WBCCI Board Lawsuit

[hampstead38]

The intent of the litigation may have little to do with the results in the end.

If the IBT is honest--as Bob admits--I suspect they are also as sincere. I imagine they believe they are right with same conviction as Carol believes they are wrong.

So all of these attempts to change the International leadership have "failed." Why? Is it because they are feckless? That seems a bit harsh to me. I imagine the leadership is mostly guilty of being on the wrong side of history. They are old and apparently are in their ways. The very things they want to preserve about the WBCCI--the 1967 ethos--are the same things others want to change.

I'm not sure the WBCCI will survive with either group in power, not in the long run. All of the improvements Carol seeks, her entire conceptualization as new leadership as "good custodians" is still a fundamentally "top down" approach.

In my experience, the Airstream community is eclectic, free thinking and often head strong. It is not--I think--a group of shrinking violets. This is one of the reasons I think the traditional, hierarchical model is suboptimal on matter how enlightened the leadership might be. I'm pretty sure litigation is a hammer; I just don't the think WBCCI's problems are a nail.

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

So all of these attempts to change the International leadership have "failed." Why? Is it because they are feckless? That seems a bit harsh to me. I imagine the leadership is mostly guilty of being on the wrong side of history. They are old and apparently are in their ways. The very things they want to preserve about the WBCCI--the 1967 ethos--are the same things others want to change.

I agree with this, completely. The leadership is, agewise and/or in mindset, the WWII generation, IMHO. Those stuck fast in the 50's (which did have really great music) should begin to step aside and let some of the younger folks begin to lead this organization into the 21st century.

Message to the current WBCCI leadership: It's okay to do this, you guys---to let go. Some will accuse you of running and caving---ignore them---most will applaud your willingness and ability to allow the legacy of this organization to go on in a form that has changed to adapt to the times we live in---and the people who live in them.

Maggie

[Over59]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

The intent of the litigation may have little to do with the results in the end.

If the IBT is honest--as Bob admits--I suspect they are also as sincere. I imagine they believe they are right with same conviction as Carol believes they are wrong.

So all of these attempts to change the International leadership have "failed." Why? Is it because they are feckless? That seems a bit harsh to me. I imagine the leadership is mostly guilty of being on the wrong side of history. They are old and apparently are in their ways. The very things they want to preserve about the WBCCI--the 1967 ethos--are the same things others want to change.

I'm not sure the WBCCI will survive with either group in power, not in the long run. All of the improvements Carol seeks, her entire conceptualization as new leadership as "good custodians" is still a fundamentally "top down" approach.

In my experience, the Airstream community is eclectic, free thinking and often head strong. It is not--I think--a group of shrinking violets. This is one of the reasons I think the traditional, hierarchical model is suboptimal on matter how enlightened the leadership might be. I'm pretty sure litigation is a hammer; I just don't the think WBCCI's problems are a nail.

I think you are right on. A large part of the battle is who gets to be boss, not the processes that create an entity WBCCI. WBCCI is over as an organizing structure and a "bottom" up collective will likly take it's place for some. Others just want their turn to "run" things and will not be any more acceptable to those of us who can manage ourselves without their guidance. Opportunity to gather, yes. That is just an issue of communication, which the forum enables. There will always be those who need someone to tell them were to go, when to get their, when to eat, drink, or light their campfire. They an plenty willing to do so. This will keep WBCCI going for another 10 years.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

The intent of the litigation may have little to do with the results in the end.

You need to review case law on other clubs and how their issues were resolved.

If the IBT is honest--as Bob admits--I suspect they are also as sincere.

That is completely out of context, I said they are honest in that they would not steal the clubs money. Sincere, no.

So all of these attempts to change the International leadership have "failed." Why?

I thought you understood this better, the bylaws don't allow it.

I'm not sure the WBCCI will survive with either group in power,

This is not a power play, its change in the way things done under an outdated constitution, bylaws and failure to follow Roberts Rules. Also the way the good 'ol boys operate.

I'm pretty sure litigation is a hammer; I just don't the think WBCCI's problems are a nail.

That answer has not yet ripened!

.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Over59

This will keep WBCCI going for another 10 years.

They'll be out of money in 3 years, or sooner depending on their legal bills.

[rideair]

“Feckless”
Doesn’t seem like all that bad of a word when she explains the definition. Maybe if the gentlemen of the IBT/EC7 had let her tell them the definition someone would have gotten an award instead of a grievance.

YouTube - Feckless

[HowieE]

Paul

With that definition and accent I can see that the IBT might have considered "Feckless" unflattering.

[hampstead38]

Sorry, Bob, only my wife gets to tell me what I need to do. A court ruling doesn't change culture or the human heart. You won't find that in the case law, but you will in the fabric of American history.

Having been involved in conflict and disputes, I have learned that very few people think of themselves as "the bad guy." I'm guessing the IBT thinks of themselves as basically good people who are entitled to the "perks" of office. You drag them into court and what exactly do you think is going to happen? What? They are going to slap themselves on the forehead and exclaim, "Hey, I could of had a V-8"?

The reason the Blue Book is the size it is, and the reason the WBCCI has its current Byzantine organizational structure, is because in the 50s and 60s, people thought better rules make for better organizations... especially the military. Good morning, Vietnam.

If your goal in court is simply to vanquish the old guard, OK. You win and break the stranglehold of power, many will leave. But as long as power is centralized, the same problems will happen again. You'll be the new boss, same as the old boss.

[LI Pets]

Perhaps you can redistribute or delegate some of that power?

Ex: Grievances can be administered at the unit level as to one of their members.

Sure if things are changed the Laurence Welkers & some ex military may quit, but the upside should outway that loss.

We all pretty much agree that things have to change, I believe the lawsuit will facilitate that change. I know I'm not alone.

[wheel interested]

Once the elections are free and open and honest, and once the leadership doesn't single out individuals to impede from addressing the membership and IBT and to run for office, nor block or censor from the forums; younger, newer volunteers can step up and help the general membership alter the constitution and by-laws to allow the current imbalance of power to be redistributed. Smaller goverment, KISS, however you prefer to approach the situation, those that have offered to throw their hats in the ring have not been of the "I wanna be boss and lord it over you" types. For case in point just check out the VAC.

The problem is the current leadership has stonewalled and shut out all efforts and individual members that have tried to make changes AND have done it in a myriad of unethical ways. Even the current constitution could allow for changes and new air, if the board and parlimentarian would facilitate and aid members and units. The club governance is not set up to be a bunch of bosses to tell members what to do, it is to be a bunch or representatives making certain the membership's will is served.Instead you have this civil unrest because power has indeed corrupted those on their 13 year (whatever) march-up to the top and their international retirement status. They don't take kindly to any "upstarts" upsetting their apple cart. You don't hear the call for volunteeers as you once had. They decided they didn't want volunteers, they wanted clones.

The fight is not fair. To me that IS the point. Their bag of dirty tricks has no place in our recreational club. I also am not that sour and pessimistic to think new leaders would persue nefarious machinations for their own privilege and benefit.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by rideair

“Feckless”
Doesn’t seem like all that bad of a word when she explains the definition. Maybe if the gentlemen of the IBT/EC7 had let her tell them the definition someone would have gotten an award instead of a grievance.

Well, this is an intriguing video to say the least. The presentation is excellent IMHO. But more importantly, the definition of feckless may not be known by many. It does sound potentially offensive, but as an adjective, may very accurately describe the leadership:

–adjective
1. ineffective; incompetent; futile: feckless attempts to repair the plumbing.
2. having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.

Based on that definition, I would agree that the leadership in the club does indeed appear to be ineffective in turning membership numbers around and, incompetent in managing the budget.
If it is a grievable offense to point this fact out at any venue, I will start looking for my next grievance.
I think the facts show clearly that the leadership actually has the full knowledge of the budgetary situation but is choosing to not take the kinds of measures necessary to immediately halt the problem. But additionally (and this is just MY opinion) I cannot escape the impression that steps are indeed being taken to silence vociferous opposition using a combination of methods including expulsions.
BTW - when it comes to word definitions and misunderstandings of true definitions, for years and years I thought that to peruse a document meant to just scan it over. I was quite surprised to learn that it really meant to read thoroughly.

[Gene]

I don't understand how a lawsuit is going to change the way people move up in the leadership—an election system that is based on promoting people according to lengthy experience and a nominating committee controlled by the leadership do not seem to me to be per se against the law. It takes a political campaign over the long haul to change the system.

I have seen organizations that were very democratic become run by the same out of touch people for years because few members wanted to be leaders. I have also seen people who genuinely thought they were democratic rationalize themselves into all sorts of antidemocratic actions. It takes an attentive and strong membership to keep any organization democratic.

Gene

[wheel interested]

It's always been grievable to the IBT to criticize in any way. It starts out with their code of ethics to speak no discontent, it is reflected in the sanitized Blue Beret, it is exercised as censorship in the WBCCI forums, putting Pleasantville as their only foot forward to the public, it results in letters from headquarters and lawyers from suggestions to cease and desist orders, it spawns multitudes of grievances of leadership against members. You might even get physically assaulted, but they will not tolerate insurrection. Give them that old time "quality" member, the rest are readily expendable as undesirable "quantity."

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by wheel interested;845752

The fight is not fair. To me that [B

IS[/B] the point. Their bag of dirty tricks has no place in our recreational club. I also am not that sour and pessimistic to think new leaders would persue nefarious machinations for their own privilege and benefit.

Very good.

Maggie

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

It's always been grievable to the IBT to criticize in any way. It starts out with their code of ethics to speak no discontent, it is reflected in the sanitized Blue Beret, it is exercised as censorship in the WBCCI forums, putting Pleasantville as their only foot forward to the public, it results in letters from headquarters and lawyers from suggestions to cease and desist orders, it spawns multitudes of grievances of leadership against members. You might even get physically assaulted, but they will not tolerate insurrection. Give them that old time "quality" member, the rest are readily expendable as undesirable "quantity."

And, again, the mindset of the WWII generation---"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".

Maggie

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

If it is a grievable offense to point this fact out at any venue, I will start looking for my next grievance.
.

Don't worry Tim, we'll add you as a plaintiff

[vajeep]

I voted with my dues. Told our unit (WDCU) via our president that we would no renew or WBCCI membership.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

I don't understand how a lawsuit is going to change the way people move up in the leadership—an election system that is based on promoting people according to lengthy experience and a nominating committee controlled by the leadership do not seem to me to be per se against the law. It takes a political campaign over the long haul to change the system.

It takes an attentive and strong membership to keep any organization democratic.
Gene

Gene

No one has ever voiced and thoughts of changing the progression up through the ranks. There is nothing wrong with that and it serves the Club well to have experienced individuals coming along. That part of the election system that has to be changed is the method of entering the progression. As long as there is only a single slate of hand picked successors presented to the membership nothing will ever change. The intent of the suit is to brake the strangle hold that deigns nominations to any office other than those presented by the nomination committee.

When an individual has presented his partition to run for an office, within the time frame set forth in the constitution, and paid, out of pocket, the $400.00 to have an add placed in the Blue Berte only to have it denied by some "Feckless" self appointed censor everyone should begin to question the system.

This is not a coup, revolution, takeover, or overthrow. No one here is seeking power. We are seeking the return of the governance of the Club to the membership. If the membership once repowered wants to underwrite the current conditions at least they will have voted on it rather than having it decreed.

We can not predict how a Strong Membership will act, once they regain the rights that they have lost, but by damned I for one am willing to give them a chance.

[hampstead38]

Once the elections are free and open and honest, and once the leadership doesn't single out individuals to impede from addressing the membershippeople and IBT Congress and to run for office, nor block or censor from the forums media; younger, newer volunteers citizens can step up and help the general membershippopulation alter the constitution and by-laws to allow the current imbalance of power to be redistributed.

Funny thing, democracy. Over 200 years of government "by, for and of" the people and we always seem to have a handful of rascals running the nation.

The WBCCI still has, what... around 7,000 members? How many of those 7,000 really involved in this fight? How many people have left because of the IBT's mismanagement? Funny thing, court. You think all of the facts are on your side and a clever lawyer will paint a much different picture. How many people have contributed to the legal fight? 100? 200? 400? Even if 500 people have written a check, that means 6500 haven't. In point of fact, you could radically change the WBCCI by convincing a mere 50 percent, 3500, to withhold dues for a year... and not spend a nickel on an attorney.

I know it's hard, but try to see the world through the IBT's eyes. The WBCCI extant is all that they have ever known. Even if a few hundred people are up in arms, there are several thousand who aren't. People are still paying dues. I'm sure there are those in the WBCCI waiting for their turn to "ride for free." And I'm sure there are people who are happy with how the club is being run. Trust me... if you go to trial, you'll hear this point made repeatedly.

Based on my admittedly limited grasp of the situation, I agree that the International leadership is hurting the WBCCI. Where I differ with some, however, is the solution. As long as power (read "money") is centralized at the International level, this same song will repeat. The lawsuit only brings you closer to a solution if the people winning do so to dismantle the machine. Until the power (read "money") is firmly in the hands in the units, it will be old wine in new bottles.

[wkerfoot]

I find this discussion about the IBT officers very interesting. At the Hobo Rally this past February, I had a conversation with John Boutwell, the candidate for I3VP, about why he, as a sitting Region President, was chosen and not someone who was not a sitting president. He told me that none of the prior region officers was willing to step up. I am not sure what to read into this.

Bill