Curtailing frivolous grievances

[Smartstream]

I'm somewhat new here and trying to learn. I've been following these threads and have been trying to figure out the reasons behind some of the things going on in the WBCCI.

I am a retired government employee and am very familiar with grievance procedures. I agree with many that a social club should not need a grievance procedure. I also realize that as organizations grow, opinions differ and disputes need to be resolved.

Another factor here is there is nearly two million dollars in the till. Thats a lot of money and control of that will lead to lots of disputes. The control of elections and the limited voice of the general membership is all part of controlling the purse strings.

I find it interesting that a leadership that makes the rules and controls all the disciplinary decisions has so little confidence in their decisions that they have to spend over twenty grand for lawyers to tell them they can get away with expelling a member who questions if they are following their own rules. A statement used many times at grievance hearings comes to mind, "Management has the right to manage, they also have the right to mismanage."

I know there are many egos involved and change becomes more difficult to accept as we get older. My WBCCI dues are current and I am trying to keep an open mind however as I see things now the check for next years dues will not be in the mail.

Cheers, Dan

[HowieE]

Smartstream

For a new comer you sure have a clear view of the problems.

Yes there are egos and yes they want to control the purse strings for their benefit and their benefit along. Any attempt to curtail these benefits will be met with no cost spared.

Can you imagine paying Lawyers to read Social Forums looking for something to Gig someone with. Is there a higher demonstration of insecurity? I can't wait to see the next budget report to see how much they spent on the next round of greivences.

[wheel interested]

Perhaps at one of these Independence Day celebrations we might try to extracate ourselves from the 1950s and Robert's Rules and the EC7! The new members have no wish or hand in spending down the club's resources. We only ask to have affordable member valued dues and events discounted for a group as would be expected savings and be family (not $60.00 per child) and schedule (prorated nightly and not have to subsidize early workers) friendly. We ask for fun events and interesting entertainment that is not for octogenarians. It's not rocket science and yet retention and recruitment remains a problem even though Airstream sales and vintage/retro is cool to this day.

Knee jerk reactions to suspend and expell criticism is bogus and ill fated. A simple apology and contrition and a vow to improve followed by action is all that is necessary on either side. No one wants the club to fail but there are those that think they own it and are willing to take it with them as they leave rather than protect it it as a bequest for upcoming generations. Pass the torch, please, before it goes out. We all appreciate tradition but adaptation is necessary for the club's survival. You had a good run, know when to bow out. The future is not your enemy.

[bryanl]

re: "The club you are referring to is not a camping club, it is a caravan club." -- now we are getting in the 'reduce to the absurd' I think. OK. substitute 'caravan' for 'camping' in the thread. I don't think it makes any change of any substance to the conversation.

re: "but you aren't refuting the allegations with facts of your own." -- and this one suggest the burden for the negative. It is up to those making the allegations to support them, not for the accused or anyone else to prove a negative. That is why the grievance process requires those making complaints to support their complaint. That contrasts to what one can see here where people make scandalous and scurrilous and empty allegation, insinuation, and accusation without any accountability.

re: "The current process seems tantamount to a police force making laws for the people" -- here it is arguing with precedent established over centuries.

re: "an uninvolved party without a stake in the outcome reviews complaints/evidence/testimony and makes a decision as to whether charges are supportable and warrant the action which has occurred." -- A proper hearing is the purpose of the process and no one has shown otherwise, despite the allegations and innuendo.

re: "what support would you like to see." -- What I see, blatantly on these forums and in full view, is a small group of people who have are abusive, venomous, and spew a whole lot of bile that is harmful and hurtful. That kind of behavior does not belong in civil society IMHO much less in a BOF club.

re: "I agree with many that a social club should not need a grievance procedure." -- then you need to argue with why Robert's Rules devotes an entire chapter to it. You need to consider what an organization should do when some of its members engage in domain squatting, trademark infringement, slander, libel, and other such abusive or unseemly behavior. If you don't cover contingencies, you can get swallowed by them, which is why people buy insurance or organizations incorporate procedures in their bylaws that they hope will never be used.

To pretend that organizations that incorporate RR (as most do) do not have disciplinary procedures is ignorant. That ignorance is being taken advantage of from what I can see to create dissonance and disruption. That, and the lack of effort to resolve that ignorance either about civil behavior or the other side of the accusations, is the sad part to me. All it takes is to read a book or two and to talk to people before jumping to conclusions.

re: "The control of elections and the limited voice of the general membership is all part of controlling the purse strings." -- this gets into some very serious allegation and accusation. Do you have anything to support it? Have you thought through the implications of what you are saying?

re: "I find it interesting that a leadership that makes the rules and controls all the disciplinary decisions" -- again, a very serious allegation without any support. The process to elect the governance of the organization is open and available to all members. Elections have been held and subject to severe scrutiny without any evidence to support such allegations. There are no rules made that are secret or outside of the customary and usual processes. There ae no cabals, no conspiracies, not even any actions taken that can be used to support accusations such as these.

re: "Knee jerk reactions to suspend and expell criticism is bogus and ill fated." -- yet another spurious and empty accusation. Considering the tenure of the stuff I see on these forums and how long it has taken before the issues came to a head, it is ignorant in the extreme to call it "knee jerk" or unreasoned or arbitrary or whatnot.

re: "we might try to extracate ourselves from the 1950s and Robert's Rules" -- this one needs to be carefully considered. It is suggesting we throw out all mankind has learned about human behavior and how to deal with it. It is asking that ordered and well communicated rules for dealing with others in a civil fashion are to be discarded. Talk about scary and frightening.

[wheel interested]

re: "I find it interesting that a leadership that makes the rules and controls all the disciplinary decisions" -- again, a very serious allegation without any support. The process to elect the governance of the organization is open and available to all members. Elections have been held and subject to severe scrutiny without any evidence to support such allegations. There are no rules made that are secret or outside of the customary and usual processes. There ae no cabals, no conspiracies, not even any actions taken that can be used to support accusations such as these.

There is evidence to support infractions of last year's elections and it is documented and presented to both the grievance committee and the lawyers. The process was disrupted and customs were changed to obstruct Leo's candidacy. There also was deceit involved in both the actions and the statements made concerning them. And you are right Bryan I am not showing that here and now. But there was admitted misinstruction that only grudingly and laboriously got to be admitted and then at best it was "straightened out" and corrected at the delegates meeting after members had no benefit of the instruction at their home elections. There was the matter of the Blue Beret and first having to pay for publishing a platform and then having the date refuted to preclude the opportunity even as it had progressed timely at headquarters with Cindy.

Do you think that the same leadership that said at the Florida State Rally that if Leo gets off this grievance they will have more to follow to remove him, do you think this same group was not biased before recently? The fact that the WBCCI forums banned members of WBCCI through association, yes, I have proof, I have the notice from administration of the forum and e-mails from the IP, those facts show prejudice and unfair treatment.

The grievance procedures are without precedent in the combining of motions at the IBT to the taking new business to private chambers and disallowing disscussion and making no transparency of the actions to membership at the open meeting. The creation of a probationally period that cannot be appealed upon the declaration of the new status of probation is unfair. To build upon a prior grievance that was dismissed rather than allow Leo to have his say in proceedings was a shrewd act of stategy but conversely that should have disallowed leadership from retaining the grievance and action with prejudice against Leo. One way or another would be fair but to have it both ways as they call it, is not. Then a strike three was a too easy call for them to make, yet the first two never were addressed and should not count. It is called railroading Bryan is our laymen's terms. You may be a RR procedural wizard indeed but then I wish you would offer to help facilitate the corrections necessary, but right is right and wrong is wrong and if Robert didn't know that I am here to tell him different. You don't say you must be here at this place and time and too bad you can't you are out of the club. Since when can't personal grips exist or be settled outside of due process anyway? Since when can't members have and express their opinion critical, negative, or positive? Oh yeah... since the IBT made code of ethics a part of the rules at the mid-winter. Hmmmmmmm. Leadership that pays lawyers to follow members about to their various online social forums to gather he said info is too much big brother for a camping or caravan club. Where does that intrusion of rights end?

It isn't how Leo says what he says that got him expelled it is the substance of what he says and the exposure he has garnered that makes him dangerous and unfavorable to leadership. The language was just their easy out.

Hey, anybody want a " Logo this?" button?

[HowieE]

Bryanl

I can not go into the detail you seek on all you points because most of them will be documented as part of a pending suit. I would ask you to wait just a bit longer.

However I can show you that one of your points has been addressed in a motion that is working it's way through the system and addresses the question of supreme control currently help by the Leadership. If you read this proposed amendment and the Rational used to support it you may see that the fact of lack of membership representation is a recognized problem.
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f286...ion-59520.html

[joecolao]

Some may choose to define a camping club as a "weekender" type of event and others may differ. The same is true for a Caravan Club. Some have minimum days and miles traveled to help define a caravan club.
The bottom line is not what we call it. In my opinion it is more about what we want to do in our Airstream Trailers with our friends.
I am fortunate to have a friend that has caravaned/camped with Wally. His name is Bob Dillingham. Bob lives here in Riverhead, NY and he too is a past president of Metro NY.
Bob is a 95+man. His daughter was a WBCCI Teen Queen way back when. Bob gave me his original Blue Beret. A woolen beret that I proudly wore at International in Perry Georgia. Another old timer in Metro NY is Herb Gross. He too is in his 90s. Herman and Bea Buebel. These are real WBCCI old time members that I have had the opportunity to spend time with. Picking their brains all the way. From what I gather from talking with them is that things were very different in many ways with WBCCI.
They made fires and hung around. They got their hands dirty. They helped each other. But, most of all they ran their unit the way they wanted to. There wasn't much interference from the hierarchy. They were there to have fun.
I personally think they were camping but I am not looking to be controversial here.
What is important to me and most of all "Grievances" were unheard of. Filing a grievance against another member! For what. Why do we even have such a thing. Either you want to be camping together or you don't want to camp together.
It is not clear to me that the whole concept of a filing a "Grievance" is a necessary one.
Perhaps we should take a closer look into this "Grievance" system. Maybe it does more harm than good. Perhaps it stunts new ideas and "new blood" and meaningful changes by allowing and providing a vehicle to allow the expulsion of those that wish to make changes.
My friend Leo and his wife Gail that have contributed tremendously to my unit and this club have been expelled. Leo sought to make meaningful changes. He did so through the legal process. But the "Grievance" process has taken it's toll on our club and possibly set our club further into oblivion.

[Air Apparent]

We don't need the WBCCI to go camping and have fun. We have Airforums, TAC, etc.

I have given up on the WBCCI as it is an old timers club in thinking. (I know, there are many older folks who are young at heart and don't agree with the IBT.)

The lawsuit, if ever filed, could be the best thing to happen to the WBCCI.

[DFDureiko]

I have a blast with my Unit, Cape Cod , have many years invested in very good friendships, with some new energetic people now. who would think 45 year old 2 yr members would VOLUNTEER to be officers!
I too am frustrated BIGTIME with International and the Int'l Rally, but I try to go to Rally when I can, as I've met so many people over the years from all around the country that I will only see at Int'l..Hunter Hampton included.
Our club has grown since it's inception, and also grown in management levels since the peak in about '77 (the year my mom dad and I joined), but now that we have far reduced membership levels, that same structure still existes and needs to be downsized bigtime.
an example, in '78, the Cape Cod Unit spun off from New England Unit with 220 members and two rallys a month, now CC has 50 members.
I can see if you have not been here very long and not made the connections, you might wish to leave. But let me tell you, there are so many fantastic people here, it's worth staying.
That all being said, I do not know the Units in KS, or your Region that well but there are many fun loving progressive Units in the WBCCi. Region 1 and 2 for sure!
Oh and I'm 48yo......
Sincerely
Dan