WBCCI New Constitution

[Ed Emerick]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

In our unit, the level of interest is much higher when the destination offers more. Bozeman, Gillette, and even Madison offered new adventures before and after the rally. DuQuoin has not generated much interest.

I agree its all about the destination now, and WY, southern IL, MO don't offer me much. Add the cost of the Rally when I don't really attend any entertainment and I have seen most of the seminars and there is not much of a draw for me anymore. We have attended 10 Internationals starting with Dayton and just can't justify the cost v. the location.

Also who wants to sit in a meeting and listen to this boring useless discussions about changing the Constitution? Me I'm going to spend my vacation at Alumapalooza, there is value there!

[mbmbstreamer]

I look forward to meeting you at Alumapalooza!

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

I can assure you we had a unanimous vote and an open discussion. People often agree when they have a chance to discuss issues.

Matt, can I ask how many of the 315 members actually voted and of those in person or mail ins Vs no votes at all?


tks

[Gene]

Matt, sounds like a cross examination is going on so he can see if he can void the vote.

Don't say anything more and be prepared for this at the meeting.

Gene

[LI Pets]

Gene,

Do you always have negative chi.

I have no such intent, I was trying to use an example of a large units voting thru delegates v OMOV.

For example using 300 as easy number, I assume all 300 didn't vote, we don't get more than 60% in US presidential elections.

Most units around 20%.

So if 60 members voted yes/no they automatically carry the other 240 to that same vote.



.

[AirHeadsRus]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Matt, sounds like a cross examination is going on so he can see if he can void the vote.

Don't say anything more and be prepared for this at the meeting.

Gene

Gene,
Let Matt answer Bob's question.

[wkerfoot]

That problem can be solved by having each delegate certify the number of members who voted and how they voted (at a rally, by mail, by internet, by phone) and carry that number to the International Rally.

Bill

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Gene,

Do you always have negative chi.

I have no such intent, I was trying to use an example of a large units voting thru delegates v OMOV.

For example using 300 as easy number, I assume all 300 didn't vote, we don't get more than 60% in US presidential elections.

Most units around 20%.

So if 60 members voted yes/no they automatically carry the other 240 to that same vote.



.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by AirHeadsRus

Gene,
Let Matt answer Bob's question.

Joe you need to understand, Gene not being a member doesn't know it's in the minutes anyway.

And according to RONR p. 444 that are viewable to any member.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by AirHeadsRus

Gene,
Let Matt answer Bob's question.

Or let him not answer Bob's question, as he sees fit.

Nobody appointed Bob prosecutor.
.

[rideair]

It appears the Revision Committee is no longer supporting "1M1V" but a new style of voting "OMOV". I guess "OMOV" means:

"Oppressed Members Obeyingly Voting".

See what happens when you don't eat the "New Constitution" Cookie and drink the Kool-Aid

Don't go against them or you will be Oppressed until you become Obeyingly!

[xrvr]

The constant attacking of the new constitution, it's writers and supporters have probably made more people likely to vote FOR it. Constant negativity can turn people against your argument if valid or not. Or is that your plan? Yea right! jim

[rideair]

Jim,

I'm sorry, I meant to write:

I guess "OMOV" means:

"Omnicorporeal Members Optatively Voting"

or was it

"Objective Members Obliviously Voting"


One just finds it interesting when the "orginial" meaning of "1M1V" that many like was taken over to mean something a little different this time around was pointed out. It has now become "OMOV".

Let's just call it what it is "Direct Member Voting" and be done with it.

And you know how much everyone likes the "DMV".

[mbmbstreamer]

I missed so much.

Our unit is very old fashioned. We inform the members of the time, location, and topics by US Mail and e-mail.

48 units were represented (of 316).

Those who chose not to attend can still provide input to me, and are being asked to do so at the next rally, by e-mail, or by phone. Because the direction I received requires me to seek input, I will do so until votes are cast.

[LI Pets]

Thank you Matt,

The percentages to be used in casting the votes at the Delegates Meeting is the number of Unit members as of June 1.

Only yes, no and abstention votes count in establishing the percentage.
If members aren't at their unit meeting and/or don't vote by mail or email either yes, no or abstain, their votes are distributed according to the percentage that did vote.

Using 300 by example with 20% voting in total or 60 voting yes and no other member voted, at the Delegates Meeting that Unit Delegate would vote 300 yes or winner take all.

Or if 40 yes and 20 no the delegate would vote 200 yes and 100 no.
That is the percentage of the votes cast proportionately distributed for those who did not vote.

If we used as proposed 1M1V that would not happen only 60 would be counted.

Is that a skewed vote? A candidate would be getting all those votes gratis, wherein, those extra 240 votes in the example, zero out maybe 10 small units votes.

Or if the delegate of a large unit doesn’t go …then what.

Ps: ( RONR uses the abbreviation OMOV )




.

[rideair]

"Ps: ( RONR uses the abbreviation OMOV )"


And being someone that seams to be using RONR quotes a bunch, I'm sure members on the Revision Committee have known for sometime that RONR uses the term "OMOV".

But for some reason, the committee used the term "1M1V" over and over in post during the past six months. Why would that be? Maybe, just maybe, because the Revision Committee knew the phrase "1M1V" had a following, decided even though they are proposing something very different than the original meaning and something more along the lines of "DMV" Direct Member Voting, people may not embrace it because it would seem to be a new concept and it would not have the impact in getting people to sign onto the New Constitution as does "1M1V".


I've seen this tactic used many times in DC politics.


Never thought I would see it used in the WBCCI.

[mbmbstreamer]

Of course we could offer electronic participation to the delegates (certified through their units) who could not attend the Delegates Meeting. They could be involved in the debate and vote as instructed. Only a small cost to the club and small job for the staff.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Pahaska

I hope that after our next week meeting, Texas Highland Lakes joins them.

Hey John, you are aware that your unit invited the Revision Committee to attend on Monday.

Talk to you then.

[LI Pets]

Response of the Special Revision Committee to the March 18 Report of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitution & Bylaws

In his report of March 18, 2011, the CBL Chairman makes a number of very strong statements regarding the proposed revised Constitution and the process by which it was developed. Some of these statements do not stand up to scrutiny and some should be viewed as “personal opinions” and not findings of fact. Other statements relate to Bylaws and not the Constitution. It must be noted that this report appears to be the work of the Chairman alone and not the three member Standing Committee. It should not be represented as a Standing Committee report.

We will address the main points briefly in this note.

No Input from Members: The CBL Chairman comments that there was no input to the revision. This is false. The Committee interviewed Standing Committee Chairs, all Region Presidents and several Past International Presidents. We reviewed previous member surveys, a report by a Past International President and Committee reports including those of the 2020 Committee. As well, we received almost 300 comments from members through available web forums that were viewed 15,700 times.

“Blue Ribbon” Committee: The inference here that the Revision Committee members are unqualified is inappropriate. This statement suggests that there are different classes of members. Committee members were chosen as a diverse group representing a broad cross-section of WBCCI. All are members in good standing who have served and are serving in elected positions at the Unit, Region and International levels of the Club.

Revision Committee violates the WBCCI Constitution: The CBL Chairman describes the formation of the Committee as being in violation of the current Constitution and Bylaws. This is false. The mandate of the CBL Committee is to review proposed “amendments”. Robert’s Rules is very clear that when changes proposed are so extensive as to be a new document, these are revisions and not amendments. This was clearly explained – the CBL Committee is not mandated to do a revision.

Not consistent with the Ohio Codes: The WBCCI attorney has stated that the proposed revision is in compliance with the Ohio Codes. To suggest otherwise is false. There appears to be a false impression that all meetings must be conducted “face to face” when in fact the Ohio codes authorize use of electronic means.

Direct voting not effective: This is unsubstantiated personal opinion. If it were true, then it must be true for all elections where individual members have the opportunity to vote, for example at the Unit level. The current Delegate system does not guarantee that the Delegate will fully reflect the Unit’s

Role of Past International President: This position is not removed from being an International Officer as stated but is changed to a non-voting advisory role on the IBT.

Elimination of 3rd VP: This can readily be accomplished in conjunction with an overhaul of management of the International rally. Elimination of this position will reduce club expenses. The CBL Chairman appears to argue for the status quo throughout his report.

Reduction in Number of Regions/Areas: The proposal does not specify a number as the report would imply, leaving this to the Bylaws. A reduction combined with the elimination of the 3rd VP position could save the Club as much as $17,000 annually.

Standard of Conduct: The Revision Committee has indeed changed the Code of Ethics to prevent it from being used as an enforcement tool to punish outspoken members. The notion that we might somehow be opened up to legal action is a personal opinion not shared by Committee members. An alternative view is that use of the current Code as an enforcement tool could open the Club to litigation.

Name of Corporation: Adding the words “also known as the Airstream RV Association” does not compromise any agreement with Airstream Inc., it simply incorporates the wording currently on the WBCCI letterhead which more clearly identifies who we are.

End of term audit: No end of term audits have been conducted in recent memory, so the CBL Chairman is arguing to retain something that WBCCI does not do. The Club will be better served by an independent CPA review of the financial statements, which will be incorporated into the Bylaws and which will provide the desired independent professional oversight at lower cost. We are a simple organization and a formal audit is an unnecessary expense.

IBT Meetings: The CBL Chairman does not recognize that much routine club business can be conducted electronically without the expense of travel to meeting sites. Using electronic means to do routine business frees up scheduling of meetings and saves the Club money.

Burden on Staff: The workload for compiling direct member voting results has been studied and found to be very modest. The impact on HQ staff is minor, amounting to a few hours to tabulate votes as well as the time required to prepare and send out ballots. This would be offset by the elimination of staff time formerly dedicated to preparing for the Delegates meeting.
Nominating Committee: Concern about nominations from the floor is unnecessary as the proposed process would allow candidates to “self-declare” by a specified date. Members should know the names and qualifications of all candidates and what each candidate wants to achieve in the office sought.

Amendments: The CBL Chairman opposes streamlining the amendment process. The current processes are complex, confusing (witness the DenCo motion) and time consuming. Change is needed. A streamlined process with Direct Member Voting will be more efficient.

Warning: This warning is highly inappropriate and beyond the role of the Chairman. It is also inappropriate to advise Delegates not to listen to anyone outside their Unit or Region. Does The CBL Chairman want to block members taking an interest and sharing opinions about issues that are important to members? Discourse among members is always to be encouraged.

Closing Comment
As the proposed revision is outside the mandate of the Constitution and Bylaws Standing Committee, copy of the proposed revision was sent to the CBL Chairman as a courtesy and not as a requirement of the WBCCI Constitution and Bylaws. His report was improperly sent directly to Region Presidents and circumvented the Executive Committee. The report appears to be his work alone, based mostly on personal opinion of merit and not a factual review of the technical validity of the proposed revision.


The Revision Committee

.

[wkerfoot]

This comment was part of the most recent newsletter from one of the units which we belong to:

PROPOSED WBCCI CONSTITUTION REVIEW

There was no desire on the part of the attendees at the Rally to spend any time reviewing the proposed changes to the WBCCI Constitution. Basically, the thinking was that this activity was to satisfy those few in the WBCCI membership that are concerned about the Constitution's content and not very useful to the rest of the membership. The feeling was that the changes were needed and what was proposed was reasonable, so we didn't need to do anything.


Bill

[AirHeadsRus]

Bill,
Very interesting. May be hope for some change. Thanks for posting.
Regards,
Joe

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

This comment was part of the most recent newsletter from one of the units which we belong to:

PROPOSED WBCCI CONSTITUTION REVIEW

There was no desire on the part of the attendees at the Rally to spend any time reviewing the proposed changes to the WBCCI Constitution. Basically, the thinking was that this activity was to satisfy those few in the WBCCI membership that are concerned about the Constitution's content and not very useful to the rest of the membership. The feeling was that the changes were needed and what was proposed was reasonable, so we didn't need to do anything.


Bill