Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2013, 08:22 AM   #15
Rivet Master
 
wkerfoot's Avatar
 
1979 23' Safari
1954 29' Liner
Orange , California
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,667
Number of members has not been disclosed, but several number have been bounced around. Neither has a survey of motorhome members been started, asking them what they want.

Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protagonist View Post
Just to put things in context, I have a question…

Exactly how many— or how few— members are directly affected? Meaning, how many life members or 10-year members want to sell their Airstream, but buy a Thor Industries class "A" and stay in the club? Is is one percent of the total membership? A tenth of a percent? Just one or two members?

Since I suspect that it's such a small percentage as to be insignificant. And I suspect that the sole reason the issue was ever brought up, let alone being brought up again and again, is because of WHO the members are that want to sell their Airstreams but stay in the club.

In other words, I believe it's nothing more than blatant favoritism, cronyism, or toadyism (take your pick). That is not how a proper non-profit organization should be run. When a motion is designed to benefit specific members rather than the membership as a whole, it should not survive long enough to even reach the voting stage. It should be reviewed by the Ethics and Grievance Standing Committee, and struck down like the farce that it is.

Personally, I think that anyone who bought a life membership understood the constitution and bylaws, that if they sold their Airstream after buying a life membership, they would automatically become former life members. Those folks ought to count their blessings, by virtue of the fact that they can become former life members without having to be formerly alive!
__________________

__________________
Bill Kerfoot, WBCCI/VAC/CAC/El Camino Real Unit #5223
Just my personal opinion
1973 Dodge W200 PowerWagon, 1977 Lincoln Continental, 2014 Dodge Durango
1979 23' Safari, and 1954 29' Double Door Liner Orange, CA

http://billbethsblog.blogspot.com/
wkerfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 08:39 AM   #16
Rivet Master

 
Southwestern , Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protagonist View Post
Personally, I think that anyone who bought a life membership understood the constitution and bylaws, that if they sold their Airstream after buying a life membership, they would automatically become former life members.
Yes, but at the time many of the life members became life members, Airstream produced a full line of recreational vehicles, including Class A motor homes. Don't forget this schism was precipitated by Airstream's decision to stop producing Class A's.
.
__________________

__________________
Nuvite-F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 09:37 AM   #17
Figment of My Imagination
 
Protagonist's Avatar
 
2012 Interstate Coach
From All Over , More Than Anywhere Else
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuvite-F View Post
Yes, but at the time many of the life members became life members, Airstream produced a full line of recreational vehicles, including Class A motor homes. Don't forget this schism was precipitated by Airstream's decision to stop producing Class A's.
.
It's still favoritism, no matter what the reason. Sine the motion hasn't passed, yet, the only people who can propose the motion are people who still own an Airstream. They're basically saying, "My good friend here wants to sell his Airstream, but I don't want him to leave the club, so let's change the rules so he can stay." How can that be anything but favoritism, which has no place in a properly-run NPO?

Is it a schism? Maybe. I've heard lots of folks say, "I'll quit if it passes" but near as I can tell the only people who'll quit if it fails are the ones who'll have to quit because without an Airstream they'll no longer qualify for membership anyway.

And how can I forget what I never knew? The MOHO issue was already an issue by the time I joined WBCCI early in 2012. The last Airstream Class A rolled off the assembly line in 2002, according to the Airstream website. The MOHO issue didn't become an issue until about 2011, according to an earlier post on this thread. If any WBCCI members felt that Airstream deprived them of their right to own a Class "A" then why didn't this become an issue way back in 2003? Or did it become an issue back then, and it's been hanging fire for a whole decade and I just never knew?

Are all the people who will benefit from this motion present owners of Airstream class A motorhomes? Or are they presently trailer owners? Since it's already been said that we don't know how many will benefit, we can't know their demographic with regard to present ownership without knowing who they are.

And doesn't the whole Thor Motorhome issue serve as an insult to the good people who own and lovingly restore and maintain 2002 and earlier Airstream Class A's? Heck, some of the Airstream class As still on the road aren't even old enough for their owners to qualify for members in the Vintage Airstream Club!

I'll go on record by saying I won't quit WBCCI if the MOHO motion passes. However, I will not belong to any unit that allows Thor MOHO members. Since there are probably more Units than there are members who want a Thor motorhome, I'm sure I'll be able to find at least one that has a membership that's all-Airstream.
__________________
WBCCI #1105
TAC LA-4

My Google-Fu is strong today.
Protagonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 10:56 AM   #18
Rivet Master
 
Lily&Me's Avatar

 
2006 22' Interstate
Normal , Illinois
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 13,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protagonist View Post
It's still favoritism, no matter what the reason. Sine the motion hasn't passed, yet, the only people who can propose the motion are people who still own an Airstream. They're basically saying, "My good friend here wants to sell his Airstream, but I don't want him to leave the club, so let's change the rules so he can stay." How can that be anything but favoritism, which has no place in a properly-run NPO?
At the last mid-winter IBT meeting we attended, February 2011 as I recall, no sooner was this issue dead in the water--again--but one of the quite elderly IBT members leaned to the man next to him on the dais and said "What do we have to do to get this MO-HO issued passed?!

It was predicted here on the Forums at the time that this issue would promptly and continually resurface. It has always appeared to us to be the wishes of the clear minority using their positions of power to try to impose themselves on the clear majority.

They do not care what the majority want, nor how many members might leave.

It's "Quality over quantity" they want, remember?


Maggie
__________________
🏡 🚐 Cherish and appreciate those you love. This moment could be your last.🌹🐚❤️
Lily&Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 11:59 AM   #19
Rivet Master
 
wkerfoot's Avatar
 
1979 23' Safari
1954 29' Liner
Orange , California
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,667
The motor home motion originally came up for a vote in 2007 in Perry, GA. I believe that it was over 70% against. It has been festering ever since.

Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protagonist View Post
It's still favoritism, no matter what the reason. Sine the motion hasn't passed, yet, the only people who can propose the motion are people who still own an Airstream. They're basically saying, "My good friend here wants to sell his Airstream, but I don't want him to leave the club, so let's change the rules so he can stay." How can that be anything but favoritism, which has no place in a properly-run NPO?

Is it a schism? Maybe. I've heard lots of folks say, "I'll quit if it passes" but near as I can tell the only people who'll quit if it fails are the ones who'll have to quit because without an Airstream they'll no longer qualify for membership anyway.

And how can I forget what I never knew? The MOHO issue was already an issue by the time I joined WBCCI early in 2012. The last Airstream Class A rolled off the assembly line in 2002, according to the Airstream website. The MOHO issue didn't become an issue until about 2011, according to an earlier post on this thread. If any WBCCI members felt that Airstream deprived them of their right to own a Class "A" then why didn't this become an issue way back in 2003? Or did it become an issue back then, and it's been hanging fire for a whole decade and I just never knew?

Are all the people who will benefit from this motion present owners of Airstream class A motorhomes? Or are they presently trailer owners? Since it's already been said that we don't know how many will benefit, we can't know their demographic with regard to present ownership without knowing who they are.

And doesn't the whole Thor Motorhome issue serve as an insult to the good people who own and lovingly restore and maintain 2002 and earlier Airstream Class A's? Heck, some of the Airstream class As still on the road aren't even old enough for their owners to qualify for members in the Vintage Airstream Club!

I'll go on record by saying I won't quit WBCCI if the MOHO motion passes. However, I will not belong to any unit that allows Thor MOHO members. Since there are probably more Units than there are members who want a Thor motorhome, I'm sure I'll be able to find at least one that has a membership that's all-Airstream.
__________________
Bill Kerfoot, WBCCI/VAC/CAC/El Camino Real Unit #5223
Just my personal opinion
1973 Dodge W200 PowerWagon, 1977 Lincoln Continental, 2014 Dodge Durango
1979 23' Safari, and 1954 29' Double Door Liner Orange, CA

http://billbethsblog.blogspot.com/
wkerfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 12:15 PM   #20
Figment of My Imagination
 
Protagonist's Avatar
 
2012 Interstate Coach
From All Over , More Than Anywhere Else
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkerfoot View Post
The motor home motion originally came up for a vote in 2007 in Perry, GA. I believe that it was over 70% against. It has been festering ever since.

Bill
Festering. Good word, that.
__________________
WBCCI #1105
TAC LA-4

My Google-Fu is strong today.
Protagonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 12:16 PM   #21
Aluminum in 3-D
 
Blue Pearl's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Seaside , Oregon
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 571
Images: 1
To answer Protagonist questions.
When I was on the MoHo Commettee 2011 I did ask Cindy Reed for data on Motor homes. 400 MoHo in the club, of that she couldn't give me a breakdown of b-vans, vintage, new style.
At IBT this winter,I have say,I have never seen more Airstream motorhomes as I did there, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the 80 rigs present were MoHo. 4 were classics and 1 was a b-van and 1 interstate.
Of the current IP and IVP 2 had MOHO's and 3 had trailers. The International secretary and treasurer also had trailers.
I didn't do a count of region officers but I can tell you Region 10 officers have 2 with trailers and 1 with a MOHO. All region 12 officers have trailers. If anyone else knows about their region officers it would be good to know the stats.
I also talked to members at the IBT, all MOHO owners, what a surprise, of the 8 I talked with only 1 said they would buy a new Thor Motor Home and that was because the Moho they had was to big. All the others said this would be their last RV and or they would not spend the money on a newer MoHo.
As a club we are turning the corner on membership because the Airstream Trailer is becoming more popular as the RV of choice for the boomer
generation. The units that are growing and turning this club around are the ones with the support of their Airstream dealer.
The last thing I want to comment on is, as we traveled the South West this winter we did see a lot of MotorHomes of all brands. A lot of those MoHo were used as condos just to stay in the RV resort for the Winter then go home. Many were for sale as owners were realizing it was cheaper to buy a park model in a park and just drive or fly home. That's one thing I didn't expect.
Do we really think Thor MoHo owners would want to join an Airstream club with all those little silver tin cans. And also, what will the Thor Club think of us trying to steal their members. This is not being very nice to our Thor Sister club.
__________________
Teresa

Membership chair
Wally Byam Airstream Club
Past President Oregon Unit 090

Campfires, the original social media!
wbcci#29827

Check out the [URL="https://airstreamclub.org/"and Wally Byam Airstream Club on facebook
Blue Pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 12:26 PM   #22
Rivet Master

 
Southwestern , Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkerfoot View Post
The motor home motion originally came up for a vote in 2007 in Perry, GA. I believe that it was over 70% against. It has been festering ever since.
Also--for the benefit of the newbies--WBCCI asked this question as part of a general poll of the members in 2004:

Q: "The WBCCI membership base should be broadened to include any RV brand made by Thor Industries, parent company of Airstream." (1058 respondents)


Response:
1.Strongly agree = 91/8.53%


2.Agree 129/12.09%


3.Disagree 206/19.31%


4.Strongly Disagree 610/57.17%


5.No Opinion 22/2.06%


In other words, 76% of the membership opposed the admission of other Thor brands into WBCCI.

No, this is not a new issue.
.
__________________
Nuvite-F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 12:40 PM   #23
Figment of My Imagination
 
Protagonist's Avatar
 
2012 Interstate Coach
From All Over , More Than Anywhere Else
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,306
The last couple responses have helped put things into better perspective for me. Thanks much.

So, next question, is it the same person putting forth this motion every time? Or people from the same Unit?

I ask because, if so few of the movers and shakers would even be interested in owning a Thor motorhome, I have to wonder if the pool of people who will genuinely benefit from the motion—if by some horrible miracle it passes— is limited to just one?
__________________
WBCCI #1105
TAC LA-4

My Google-Fu is strong today.
Protagonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 02:30 PM   #24
Site Team
 
Janet H's Avatar

 
1964 26' Overlander
1964 19' Globetrotter
Eastern , Washington
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,447
Images: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protagonist View Post
The last couple responses have helped put things into better perspective for me. Thanks much.

So, next question, is it the same person putting forth this motion every time? Or people from the same Unit?

I ask because, if so few of the movers and shakers would even be interested in owning a Thor motorhome, I have to wonder if the pool of people who will genuinely benefit from the motion—if by some horrible miracle it passes— is limited to just one?
There's the $64,000 question.

In my opinion there are a few folks at the top of the leadership pyramid who are faced with the possibility that when their class A is no longer in service and cannot be replaced in kind, they will need to relinquish their roles. Great leaders backfill with newer great leaders who are prepared to fill the voids; they stuff the pipeline with talented and energetic folks. This is how successful organizations evolve and keep moving forward.

A more moderate (and compassionate) stance might be to allow membership for the ten year + crowd without an Airstream, but exclude them from holding office. Set up a new membership category for some sort of affiliate. They can attend rallies, participate in local unit activities with friends, etc but have limited leadership roles.

As an argosy owner, I'm keenly aware that it's tough to feel excluded and that some compassion is in order, but have the nagging feeling that this whole MOHO proposal is about power and position, not camping.
__________________
1964 Overlander | '08 Touareg V6
Current Project: 1964 Globetrotter

.
Let's have a polishing party: I'll supply the trailer and buffing supplies. BYOB (bring your own buffer)

AirForums Custom Search
Janet H is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 02:33 PM   #25
Figment of My Imagination
 
Protagonist's Avatar
 
2012 Interstate Coach
From All Over , More Than Anywhere Else
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet View Post
A more moderate (and compassionate) stance might be to allow membership for the ten year + crowd without an Airstream, but exclude them from holding office. Set up a new membership category for some sort of affiliate. They can attend rallies, etc but have limited leadership roles.
Members Emeritus. They could attend the events. They could wear the berets. But they couldn't vote or hold office. Hey, if it's good enough for the former pope…
__________________
WBCCI #1105
TAC LA-4

My Google-Fu is strong today.
Protagonist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 09:19 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
Coloradobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 784
The Class A proponents won't agree to any restrictions placed on them, unless they have had a change of heart I haven't heard about.
__________________
JIM n CHRIS
"62 ATW Overlander, '51 Flying Cloud
'67 GT, '90 Squarestream 29ft, 06 Bambi, Bigfoot slide in/GMC Denali K2500, Marathon Coach, Class A.
Coloradobus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 09:50 PM   #27
1 Rivet Member
 
Aolani's Avatar
 
2010 25' FB Flying Cloud
Santa Rosa , California
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 13
As I understand it, this was given to the Bylaws Committee (in June 2012) to address some technical parts of the earlier amendment. I believe it was always expected to come back for a vote, albeit possibly slightly revised.

So now it's revised, with the part about the Life and/or 10yr membership clause and (I think) the part about Class A added. Anyway, the vote will be interesting - one way or the other it may get resolved this June...
__________________
Eric
WBCCI #2242
Santa Clara Unit (CA)
Aolani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 09:53 PM   #28
Rivet Master

 
Southwestern , Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coloradobus View Post
The Class A proponents won't agree to any restrictions placed on them, unless they have had a change of heart I haven't heard about.
This possibility was considered in the Motor Home Special Committee report to the July, 2011 IBT meeting:

Quote:
It was also suggested that if Thor motor homes were allowed in the club, the owners could not hold office in WBCCI, and, in fact, they could only be affiliate members. The majority of this committee's members judged that to be extremely biased and prejudicial.
So take that, all you biased and prejudiced members.
.
__________________

__________________
Nuvite-F is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 08:46 PM.


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.