WBCCI MOHO Issue - 2013

[A/S Squared]

Well, here we go again!
I just finished reading Amendment #1 for the 2013 Delegate meeting that will be held at the Int'l in Huron SD. Looks like another proposal to push thru Thor Motorhomes into the club. This time they want to allow Life members and members over 10 yrs of membership to purchase a Thor product. If this passes, anybody with over 10 years in the club or just decides to become a Life member could go out and purchase an SOB Motorhome.

[eubank]

Yes, I think it's fairly widely known that the matter was going to come before the delegates again.

Lynn

[Buttercup]

I haven't read it yet, but the "10 years in the club" part is news to me. I'll be reading it this evening. Needless to say I do not support any sort of SOB motorhome issue in any form.

[Janet H]

Originally Posted by A/S Squared

..... Looks like another proposal to push thru Thor Motorhomes into the club. This time they want to allow Life members and members over 10 yrs of membership to purchase a Thor product. If this passes, anybody with over 10 years in the club or just decides to become a Life member could go out and purchase an SOB Motorhome.

Sigh..... Haven't we already done this?

Just like last time, this just seems counter intuitive. I wonder how many folks would have joined the WBCCI if it wasn't a brand specific club?

[Protagonist]

Maybe WBCCI needs a "three strikes" rule, so that if a motion is defeated three times it's dead forever, and can't be resurrected anymore? Otherwise this will just keep coming up every single year.

[drag'nwagon]

Anybody know who wrote this one? Did it come from Region 4 again?

[c_lewis77]

This regurgitation of the MOHO issue every year seems like quite a waste of effort and resources that could be used for a more constructive application. Resources that could grow the club or improve upon rallies/caravans and such.

[rideair]

Sonny & Cher The Beat Goes On - YouTube

Enjoy,

[Buttercup]

The latest version was presented at the 2012 Delegates meeting by June Ryan. I may have this wrong but I do believe she is a very strong proponent to this happening. She made the presentatuin in 2011 as well - http://www.airforums.com/forums/f286...ml#post1015521

Originally Posted by drag'nwagon

Anybody know who wrote this one? Did it come from Region 4 again?

[Howard E]

Originally Posted by rideair

Enjoy,

Unless one goes and Bonos.

[Pahaska]

In whatever form it passes, it will cost this club far more members than it retains.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by drag'nwagon

Anybody know who wrote this one? Did it come from Region 4 again?

This is the same motion that came up at the 2012 Delegates Meeting. There was an attempt to call the question (which I think would have resulted in the motion being voted down) but it did not succeed. Instead the motion was sent to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to correct technical deficiencies, so here it is again.

I'm hopeful that it will be put to a vote this time, and voted down again.

If it passes, it won't bother me too much, because at that point I'll be through with WBCCI.
.

[RUMSHIP]

Originally Posted by Pahaska

In whatever form it passes, it will cost this club far more members than it retains.

Agreed.

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by Pahaska

In whatever form it passes, it will cost this club far more members than it retains.

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!

[wkerfoot]

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

Originally Posted by Protagonist

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!

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by Protagonist

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.
.

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

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.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Protagonist

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

[wkerfoot]

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

Originally Posted by Protagonist

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.

[Protagonist]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

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.