stated Carol, thank you.

[Forrest]

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."

[66Overlander]

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:

Originally Posted by Forrest

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.

[azflycaster]

Originally Posted by 66Overlander

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.

[Forrest]

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.

[Lily&Me]

Thank you, thank you, Forrest. Carol, you are a word wizard.

Forrest, could you lay out, step by step, exactly what needs to transpire at this point in time for this Motion to move forward? This for the benefit of the interested and/or naive, for us all to read and follow.

It's time for President Beu and the IBT to step up to the plate, show there is indeed a moral center there somewhere and do the right thing. Your members are watching and waiting, and in fact judging your behavior.


Maggie

[66Overlander]

Originally Posted by Forrest

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.

Hi Forrest,
Finally went and read the Amendments part of the Constitution. If you read only section 1 bypassing HQ seems to be proper procedure. If you read section 3, however, it seems to me that you guys followed that one to a "tee", too, and amendments using section 1 or 2 need to go through section 3 for CBL Committee comment only (not blockage).

Besides the overall lack of clarity in these sections, one issue I see is that the time March 20 frame given in section 3 clearly only applies to section 2 type amendments that require ratification at the Delegates meeting. Section 1 amendments should be able to the Units at any time. Ideally, for section 1 amendments a review and comment time limit would be put on the CBL Committee (e.g. 60 days). Since that is not in there, I guess they can sit on any section 1 amendment until March 20, or up to 364 days in the worst case. Clearly, this section is not written as well as it could be. Hopefully the CBL Revision Committee will address this shortcoming.

After reading the Constitution, I tend to agree that the CBL Chair appears to be trying to defeat this without proper authority to do so. Disappointing.

I wonder what the Club would do if you tried to put this motion forward by Section 1 alone and a majority of Units in a majority of Regions approved it and certified so to HQ? I think that would be termed a "mandate".

[Gene]

Whatever the procedural technicalities, the action in refusing the amendment looks bad because of past efforts by the organization's ruling group to maintain their power. PR is not their strong point.

Gene

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Whatever the procedural technicalities, the action in refusing the amendment looks bad because of past efforts by the organization's ruling group to maintain their power. PR is not their strong point.

Gene

The thing is at the IBT meetings there are plenty of times that motions are sent back to the writer and the writer has the opportunity to correct discrepencies with the benefit of the parlimentarian's, the IP's and committee chairmens' advice if the EC is behind the motion. They actually call a recess and sit down together with help and hash out an acceptable revision. But oftentimes if they are not behind it, we see last minute rulings though the documents have been forwarded well in advance and could have easily been corrected before the meeting. These kind of dismissals of motions that do not have the IBT backing are not uncommon, whereas time and effort to correct motions is liberally taken when it has the approval of the IBT prior to the vote and often prior and irregardless of any discussion. The meetings are held twice a year but "business" seems already done deal well before those meetings are held.

Our good leaders and mentors should be helping membership draft and pass the initiatives they are seeking to put forward instead of summarily rejecting their efforts and thereby ending all progress with a judicial punt of dismissal on a technicality or order of a study or an order of revision to be readdressed at another time and place. Business being "officially" conducted only twice a year insures change is anything but swift even without new items being shelved.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Whatever the procedural technicalities, the action in refusing the amendment looks bad because of past efforts by the organization's ruling group to maintain their power. PR is not their strong point.

Gene

Exactly.

President Beu/the IBT could choose to allow this Motion to move forward, in recognition of the effort that has already been expended (minus timely corrections of perceived procedural errors) and after already acknowledging the flawed and confusing wording of these Sections.

It would be the right thing to do.

Maggie

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

Forrest, could you lay out, step by step, exactly what needs to transpire at this point in time for this Motion to move forward?

No, Forrest can't lay out, step by step, exactly what needs to transpire, because whatever they do it will be wrong. That's how bureaucratic obstruction works.

Go read the IPs post above. In effect it says, "Gol-lee, nobody has ever done this before and we can't figure out what they are supposed to do, so I guess it can't be done! And since I have the last word, it can't! Now go away!"

Recall a couple years ago when Leo G was running for national office? First they decided that "for economic reasons" they wouldn't print candidate's position statements in the Blue Beret except for the ones nominated by the Nominating Committee. How's that for a level playing field? Then, when Leo tried to buy a page of advertising in the Blue Beret to promote his candidacy they refused him because it was "too divisive."

There's a message here: You can't win. You ain't ever gonna win. This is our club, not yours. Your job is to pay your dues, sit down, and shut up. (Excuse me--stand down.)

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

It's time for President Beu and the IBT to step up to the plate, show there is indeed a moral center there somewhere. . .

They just did. It's them. They are right, we are wrong. Any questions?
.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

No, Forrest can't lay out, step by step, exactly what needs to transpire, because whatever they do it will be wrong. That's how bureaucratic obstruction works.

Go read the IPs post above. In effect it says, "Gol-lee, nobody has ever done this before and we can't figure out what they are supposed to do, so I guess it can't be done! And since I have the last word, it can't! Now go away!"

Recall a couple years ago when Leo G was running for national office? First they decided that "for economic reasons" they wouldn't print candidate's position statements in the Blue Beret except for the ones nominated by the Nominating Committee. How's that for a level playing field? Then, when Leo tried to buy a page of advertising in the Blue Beret to promote his candidacy they refused him because it was "too divisive."

There's a message here: You can't win. You ain't ever gonna win. This is our club, not yours. Your job is to pay your dues, sit down, and shut up. (Excuse me--stand down.)

They just did. It's them. They are right, we are wrong. Any questions?
.

I read it, smarty-pants.

It ain't over til it's over. "Over" being the mid-winter meeting coming up this next week. Correct?

They can still make this right and show they are interested in becoming an entity members can and will respect and support. They otherwise will be exposed. Period. These Forums are like the Energizer Rabbit.

Man up. Change your stance. Do the right thing.


Maggie

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

I read it, smarty-pants.

It ain't over til it's over. "Over" being the mid-winter meeting coming up this next week. Correct?

They can still make this right and show they are interested in becoming an entity members can and will respect and support. They otherwise will be exposed. Period. These Forums are like the Energizer Rabbit.

Man up. Change your stance. Do the right thing.


Maggie

Maggie,

I intentionally decided last fall to withhold my dues for the coming year with payment contingent on what happens at this meeting. Unfortunately, there are clear signals that the IBT has no intention of reforming any of its practices. They have shown no moves (despite LI Pets claims) of addressing the concerns that lead to the aborted lawsuit; they apparently intend to move forward with the motor home scheme despite repeated instruction from the club membership to the contrary; and now they plan on thwarting appropriate and legal attempts from the membership to reclaim some measure of control. All three of these have happened since I decided to wait on paying my dues. I had hoped for signs of progress so I would have an excuse to remain a member, to the contrary quite the opposite appears to be occurring. Maggie, as you say, the IBT COULD CHOOSE to step up and do the right thing, and it would certainly be welcomed. However, on the basis of what has transpired in a relatively short period of time, I have no confidence that they will choose to act honorably. It makes me nauseous, but not nearly so much as I would have had I sent in another check.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

Forrest, could you lay out, step by step, exactly what needs to transpire at this point in time for this Motion to move forward?
Maggie

It is always darkest before the dawn, right? I don't think we can lay blame on the IBT for this controversy. It seems to be due more to the bureaucracy and inherent structure of the organization to maintain the status quo. AND that is exactly what the DENCO Unit motion seeks to change.

The fact is that Region 11 President Dan Neumarkel has his own motion (#5?) on the agenda specifically to get the debate in front of the IBT. President Beu has promised him that his motion will not be rejected, or ruled out of order. Of course, we'll see. But even then, we've helped Dan prepare for that, and I'm pretty sure he's been studying RONR. He wrote saying he's going to see this through to the best of his ability. Afterall, he has a mandate from his constituents - friends, his own unit, etc. - and my feeling is that he doesn't want to let them down.

In addition, there are other members on the board sympathetic and even supportive of getting the motion out to all the other Units in the country.

So, it isn't over yet, and the IBT might surprize us.

To answer your question though, the IBT needs to order the C&BC to produce its letter of recommendation and send it to HQ, and they might have to also reverse President Beu's order to return the motion to DENCO Unit President Reed. If that can be done, then the motion simply goes out to all the other Units in the country for them to vote on and they'll have one year to do so.

What can you and other members of the WBCCI do? Contact your Region President (by email or telephone) and tell him/her to support Dan's motion.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

I read it, smarty-pants.

It ain't over til it's over. "Over" being the mid-winter meeting coming up this next week. Correct?

They can still make this right and show they are interested in becoming an entity members can and will respect and support. They otherwise will be exposed. Period. These Forums are like the Energizer Rabbit.

Man up. Change your stance. Do the right thing.


Maggie

I was referring in this last sentence to the IBT et al, not to Nuvite-F, with whom I was bein' a bit sarcastic but not meant at all in a hostile nor unfriendly way.


Maggie

[wingfoot321]

Boondocker,

I agree with your thinking. I have been skipping the international but, have been paying the annual dues in order to do caravans. We are doing our last caravan this winter so I will not register and pay dues this fall.

I have only been a member since 2004 so turning loose is not such a "big deal" for us with the exception of our friends in the unit and those we have caravanned with over the years.

WBCCI reminds me of our federal government. Totally isolated from the real world as the organization crumbles around it.

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by wingfoot321

WBCCI reminds me of our federal government.

Not me so much, votes have consequences in federal elections.