Visit our Popular Forums

HowieE · 03-03-2011, 06:07 PM

This is beginning to boarder on the ridiculous. After months of hard work by a so far unappreciated committee it has now come down to the need for the approval of Don "Stonewall" Schaffer.

We have 6,000 members, 90% of which don't even know there is a New Constitution on the horizon, needed to be advised of a major change in the governance of the Club and we sit hear waiting for the blessing of an individual who's only concern in life is when he can buy an SOB.

Members need to know, units that would not normally be represented at the International need to react, and reasonable, not the torpedo tactics presented here, debate needs to take place.

Lets get off the dime. If the Lawyers have blessed it against Ohio law that should be it.

Forrest · 03-03-2011, 10:54 PM

Howie, your last post was a little muddled. What's the news?

rideair · 03-04-2011, 04:55 AM

Howie,

How this whole thing was handled was/is not the actions of a man (Norm) who really is wanting to make a change. If you go back and look at the timelines, lack of getting the message out to the membership (had many copies of the BB that he could have said why, what, how, reason, etc...) actions against Forrest thing at Mid-Winter, taking forever to cross T's, dot I's, waiting until March 1st to slide it across the plate, old Stonewall taking to the last day (would be my guess). No real clear way of how it will be released out to the membership (other than through Unit Prez).

Either he does not care or is the worst salesman but as been the best con-man to the five people (that includes you Bob) that have worked thier butt off writing this thing. I'm sure Bob and the rest have put their heart into it. If I were them, I be so p*ssed I would have released without his OK and dared him to throw me out of the club.

I think they did what was asked (Bob and the gang), again it's the EC7 not being nice.

Ed Emerick · 03-04-2011, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buttercup

Does Leo even want to come back????

I would question why, as I am questioning myself, why did I pay this year's dues? There was the dues increase and I have yet to see value added. The International Rally's agenda and entertainment looks just like most other year's and for the cost there is no value either. God only knows what is in that new Constitution and By Laws and we are all still in the dark on that one.

Thank god my Unit is still a value and a good time, the rest of the WBCCI is questionable...............

Stay away Leo, you are way ahead of the game by doing so.

HowieE · 03-04-2011, 06:41 AM

Paul

I am sorry to admit it but you have stated my resent underling feelings quite well. The IP may have been backed into a corner during last years International and formed the Committee under threat from some but then giving the guidance of experienced con artists he has figured out how to work his way through his year in office without accomplishing anything.

My last hope is that the original proposal presented by the Committee will surface so those interested can actually see what was presented.

Realistically any successful review and action on this is diminishing rapidly.

Coloradobus · 03-04-2011, 07:13 AM

So many pages of words to FINALLY figurre this out and call it for who/what it is....CB&L Chair has/is calling the shots, it SOOOO easy to see as Forrest points out..

LI Pets · 03-04-2011, 07:40 AM

Hey any member can email the IP and ask

HowieE · 03-04-2011, 07:44 AM

This is what I sent him.

"Hi Norm

I have read that you will not publish the Revised Constitution in the Blue Beret for cost consideration. I find that hard to except considering the importance of this undertaking and the time expelled to date.

If that remains the case I would hope that a significant, 1/2 page or larger, notice announcing the presence of a Revised Constitution be published in the Blue Beret. Such a notice should at the least include a link to the any web site that will have the document published.

Howard Eldridge
12156 "

Coloradobus · 03-04-2011, 08:03 AM

Bob, Pres Beu stopped talking with me when he found out I was a nobody during Mid Winter. I was a Unit Officer when the Denver motion was in its infantcy. In a note sent elsewhere, during the denco motion rubard, he just referred to me a "Jim Somebody", and said I wasn't listed on the current Denco roster then wouldn't return my calls..
I did identify myself during our first talk as 'The former Denco Corresponding secretary. He must have forgot that since it wasn't important to him.

RickDavis · 03-04-2011, 08:14 AM

My fear is that when this thing gets to the IBT and delegates it will go through the political version of the Vegamatic and either never be seen again or will be years in the reworking and bear little resemblance the original document.
One only has to look at the Caravan amendment attempts of the past few years to see how something simple can be stonewalled until dead.
Mean time the leadership still has their code of ethics tool available if any one steps too far out of line.

rideair · 03-04-2011, 09:07 AM

I've heard that laugh before and I'm not talking about the baby.

You are so bad.

wkerfoot · 03-04-2011, 09:43 AM

Yes, but will he answer He has not answered my recent emails.

Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Hey any member can email the IP and ask

LI Pets · 03-04-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forrest

You left out the little matter of the Constitution & Bylaws Committee and Parliamentarian requiring that the originator "accomodate any non-compliance." The proposed amendment goes back to the originator to MODIFY the proposal until the C&BC deems it compliant.

How is this an improvement? They could keep a proposal in a loop indefinitely if they don't like the motion. All they need say is that it isn't compliant, for any reason, including Parliamentary Authority.

This is one of the best examples of how the revised Constitution centralizes power by reducing the amendment process to just ONE procedure, controlled by the very SAME people who derailed the DENCO motion.

I see your point, we may need to look at that possible loop hole if you're correct.

The C&BL shouldn't reject it based on on his philosophical views of the contents of a motion, he can regarding its compliance with the Parliamentary Authority, compliance with law or other material defect.

Also a new Article was added Parliamentary Authority

The rules of the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the proceedings of the WBCCI in all cases.

.

Boondocker · 03-04-2011, 10:37 AM

As I see it, the only change that can turn things around would be making the rules such that anyone can run for any office, even from the floor, without the club aristocracy being able to bias resources and outcome.

As has been noted, who interprets the rules is as important as what the rules say. In effect, what is needed is a reset button for club leadership. As long as the Politburo continues to pick its successors, change isn't in the cards.

LI Pets · 03-04-2011, 10:47 AM

This is a flow chart under the new Constitution

LI Pets · 03-04-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boondocker

As I see it, the only change that can turn things around would be making the rules such that anyone can run for any office, even from the floor, without the club aristocracy being able to bias resources and outcome.

Anyone can run but not from the floor.

All candidates names and statements of candidates qualifications, experience and vision to be submitted by 12/31 and published by 2/15.

.

Boondocker · 03-04-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Anyone can run but not from the floor.

All candidates names and statements of candidates qualifications, experience and vision to be submitted by 12/31 and published by 2/15.

.

And everyone gets equal space and consideration, even if they are nominating committee?

wheel interested · 03-04-2011, 11:16 AM

Bob, with all the provisions and changes you have made together in the revision constitution and input from 2020 and the VAC and various others, is there preapproval on the Executive Committee's or IP's part to accept the document as ready for a membership vote, both as written or as modified by delegates when presented? Or is it still subject to revision, study, or rejection by the EC's determination as current motions are subject under the our present constitution?

Forrest may be correct about his amendment's passage as the membership's best hope in opening up the stranglehold that currently chokes out change and revision and maintains the leadership's absolute power within the process. The new constitution still has to jump that hurdle and also by doing so eliminates the right of units to vote and circumvent IBT/EC interference. What's not to love with the enticement of all the change we have been clamoring for in one fall swoop, however the details and fine print may enable an entirely different outcome from what we all are desiring? Holding the leadership accountable to act in accordance to the constitution and bylaws and will of the membership is the real crux of the problem.

LI Pets · 03-04-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Bob, with all the provisions and changes you have made together in the revision constitution and input from 2020 and the VAC and various others, is there preapproval on the Executive Committee's or IP's part to accept the document as ready for a membership vote, both as written or as modified by delegates when presented? Or is it still subject to revision, study, or rejection by the EC's determination as current motions are subject under the our present constitution?

Norm and the EC are satisfied as we presented it, there were some changes suggested and made at the mid-winter along with the t's & i's.

It is going forward to the delegates.

.

wheel interested · 03-04-2011, 11:56 AM

That is good to hear, for the vote or for discussion? I am confused about whether the coming delegates meeting at the International will be the time of the members' vote or the time of members' discussion and modification only, or if that has even yet been decided at this point in time.

Are you saying our delegates will have the ability to both change that new constitution and the ability to immediately pass the new constitution into existence as they pen it that very day without interference or point of order from the IBT/EC, and if there are errors they will be left to be addressed by the members in the future?