WBCCI New Constitution

[wkerfoot]

I hope that this is not a hijack, but what do those who complain about the; MAL surcharge think that MALs should pay in addition to the International dues?

Bill

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

I hope that this is not a hijack, but what do those who complain about the; MAL surcharge think that MALs should pay in addition to the International dues?

Bill

That is clearly not an issue that should be crowding this thread at this time. Lets get them Rights Within the Club first and then the membership rather than the Spendthrifts who need the money for their use can decide that issue. I am sure once granted voting rights the MALs will not vote to increase their dues.

They probability shouldn't have to pay any thing other than the Club dues because that is what they chose to be a member of. If they choose to attend a rally I would assume they would pay the same rally fee as any other member in good standing

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did meet in secret and was pretty good in keeping secrets during the process.
Gene

Yes, the 1787 Delegates deliberations were behind closed doors, but that isn't what I was refering to. The solutions that the Delegates debated, amended and adopted were discussed widely for a year prior to the Constitutional Convention.

And while some historians say that the Convention was held "in secret" it really wasn't. Afterall, how much of a secret can it be considering that Madison took extensive notes of their deliberations and those notes today tell us what transpired. Likewise, other delegates kept journals or wrote letters to their families and state governments.

But we're comparing apples to oranges. The Revision Committee isn't a representation of delegates. No Unit or Region put them in place, and it can reasonably be asked who they represent. I believe the Revision Committee largely, if not wholly, represents the interests of a special interest group - namely, Defend Wally. I say this because only Dona Garner wasn't a member or contributor to Defend Wally, whereas three of the others were, and the one remaining a sympathizer.

[Janet H]

Several recent posts have been removed (again) from this thread. For a time this evening this thread was removed from view as well. Since this topic seems to draw heated debate and the topic is of interest to many, it has been restored but will remain closed for a time until tempers cool. Until this thread is reopened do not start another discussion on this topic.

Once again members are reminded that you are guests here at AIR and if you choose to post, those posts must be in accordance with our prescribed rules; the same rules that you agreed to when you joined. Do not attack another member and do not post in coercive ways or in anger. Do not makes threats. If you have an issue with a specific member take it elsewhere or use the report post button but DO NOT use AIR as your personal venue to denigrate others.

Peace

[RonH]

Now that the thread is open again I am looking forward to discussion intended to create more light than heat. We all agree that there has to be change and in the past few years, starting with the Thompson incident, some real mistakes were made. A warmer, more agreeable attitude from the International executive seems called for. And it appears that has begun under the current IP. Lets build on that!

We have before us a proposal for substantial change in a direction that very many members have been yearning for. Lets deal with it. General accusations of bad faith, shooting at the messengers and offering up suggestions of an evil plot on the part of those with whom we do not agree are not in the least helpful. It might be a good thing if the extremists at both ends of the discussion would be quiet for a while. It would be useful if those of us on the wide middle ground would take the time to educate ourselves as to what is really being proposed and share our views in a civil way. A good beginning would be to accept that the words of the new document mean what they say and do not cover a hidden agenda.

[damonbeals]

Well said, Norm has stepped forward to help revamp the club, there is only so much a president can do in a one year term. Is this document perfect? No, is any document? I think this is a great first step to overhaul the club and move it forward.

I still don't understand the emotions this has created. If you want to find the negative in anything you can, if you want to find the positive you can. It's up to you to chose.

Damon

Originally Posted by RonH

Now that the thread is open again I am looking forward to discussion intended to create more light than heat. We all agree that there has to be change and in the past few years, starting with the Thompson incident, some real mistakes were made. A warmer, more agreeable attitude from the International executive seems called for. And it appears that has begun under the current IP. Lets build on that!

We have before us a proposal for substantial change in a direction that very many members have been yearning for. Lets deal with it. General accusations of bad faith, shooting at the messengers and offering up suggestions of an evil plot on the part of those with whom we do not agree are not in the least helpful. It might be a good thing if the extremists at both ends of the discussion would be quiet for a while. It would be useful if those of us on the wide middle ground would take the time to educate ourselves as to what is really being proposed and share our views in a civil way. A good beginning would be to accept that the words of the new document mean what they say and do not cover a hidden agenda.

[DanB]

I'm about as middle of the road as you can get on this issue. In particular, I object primarily with the "all or nothing" vote that will conclude the proceedings. I feel it is not necessary and I really need to question the constitutional validity of the process. Let's not throw out the accomplishments of part of the amendments due to the sections that are deemed unwanted.

Your statement "A good beginning would be to accept that the words of the new document mean what they say and do not cover a hidden agenda." is a great concept. Unfortunately, I consider this impossible. An example: what is the true purpose of the article 1, section 1 revision? This is the addition of "It is also known as “the Airstream RV Association”." When did this become an issue needing addressing? This proposed amendment didn't need to happen now. It does not impact the clubs membership or concerns at the moment. This leads me to believe that it is slipped in to make it very convenient to propose by bylaw to use the term "The Airstream Associate" as a primary title instead of WBCCI. Again, this is only one example. Maybe I'm way off base, and I really hope I am. But, I've got an eyebrow raised when I really didn't need to.

OK, that's my personal concern with one issue!

You want discussion? OK, I'll start!

Strike Article VI section 4. Unneeded. No airstream. No regular membership. If you want to be progressive, create a third class of membership "Friends of the WBCCI". Same dues as regular membership, but no rights.

[eubank]

Originally Posted by DanB

... what is the true purpose of the article 1, section 1 revision? This is the addition of "It is also known as “the Airstream RV Association”."

Dan, I agree with you on the Airstream requirement and also wonder about the wording in Art. 1, Sec. 1. It could, however, involving some legal requirement in naming/identifying the association for the IRS or other governmental entity. If in some filed document or another it is so named/identified, then bets are that we'd have to include that name/identification. (But if it's just stuck in there because it would be cool to include it, then it's just more verbosity in an already verbose document.)

But that's just a wild guess at this point. Perhaps someone with more experience and knowledge can jump in at this point.


Lynn

[rideair]

RonH,

I agree with you 100% as to the extremist comment and thus is the very reason why I do not support the re-writing of the WBCCI which some would say is a extreme way to try and take care of a few small problems with the current WBCCI Constitution. A simple (in the middle) view would be to pass the so called “Forrest Amendment” which gives even more control over the WBCCI “By-Laws” to the membership than the “New Constitution” does moving forward and to pass a simple amendment allowing “MAL’s” the chance to vote and/or hold office by simply allowing them to vote through WBCCI HQ and allowing them to send a delegate to cast their vote. These two “simple” changes are neither extreme nor hard to understand, allows everyone to vote and more oversight on what the IBT/EC7 does or does not do. Remember, things like travel dollars for the IBT/EC7, flags, badges, spending, etc… much of that is controlled by the WBCCI “By-Laws” and not the WBCCI “Constitution”.

There are those that will want you to think you must re-write the “Constitution” to be able to make changes to the “By-Laws” which is 100% wrong. The WBCCI IBT/EC7 has been making changes to the “By-Laws” almost every year (WBCCI Dues, BOT giving lifetime membership to PIP’s, Disciplinary Actions”see how much to that they added on 2010”, The amount of $$$$ each IBT/EC7 member gets, etc….) here’s a link for your review. http://www.wbcci.org/documents/BB%20Bylaws4.pdf You will see were changes have been made for the last 50+ years without re-writing the whole WBCCI Constitution. So those that say you must re-write the Constitution to do that are wrong and that is proved by looking at the current WBCCI "By-Laws".

In my eyes only a few small changes need to be made to the current WBCCI Constitution not the “extreme” change of a total re-write.

Give the membership the power to control the WBCCI “By-Laws” and you control the IBT/EC7 and what they can and cannot do. Which is what everyone “really” wants.

You will find the “New Constitution” does not give that power to the membership it needs to control the IBT/EC7 and their power to control spending and the rules and regulations in the WBCCI “By-Laws”

NEW WBCCI Constitution:

Sec. 3 The IBT shall define the Bylaws and policies of, and shall have full administrative authority in all matters pertaining to the WBCCI and shall exercise general control and supervision of all officers and committees.

So, I’ll ask the question now that everyone has had a chance to go read the WBCCI “By-Laws”(provided via the link above), and has read Sec. 3 of the “New Constitution” that everyone is so gunho about.

Where is all the money/power and rules controlled in the WBCCI and “who” has the power to control those rules? Answer: In the WBCCI “By-Laws” and even under the “New Constitution” the IBT/EC7 controls them.

Give that power to the membership and the needed changes can be done to move this club forward.

[Kerrbett]

DanB: I'm a member of the Revision Committee. I've watched these Forums with interest but have refrained from posting during the revision process. Now that the proposal is out, I'm ready to wade back in.

The addition of the phrase "the Airstream RV Association" isn't really new, it just acknowledges what we have printed on our letterhead and envelopes for years. No hidden agenda there. As for Art. VI, Sn. 4: this isn't new either, it extends to MALs the same right as current members have to retain a membership after they no longer travel in an Airstream, if they so choose. The current provision has been used by several members of our Unit to stay as active contributing members. I could see where a MAL who may be active in an Intra-club may want to do the same thing. Why would we push them out the door?

The vote process is what is required for proper procedure (ie RONR). Each article is brought forward, amended if delegates so desire, and voted on. At the end of the process, all delegates will need to take a sober look at the whole package and decide if it is a workable constitution and preferable to what we currently have. If so, vote to accept it and if not, vote to reject it.

I look forward to some good discussions here.

Cheers,
Kerry

[pmclemore]

Welcome, Kerry -

It will be very helpful to have you posting regularly so that misunderstandings can be cleared up quickly - before they can take on a life of their own.

Thanks for jumping into the pool.

Pat

[DanB]

Kerry and all:

I to hope to keep this a civil and beneficial as possible!

I guess first off, the proposal is not "out" as far as I'm concerned. Those responsible for it have elected to wait until the absolute deadline to publish it. In my business, if I desire to have a positive outcome with a governing body, I do everything in my power to get the required documents to them in a timely fashion. This has not happened. Will President Norm, Paralmentarian Donna, or C&BL Chair Don disallow this action if the documentation is not distributed on time? Other motions have been dismissed over such technicalities.

I do understand our history of using "the Airstream RV Association". I also know that taglines probably don't need defined in a corporate constitution. In fact, doing so relieves the ability to freshen it up to a new possibility.

Obviously, Art VI, Sec 4 is not new either. For several years, a majority of membership have clearly defined their wish of the WBCCI being an Airstream only club. If the intent of this constitutional amendment is to reflect the concerns of the general membership, then perhaps a ground breaking revision is in order. Simply remove any language that allows for regular membership without ownership. Why is this so difficult to understand? I do realize that this is a self-limited membership problem. So be it. This is an Airstream club.

Your description of how we are to conduct a final vote on the surface sounds reasonable. May I ask that you please provide me documentation on what the proposed procedure is modeled on? I keep hearing terms such as "new constitution" and similar. I don't believe our current constitution has provisions for wholesale replacement in place.

What makes this situation so unique that adoption of individual amendments is not permissable? It seems to me we have much better chance of passing this partially than completely. What's the downside?

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by DanB

I guess first off, the proposal is not "out" as far as I'm concerned. Those responsible for it have elected to wait until the absolute deadline to publish it. In my business, if I desire to have a positive outcome with a governing body, I do everything in my power to get the required documents to them in a timely fashion. This has not happened. Will President Norm, Paralmentarian Donna, or C&BL Chair Don disallow this action if the documentation is not distributed on time? Other motions have been dismissed over such technicalities.

Dan it was not only the revision that needed be distributed according to the protocols, there were several other documents that needed to go out with at the same time which needed to be drafted, not as simple as just sending out the Revision.

What makes this situation so unique that adoption of individual amendments is not permissable? It seems to me we have much better chance of passing this partially than completely. What's the downside?

each article will be voted/amended individually, this is called in seriatim.

[bugdoc]

Originally Posted by rideair

RonH,

So, I’ll ask the question now that everyone has had a chance to go read the WBCCI “By-Laws”(provided via the link above), and has read Sec. 3 of the “New Constitution” that everyone is so gunho about.

Where is all the money/power and rules controlled in the WBCCI and “who” has the power to control those rules? Answer: In the WBCCI “By-Laws” and even under the “New Constitution” the IBT/EC7 controls them.

Give that power to the membership and the needed changes can be done to move this club forward.

Ron

As another member of the Revision Committee I would like to also jump into the discussion of the proposed constitution, not "new constitution", something none of us could do under Roberts Rules during the deliberations.

Please understand that the revision proposal is just that and it is possible to amend any article of the proposal before any vote is taken by the Delegates to accept the revised constitution as amended. Some of the issues being raised by yourself and others are ones the committee struggled with. We decided we would try and keep the constitution as clean as possible and encourage modification, as appropriate, by the Delegate review process. Additionally, some things are better handled by the Bylaws where they can be modified more easily rather than having to modify the constitution. If this proposed revision is passed the next necessary thing will be a complete revision of the Bylaws and with any luck that document will be reduced in size significantly. Having said this, if there is an amendment to modify the Bylaws article to the proposed constitution it will be up to the Delegates to approve it.

I am encouraged by your reference to giving power to the membership as the changes being proposed for MAL's, voting, nominations and amending the constitution specifically do that. I am glad you support this position.

Tom

[DanB]

As a Unit President, may I warmly welcome the revision committee members to "the table"!

Thank you for your valuable input and your hard work so far in the process.

[DanB]

Let's make the next 500 posts valuable!

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by bugdoc

. . .if there is an amendment to modify the Bylaws article to the proposed constitution it will be up to the Delegates to approve it.

Please elucidate. As I understand it, under the proposed constitution,

1. The IBT retains sole authority over the Bylaws (as they have now), and

2. The Delegates no longer exist.
.

[mbmbstreamer]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

My primary concerns are as follows:
1. Elimination of the Delegate system removes the ability of the membership to collaborate and over-rule the IBT. Discussions at the unit level BEFORE a vote, provides an opportunity for discussion and collaboration. If a member is asked to vote with only one side of the story presented, he is much more likely to vote as the leadership would like.

2. 1M1V is better accomplished by allowing MALs to vote individually and have those added to the totals at the Delegates Meeting.

3. Final authority on Bylaws must rest with the membership! Incorporate Forrest's amendment into this change. Make the annual "Caucus" the body for interpretation of the Bylaws.

4. I am still misreading the IBT voting. How many votes for the EC and 5 for the Areas?

5. Why do we need a Nominating Committee? It is a simple matter to confirm qualifications and can be done in Jackson Center.

6. I agree with removing the July 4th as a mandatory part of the International Rally, however the IBT meeting in July should either be part of the International or held as part of an Area Rally. Don't add another costly gathering to the budget.

I agree with the bulk of the changes, but believe the elimination of Delegates eliminates feedback to the IBT.

Proposed changes for the delegates?

I posted the words above earlier in the thread. I am also a UP and would love to vote FOR a revision. I believe we can craft an acceptable document with many answer from those who wrote the revision and perhaps a few changes in from the floor.

Let's see if we can agree BEFORE the Delegates Meeting!

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

Let's see if we can agree BEFORE the Delegates Meeting!

That would be great, but. . . how many delegates do we have participating in this forum. . . half a dozen, maybe? And how many are there going to be at the Delegates Meeting. . . 120, give or take? So we're looking at, what, 5% representation here?

And the delegates are duty bound to vote as instructed by their units; with the C&BL committee officially recommending that the revised constitution be rejected, it may be an uphill battle.

And finally, as I asked in an earlier post which was deleted, how much time has been scheduled for this Constitutional Convention--for that is what it is--at the International?

And yes, I know, I'm negative, negative, negative. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.
.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Nuvite-F

And the delegates are duty bound to vote as instructed by their units; with the C&BL committee officially recommending that the revised constitution be rejected, it may be an uphill battle.

that really is not the case we went thru that issue, more info will be forth coming on that.

And finally, as I asked in an earlier post which was deleted, how much time has been scheduled for this Constitutional Convention--for that is what it is--at the International?

A second session is being worked into the schedule if needed and third if needed.