An Amendment to the WBCCI Constitution

[Gene]

Here's a potential problem. Boards by the nature constantly construe and interpret bylaws and constitutions. A board chair does the same thing from time to time. They can't take any action without doing so and may be crippled in taking action when necessary. So, I wouldn't remove that authority, but instead allow the larger body (delegates) to overrule the board.

Some will argue that bylaws are too technical in nature and only the board can understand how to change them. I resolved this issue with one organization by changing the bylaws to allow the board to amend them by a 2/3 vote or the members could do so by a majority of those attending a meeting.

Gene

[Forrest]

Just an update - the DENCO Unit passed the motion to amend and it has now gone to all the other units in Region 11 for them to vote on.

[Kerrbett]

Forrest: Your motion was presented to members of the Ontario Canada Unit at our Spring Provincial Rally and was passed.

Thanks!
Kerry

[Forrest]

I have been informed that the Arizona Unit passed the motion to amend. Six units yet to vote.

[66Overlander]

Originally Posted by Forrest

I have been asked to provide specifics regarding how, what, and when a change in the club can be made. Here is just one proposal for anyone’s consideration, or use. It is possible that this motion or one like it could make it in time for the Delegates to cast votes at the International Rally this June, 2010. However, time is fast running out. Otherwise, the soonest it can be acted on will be in 2011. Here is the wording of a motion that I believe must be made if the membership is to ever have a voice in the running of the Club:

I MOVE to STRIKE from the WBCCI Constitution, Sec. 4 of ARTICLE IX, BOARD OF TRUSTEES and in its place INSERT, under ARTICLE XII, DELEGATES MEETINGS, the words, “The Delegates shall have full authority to construe and interpret the Club’s Constitution and annually review and/or repeal any Club Bylaw and/or Policy.”

RATIONALE:

Currently, ARTICLE XV, BYLAWS AND POLICY, Sec. 1 provides that, “Bylaws and Policies not inconsistent with this Constitution embodying additional provisions for the government of the Wally Byam Caravan Club International, Inc., may be adopted by the Board of Trustees.”

In addition, the Constitution, under Sec. 4 of ARTICLE IX, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, provides that, “The Board of Trustees shall have full authority to construe and interpret the Club's Constitution and Bylaws and Policy and may delegate this authority to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee.”

These two sections of the Constitution create an imbalance of authority in the Club. It is improper for a society governed by parliamentary procedure and democratic principles to allow one governing body to create bylaws and then determine if those bylaws are consistent with its given constitutional authority. In effect, this allows the Board of Trustees to review and audit its own efficiency, effectiveness, accuracy, and appropriateness of action.

An audit process by definition is an assessment typically carried out by an independent review. Since it is in the Board’s own interest to approve its own actions, an impartial review is unlikely and improbable. Therefore, the Delegates, who directly carry with them the interests and instructions of the membership, are best suited to review and/or repeal actions taken by the Board of Trustees.

It should be noted that this motion continues to allow the Board of Trustees the right to create bylaw and policy. It simply changes how those bylaws and policies are reviewed and audited.

Forrest,
I finally read this proposed amendment as included in the first post in this thread. I am not a parlimentarian, but it appears to give the delegates the ability to review and revoke Bylaws, not propose new bylaws or modify existing bylaws, other than by the revocation of certain clauses. Is my interpretation correct? Or does this provide the Delegates broader power to also modify and create Bylaws?

If my interpretation is correct, that seems very limited in scope. It is a step in the right direction and maybe more likely to pass than an amendment providing broader authority to the delegates, but it was not what I expected to see. Was this the rational for wording it that specific way?

Please help me understand. Thanks.

[eubank]

I can sort of see Forrest's point in permitting review/revoke, but not propose/modify. Basically, it permits the IBT some leeway, but gives the delegates ultimate authority to overrule anything they might come up with. The delegates would thus have something like the role of a federal court.

Lynn

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by 66Overlander

If my interpretation is correct, that seems very limited in scope.

Hi Joe,

Yes, it is limited in scope, but you shouldn't be disappointed about that. The whole purpose is to achieve a balanced organization. I see the current problems we experience as being the result of imbalance.

The delegates are the direct representatives of the units, but currently, to all extent and practice, only pass on their unit's vote regarding constitutional issues, not bylaws or policies.

Bylaws and policies are what really run the club, but the membership has almost no influence on that. Currently, the only thing the membership can do is plead with their region president to carry their concerns to the IBT.

My motion to amend alters that by giving the membership direct influence via their own delegate. Some will argue that the region president is the membership's representative, and to a certain extent that's true, but the region president is not required to do the will of the membership. Once in office they can vote any way they want, subject to a recall vote, but when has that ever happened? As a result the Region Presidents are influenced by politics and peer pressure. The delegate on the other hand directly carries the will of the membership because the unit instructs them.

That is the major difference between being represented by your delegate versus your region president. The membership cannot instruct their region president to vote any particular way, only plead. Whereas, the membership can give its delegate specific instructions.

So, my motion to amend gives the membership a direct method of approving or disapproving IBT and EC bylaw and policy decisions. In that sense, the amendment is a major change in the control of the organization, but yes also limited.

[Lily&Me]

Good information, Forrest. Thank you.

Maggie

[66Overlander]

Great explanation Forrest. It makes sense.

I wonder of there would be value in my forwarding this to my Unit officers at this time? I assume if enough of the Units in your Region (11?) pass it, then it will come to all Regions and Units for a vote next year. Passing it in only one Unit in my Region (4) might not serve much of a purpose until that happens. What do you think?

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by 66Overlander

I assume if enough of the Units in your Region (11?) pass it, then it will come to all Regions and Units for a vote next year. Passing it in only one Unit in my Region (4) might not serve much of a purpose until that happens. What do you think?

You should probably wait, because it has to get out of Region 11 first and if it doesn't then your Unit's vote wouldn't matter - unless of course your Unit hosts the amendment and sends it to your Region president to follow the same path. But right now that could get confusing.

Besides, it might get out of Region 11 sooner than we know and if it does, the other regions might start voting on it this year.

Thanks for everyone's interest.

[Forrest]

Good news, five of seven units in Region 11 have reported passing the motion! They are; DENCO, Arizona, Four Corners, Utah, Colorado West. I expect that the motion will leave the Region 11 Rally in Gallup, NM this coming October 6-11 and go directly to HQ in Jackson Center. From there the one year clock starts and it will be sent to units throughout the rest of the country for their vote.

[Blue Pearl]

I will be waiting for it. Thanks for your work.

[Lily&Me]

Thanks for the update. We'll be watching for it.


Maggie

[Forrest]

FYI -

The majority of units (5 out of 7) in Region 11 have indicated that they have voted and approved the motion to amend ARTICLE IX of the WBCCI Constitution.

This is a "grassroots" initiative, intended for the membership of a unit to vote on and not the IBT or the Delegates at their Annual Meeting. Some have suggested that the IBT might be the "faster" path to get the motion through, but then it would be subject to all sort of opportunities by those who oppose it to modify, delay or table it. The motion is not intended, nor should it be voted on at the rally by the Region 11 Board (composed of unit presidents or their representative and the Region Executive Committee). One reason for this is the very real possibility that not every unit will be represented. This is likely going to be the case with the DENCO unit. Also, as has happened in the past, an insufficient number of units have attended, and without a quorum business cannot be conducted.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the motion being on the agenda for discussion. Never-the-less, that is not how the motion can be ratified following the procedure as outlined under Section 1 of Article XVI in the WBCCI Constitution.

I wrote Cindy Reed, WBCCI Corporate Manager, concerning this and asked what process satisfies "certification" as it is used in Section 1.

She wrote that, "A written, signed letter from the Unit President indicating the motion has been voted on and approved by a majority of the unit members is required. Please email it to your Region President (Dan Neumarkel) and also send a hard copy via snail mail to him. The letter does not need to be notarized."

So, please follow through now with a printed version, with your signature at the bottom, indicating your unit's vote. Failure to follow this procedure will make your unit's vote meaningless. Mail the letter to:

Region 11 President Dan Neumarkel
5040 West Street
Lakeside, AZ 85929

Thank you for your cooperation and best regards to all of you,

Forrest McClure
DENCO Trustee & Parliamentarian

[Forrest]

FYI,

I've been informed by Dan Neumarkel, Region 11 President, that the motion to amend has been ratified by our region and the letters of certification have been sent to WBCCI HQ in Jackson Center, OH.

The one year clock will start shortly. Please notify your Unit Presidents to be attentive to the letter and motion that will be sent to them. I've known Unit Presidents that don't open or read the letters they get. So, remind them!

Democracy is not a spectator sport - participation is required.

[Blue Pearl]

I will be looking for it in my mailbox, Thank you Forrest

[Lily&Me]

Thanks for keeping us informed, Forrest.


Maggie

[mbmbstreamer]

The GA Unit will debate this amendment at our spring meeting. I will request direction to Vote 330 votes YES.

[azflycaster]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

The GA Unit will debate this amendment at our spring meeting. I will request direction to Vote 330 votes YES.

The amendment that Forrest has proposed is taking a different path to ratification and will not be voted on at the delegates meeting. Since it has been approved by a majority of the Region 11 Units (7-0), it will now be sent to all of the remaining units in the club. Each unit should vote on the amendment and then report the result back to headquarters. If within a year the amendment is approved by 2/3 of all of the units it will successfully pass and amend the constitution. I am not sure of the exact number of units in the club at this time, but it is around 130.

2/3 x 130 = 87
87 units would then need to approve this amendment for it to pass. All units are counted even if they do not respond to the amendment.

This process is spelled out in Article XV! Section 1 of the constitution.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by azflycaster

87 units would then need to approve this amendment for it to pass. All units are counted even if they do not respond to the amendment.

All units are counter HOW? As vote or as an abstention. Am I right in assuming that if 87 are required to pass and abstention would be the same as a No.

And if all units vote in the next 6 months or less is there a reason to have to wait a year?