WBCCI New Constitution

[wkerfoot]

The member caucus is to be "...scheduled during the summer months or at a scheduled International Rally...". Shouldn't it be required that the caucus be at the International Rally to insure the most members attend and participate?

Again, will it be necessary to attend the caucus in person to participate?

Bill

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

Forrest posted them earlier:

Those are not official and should not be relied upon.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by bugdoc

Nuvite,

Thank you for the information regarding the documents posted by Forrest. However, there are a total of 6 documents dealing with the proposal that need to be looked at as they explain many of the questions being asked and were not in the incomplete posting by Forrest. These documents will be available tomorrow or April 1 at the WBCCI web site and have been sent to the Region Presidents today.

My suggestion is to look at these as they are more complete then the documents that were sent out without the supporting documents.

Tom

I will be glad to look at the complete, "official" documents when they become available, but they are not yet available. I was merely answering Aviator's questions about the source of information that has this thread so a-twitter. . .
.

[wkerfoot]

If they are not official and not to be relied upon, is this entire discussion premature?

Bill

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Those are not official and should not be relied upon.

[LI Pets]

No I'm sure they are likely correct, but the official copy will be published on Wbcci.org tomorrow the last I understood from HQ.

All the regions were emailed at about 8:00 AM today

[Gene]

A major part of the concerns I have read for the past few years is that:

1. The WBCCI leaders are insensitive to members' concerns and are only interested in pursuing their personal agendas.

2. It takes years and years to work through the system to get into a leadership position.

3. The leaders control the nominating process and make sure their clones are nominated.

The proposals being debated in this thread since the "constitution" became public seem to touch on some of this, mainly the nominating committee, but not most of it. No matter how good the rest of this document may be, if the leaders are bad, the organization suffers. Tightening up the document to prevent the leaders from doing a bad job helps little if the same leadership continues.

So, are these issues being solved?

I am not going to read this document and suspect not many people will, so discussion on these issues seems timely and necessary. To attract new members, the organization needs to show them they will be heard and have real influence over the leadership.

I have seen it posted several times—something is a "bylaws issue". I have previously explained that commonly bylaws are about the internal governance of the organization including relationships between directors, officers and members and their respective authority. The WBCCI uses the term "constitution" to describe "bylaws" and the term "bylaws" for other things. Anything regulated by the WBCCI "bylaws" can be placed in the "constitution" if the delegates want to. If it's important enough, why not change it? The borders between these documents are fluid. It should also be noted that "bylaws" as normally defined in nonprofit corporations may be amended sometimes by the members, sometimes by the board of directors, and sometimes by both. Sometimes it takes a supermajority of the board and a simple majority of the members voting.

Gene

[bugdoc]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

A major part of the concerns I have read for the past few years is that:

I am not going to read this document and suspect not many people will, so discussion on these issues seems timely and necessary. To attract new members, the organization needs to show them they will be heard and have real influence over the leadership.

I have seen it posted several times—something is a "bylaws issue". I have previously explained that commonly bylaws are about the internal governance of the organization including relationships between directors, officers and members and their respective authority. The WBCCI uses the term "constitution" to describe "bylaws" and the term "bylaws" for other things. Anything regulated by the WBCCI "bylaws" can be placed in the "constitution" if the delegates want to. If it's important enough, why not change it? The borders between these documents are fluid. It should also be noted that "bylaws" as normally defined in nonprofit corporations may be amended sometimes by the members, sometimes by the board of directors, and sometimes by both. Sometimes it takes a supermajority of the board and a simple majority of the members voting.

Gene

Gene,

I am disappointed that, if I have read your statement above correctly, you are not going to read the documents relating to the proposed revision or the revision. It is difficult to carry on a discussion if you have not read the materials being discussed.

Please understand that WBCCI has 2 documents. There is a constitution, which essentially describes the structure and objectives of the corporation, how its officers an members are selected, how it votes, and amends its constitution and a second document the Bylaws, which describes the procedures for running the corporation. The Bylaws are something subject to change whereas the constitution is not something one wants to change that often. This is why it requires a 2/3 majority of the membership voting to make a change in it. On the other hand the Bylaws can be altered currently by the IBT with a simple majority vote, something that is described in the current Bylaws.

I will repeat again the proposed revision, which contains an article giving the IBT the power to establish Bylaws is not set in stone. If a proposed amendment to that article is brought forth by the delegates, which would make the creation of Bylaws more inclusive the delegates will have the opportunity to do so. As you have said "If it's important enough, why not change it?". Well that opportunity exists for the delegates.

Tom

[Gene]

Tom,

You left out the main part of my post and perhaps the intention is to avoid it:

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

A major part of the concerns I have read for the past few years is that:

1. The WBCCI leaders are insensitive to members' concerns and are only interested in pursuing their personal agendas.

2. It takes years and years to work through the system to get into a leadership position.

3. The leaders control the nominating process and make sure their clones are nominated.

The proposals being debated in this thread since the "constitution" became public seem to touch on some of this, mainly the nominating committee, but not most of it. No matter how good the rest of this document may be, if the leaders are bad, the organization suffers. Tightening up the document to prevent the leaders from doing a bad job helps little if the same leadership continues.

So, are these issues being solved?

And why should I read it? I'm not a member, but if it made sense to me, maybe I would join. For me to join, the issues I raised have to be answered. I expect I am not alone. I presume you would like to see more members to, at the least, replace those who quit or die.

Before people decide to join, they have to see enough reason to, and when they have some reason to, then they might read the constitution and bylaws and anything else that pertains to how the organization is run. But many never will. For ex., when people move to another state, they do not read the state constitution and statutes. They make the decision to move for many reasons and if the state is obviously run badly, the governor and legislators are known for self dealing or ignoring their constituents, and they don't like how the state feels, they are less likely to move to it. What's being going on in the WBCCI for a while does not turn people on. Some join and most of them don't renew once they find out more about it. These documents are only part of that problem, but the WBCCI needs major change of how it is perceived by non-members before the bleeding stops.

As for my last paragraph, I thought it was clear that I knew there were 2 documents and I also know the WBCCI does not use the usual names for these documents. I gave some examples of how organic documents can be changed in nonprofits—there are substantial differences among them. Some want it easy, some do not.

But, once again, what are the answers to my questions regarding leadership's control of the organization?

Gene

[bugdoc]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Tom,

You left out the main part of my post and perhaps the intention is to avoid it:
A major part of the concerns I have read for the past few years is that:

1. The WBCCI leaders are insensitive to members' concerns and are only interested in pursuing their personal agendas.

2. It takes years and years to work through the system to get into a leadership position.

3. The leaders control the nominating process and make sure their clones are nominated.


And why should I read it? I'm not a member, but if it made sense to me, maybe I would join. For me to join, the issues I raised have to be answered. I expect I am not alone. I presume you would like to see more members to, at the least, replace those who quit or die.

Before people decide to join, they have to see enough reason to, and when they have some reason to, then they might read the constitution and bylaws and anything else that pertains to how the organization is run. But many never will. For ex., when people move to another state, they do not read the state constitution and statutes. They make the decision to move for many reasons and if the state is obviously run badly, the governor and legislators are known for self dealing or ignoring their constituents, and they don't like how the state feels, they are less likely to move to it. What's being going on in the WBCCI for a while does not turn people on. Some join and most of them don't renew once they find out more about it. These documents are only part of that problem, but the WBCCI needs major change of how it is perceived by non-members before the bleeding stops.

As for my last paragraph, I thought it was clear that I knew there were 2 documents and I also know the WBCCI does not use the usual names for these documents. I gave some examples of how organic documents can be changed in nonprofits—there are substantial differences among them. Some want it easy, some do not.

But, once again, what are the answers to my questions regarding leadership's control of the organization?

Gene

Gene,

I did not respond to your 3 questions because there is nothing factual in them, they are only your opinion. Though I respect your right to have an opinion on anything. I find however, if you are not a member of the organization it is difficult to understand the basis of your opinion.

The members of the Revision Committee who have ventured into this forum are trying to deal with misunderstandings or clarifications about the proposed constitutional revision and seek input on real issues. We are not trying to deal with matters of opinion.

WBCCI calls the 2 separate documents, its constitution and Bylaws and Policy the Blue Book, but there are still 2 separate documents. The most current edition of Roberts Rules states that an organization can have the WBCCI format for its governing documents or a single document called Bylaws, we operate with the former.

I would hope you would consider reading the documents and realize that WBCCI is a social organization whose basic mission for its membership is "Fun, Fellowship and Adventure". The proposed constitution is directed to bringing this into sharper focus. If these are things you enjoy you might consider joining.

Tom

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by bugdoc

The members of the Revision Committee who have ventured into this forum are trying to deal with misunderstandings or clarifications about the proposed constitutional revision and seek input on real issues. We are not trying to deal with matters of opinion.

WBCCI calls the 2 separate documents, its constitution and Bylaws and Policy the Blue Book, but there are still 2 separate documents. The most current edition of Roberts Rules states that an organization can have the WBCCI format for its governing documents or a single document called Bylaws, we operate with the former.

Tom

First of all let me express my appreciation for your joining Airforums for the purpose of this discussion. The participation of members of the revision committee such as yourself cannot fail to be helpful.

Since you are new to this venue, you may find it useful to read this thread from its inception to help understand the impressions of some long-time participants like Crawford Gene (an attorney by profession).

Some confusion has been engendered by contradictory statements in the past; by way of example, here are a few by one of your colleagues on the revision committee.

Originally Posted by LI Pets

It is common to refer to the Constitution and Bylaws as simply the Bylaws, in most societies they are in fact one document.

So when saying "Bylaws" it generally means both but can be referred to individuality.
.

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Just for clarification, when the document is referred to as the Bylaws it is usually meant to refer to both the Constitution and Bylaws as one in the same although they are two.
.

Originally Posted by LI Pets

It is important to understand that the Constitution and its Bylaws are a very integrated package, where any change, even a small one, can have unintended consequences in one, two or five other areas
.

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Be careful in your wording, the bylaws are not being presented yet, it is the New Constitution.
.

[LI Pets]

John you're playing fast and loose with my statements all are correct.

Call them what you wish, do you want to discuss the Revision or divert the thread again in a meaningless direction.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

And why should I read it? I'm not a member, but if it made sense to me, maybe I would join.
Gene

Gene, you kow you have no intention of joining as of now but I hope the Revision when adopted will change your mind and you join the 4cu.

Do you recall saying eariler "grievance procedures is a further turn off."

Now they are gone, ready to join?

recall "This is the members' fight. I am an interested and sympathetic party."

But before you comment you should read the Revision, it has been said that you are a retired lawyer, if so ( oh are you really a lawyer?) you know you need facts not opinions to present an argument.

"We thought about joining a couple of years ago but when I saw the Lawrence Welk attitudes (you summed it up so well), I knew this organization was not for us"

Are you now rethinking that position? or are participating a member vicariously thru these forums?

[xrvr]

Gene, as a WBCCI member we need people like you in the club. Your knowledge and insight into certain matters would greatly help us. Please join. zz

[Gene]

Originally Posted by bugdoc

Gene,

I did not respond to your 3 questions because there is nothing factual in them, they are only your opinion. Though I respect your right to have an opinion on anything. I find however, if you are not a member of the organization it is difficult to understand the basis of your opinion.

Tom

Tom, definitions of what are facts, factoids (Norman Mailer said these were things that looked like facts, but weren't) and opinions is a discussion that could fill a graduate PhD program. However, if you read all the WBCCI threads on this Forum, and there's a lot of them, you will learn that what you call "opinions" are facts to many people. Those people include many WBCCI current and former members.

And, it does not matter whether my questions are facts or not—they are the perceptions of many people and to encourage those people to join, you have to answer them. The starting point is—does the new constitution solve these perceived problems by opening up the electoral process and preventing leaders from pursuing narrow agendas?

Quibbling over whether it's in the constitution or bylaws (by WBCCI definitions) has nothing to do with those questions.

Gene

[Gene]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Gene, you kow you have no intention of joining as of now but I hope the Revision when adopted will change your mind and you join the 4cu.

Do you recall saying eariler "grievance procedures is a further turn off."

Now they are gone, ready to join?

recall "This is the members' fight. I am an interested and sympathetic party."

But before you comment you should read the Revision, it has been said that you are a retired lawyer, if so ( oh are you really a lawyer?) you know you need facts not opinions to present an argument.

"We thought about joining a couple of years ago but when I saw the Lawrence Welk attitudes (you summed it up so well), I knew this organization was not for us"

Are you now rethinking that position? or are participating a member vicariously thru these forums?

Bob,

There are good and bad grievance procedures. Some states require them by statute, so they may or may not show up in organic documents. It's better to have state required ones repeated in bylaws (or whatever you want to call them) so the members know what is required. The reason for them is to remove members who do not subscribe to the organization's purposes—a prime example being when anti-environmentalists join an environmental group to sway the elections. There's nothing wrong with grievance procedures if they are fair and administered fairly. It should be difficult to throw out someone and there should be an appeal procedure. Colorado requires this type of grievance procedure.

It has been obvious, Bob, that you wish to limit debate to WBCCI members. Even former members are not welcome it appears. I believe that to be shortsighted for reasons I have already posted—surely you have seen them since you have read all my posts over again trying to show something or other.

I'll see how this works out. It is starting to remind me of trying to figure out what is going on in Dune or MadMen.

Yes, I am a lawyer licensed in good standing and retired for 11 years. I have already stated why reading the document is not necessary. I am not here to parse every sentence unless someone wants to pay me a lot of money to do so, so much that I hope I can stay retired.

The questions go unanswered.

Gene

[Gene]

Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi

Gene, as a WBCCI member we need people like you in the club. Your knowledge and insight into certain matters would greatly help us. Please join. zz

zz, thank you for the invitation. If I were to join now, I would do everything I could to avoid reforming the organization and avoid running for any office. I've done a lot of reforming and officeholding over the years and doing it again is not what I need to do with my life now.

As Bob reminded me, this is a members' fight, and I hope it works out. It's very difficult to be optimistic about that, but that doesn't mean I don't hope for the best. And if we did join, Bob is right that we would join the 4CU, and as I have also said before, we would join the 4CU if it broke off from the WBCCI.

Gene

[bugdoc]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Tom, definitions of what are facts, factoids (Norman Mailer said these were things that looked like facts, but weren't) and opinions is a discussion that could fill a graduate PhD program. However, if you read all the WBCCI threads on this Forum, and there's a lot of them, you will learn that what you call "opinions" are facts to many people. Those people include many WBCCI current and former members.

And, it does not matter whether my questions are facts or not—they are the perceptions of many people and to encourage those people to join, you have to answer them. The starting point is—does the new constitution solve these perceived problems by opening up the electoral process and preventing leaders from pursuing narrow agendas?

Gene

Gene,
I appreciate your thoughtful opinion that the contents of the Forum represents actual facts, however, as you have clearly stated many of these are the perceptions of individuals and as such are still only opinions (Oxford English Dictionary) unless substantiated with facts.

Having said that, I have read this forum thread, all 40 pages, as well as the previous thread dealing with the revision. In both venues the overriding issue was member input and control of their organization.

The first step toward this is a constitution that allows the membership to take an active part in the control. I believe the proposed revision starts the club down the path towards this. However, one of the things we must always keep in sight is the purpose of a constitution as defined in Roberts Rules and the rigidity with which we protect such a document.

The opinion issues you raised in your post deal with control issues and there needs to be a mechanism in place to address them. The issues raised are actually addressed in the structure of the Bylaws and this is where the constitution becomes important. The Revision allows the IBT, the governing body, to establish Bylaws for the operation of the club so we have that body responsible for their creation and content. Now if your opinion concerns are to be addressed by the membership then there needs to be a way for the membership to have input to the Bylaws.

In other posts I have suggested that the membership needs to address the amendment possibilities of each article in the proposed constitution when it is presented to the Delegates. I have read one post here that has suggested language for the Bylaws article to address the membership input. However, I hope, if this a major issue, that there are others that have thought through how what the IBT proposes or does can be validated by the membership or ???

Considering your experience as a lawyer possible you could also weigh in with some suggestions in this area that might show how to address some of the perceptions that exist in a real way.

Tom

[wheel interested]

YouTube - Anticipation

[Boondocker]

The only pertinent changes would be those that would give members a real voice in the conduct of club affairs. One that overrides that of the club royalty who pretty much ignore the will of the larger membership: anything else is just polysyllabic gobbley gook and should be summarily rejected.

[HowieE]

Rodney

Please go back and read post 561. Yes everyone agrees that the membership has to have input into the continuing operation of the Club. However there has to be a an effective Constitution in place before the Bylaws can be rewritten. It is the Bylaws that address this issue.