WBCCI Board Lawsuit

[LI Pets]

One who frequently engages in excessive complaining, negative banter and/or a genuinely poor and downbeat attitude.

Naysayers are distinguished by their tendency to consistently view the glass half empty, make frequent one-way trips to negative town, and constantly emphasize the worst of a situation.

They have the capacity to rant and whine for hours on end about the most insignificant inconveniences.

They tend to travel solo, but have the keen ability to spread their pessimistic attitude to a group of unsuspecting bystanders and encourage others to employ their mindset.

Naysayers tend to blend in with those around them rather well, granted they have learned over the years to adapt to their surroundings.

However, when the opportunity arises, their true nature will be exposed and they will stop at nothing to exclude others or bring a general sense of negativity to any situation.

Moreover, they are mostly not Wbcci members or can't offer a better alternative.


.

[jimmickle]

At this point it looks like TAC is a better alternative, even for current WBCCI members.

Jim

[Gene]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

One who frequently engages in excessive complaining, negative banter and/or a genuinely poor and downbeat attitude.

.

Projection.

Gene

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Projection.

Gene

introjection...

cheers
2air'

[LI Pets]

Civility aside, and notwithstanding your emotional state and misstatement of the facts, your approach is/was unwarranted and is counterproductive in any situation where you are attempting to resolve a matter.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by 65GT

I don't believe Michele wrote a single word of this press release.

Incorrect she did!

Mr. G declined to participate in a complete sell-out of the process, a complete sell-out of the cause and the core reasons that many members, past members, and non-renewing members donated their money to.

No sell out Leo the lawyer told you that you couldn’t achieve many of your requests in Court.

Mr. G is the only one still on track -- I'M STILL HERE! Its whatever was left of Defend Wally, and the coaching that MetroNY leadership received that flipped this effort. I believe it was pure manipulation that sent the original effort, with those original goals, off in another direction.

But the train left the station. The coaching by very astute lawyer(s) who explained what could and couldn’t be achieved and the likely success of the original goals.
Metro NY/DW wouldn’t support your radical position, but did support your reinstatement 110% which you declined.

Litigation is all about arming oneself with the cold hard facts, that if presented in a court of law would produce a win……

Defend Wally was relying on me to document and detail every single action on their punch list. That's right, we met with the attorney and the entire weight of their effort immediately fell on my shoulders. What I could document and detail in 200-400 hours would take them a thousand hours plus.

Fact you didn’t produce anything in 10 weeks, the lawyer was complaining about your lack of follow thru, everyone was asking for the docs, they never were done.

MetroNY finally tossed us aside this past week (publicly in their just released newsletter). No big surprise though -- when you start receiving emails from your own unit, with an attorney copied in on the emails -- that writing was on the wall

Stop saying you were tossed, you made the choice, you declined.
Emails copied to the lawyer…..because you refuse to relinquish the administration of Metro NY’s web property.

Know this -- when a member acting on behalf of the IP contacted Defend Wally / MetroNY back in June, this entire effort folded like a cheap suit in just FOUR days...

Now Leo, you know that’s incorrect

[hampstead38]

The litigation was never really going to solve anything. At best, it might have brought the IBT to the table and maybe, just maybe, opened the door for some dialogue.

I took a peak at the Defend Wally site. Putting up the list of donors was nice... for the IBT's attorneys. It's like any advertisement saying, "Hey, look, we don't have anywhere near the war chest we need for serious litigation." I never did see a draft of the complaint. If one exists, I will bet a buffalo nickel that it was drafted by a lay person not a lawyer. In fact, the whole thing seems so amateurish I find no credence in the conspiracy theory.

If the disaffected had any decent legal arguments (and they might have), they traded them away far too cheaply. A seat or two on a powerless committee? That it is what my grandfather might have callled, "the booby prize."

I'll reiterate a point from far earlier on this thread. The IBT and the WBCCI are not going to change because there are some unhappy members making noises. They are not going to change because of a mythical lawsuit or because a couple of people from outside the inner circle have been given a place on a committee. The IBT is going to change until change is only option left... most likely when enough members have left to force a financial day of reckoning.

Ah, and tis an ill wind blows no good. The rumor of the lawsuit has helped any number of people have a better understanding of not only the IBT and the WBCCI... but of the people who have a gripe against them. I can't imagine that I'm the only person who's read this thread and thought, "No matter who wins, the cult of red numbers is really not my cup of tea." I suspect it is that epiphany that has helped start alternative organizations, social clubs where the talk around the campfire does not include lawsuits.

[RonH]

I have watched things unfold in the Club for many years and I have been dismayed during the past five years or so in particular at the way International has treated the rank and file members. We owe Leo G a vote of thanks for getting many members off their butts. Things are starting to move in a good direction. Leo and the Lawsuit played an important part. But now we have some people with a committment to deal with change in a constructive way and I am willing to give them a chance. It will be unrealistic to expect that years od damage will healed in a few months. Let's see what is put fowrard at the next IBT and if it is treated with respect we can go on from there. If, however, the committee's efforts are given the back of the hand, let the lawsuits roll.

In the meantime, let's not allow the desire to punish past officers blind is to our real goal; constructive change. Let's not develop unrealistic dreams about getting everything done in a very short time frame. And above all let's not have the Lawsuit group self-distruct and start eating their own young. We might very well need the Lawsuit if this effort fails.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by 65GT

Check out all of the objectives that Defend Wally used to lure supporters and money into that effort. Go ahead -- go there right now: defendwally.org Then come back and air just how many of these issues you can stamp "mission accomplished" onto.

Let's not confuse the issue -- the litigation effort did not cause the rewrite committee to form. Folks ABANDONED the litigation effort for the opportunity to sit on that committee.

__

When I wrote the e-mail that many of you received announcing the lawsuit and the Defend Wally website there was a list of objectives that we put up that we wanted to have addressed. I don't support this and it is a relief to have been relieved of being yoked on the team with the remaining characters of this Defend Wally team. After being with Save Wally since its inception years ago I have followed along closely enough to know the issues and ramifications involved and this is a complete disappointment and contrary to what the individual members had hoped to accomplish with their donations, many offering spontaneously before there even was a fund established to help get Leo reinstated!

Today you will not find those objectives listed at Leo's link. Instead you will see a letter from a unit president, an unknown to the mix, saying how and what will be according to their New York unit and assuming the position of spokesperson for Defend Wally and acting upon your and my behalf, she says. Let's get this ordered properly, NY asked to be included in the effort that was already initiated and from there proceeded to systematically take over and dismiss whatever and whomever they chose, believing that their money talks loud enough to earn them the right to control and usurp the existing framework. I think it is shameful. No one minded the risk of losing but this betrayal is an entirely different matter.

It's ludicrous and an insult to keep the escrow account built upon supporters, then turn your back on the initiative but want to retain their money so Bob can threaten WBCCI if his seat of negotiation isn't effective. Now who sent in their money just to listen to Bob articulate issues and threaten to sue the WBCCI in the future if his clout is underwhelming?

I have copied the information so you may follow Leo's summary without being directed to the wrong link.


A growing number of the general membership intends to bring a Federal law suit against the WBCCI. The suit seeks to return to fiscal responsibility in light of current economic times, return to the use of accepted Parliamentarian Practices in decision making.


Some issues that prompted this action:

• Breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly misappropriating funds.
• Travel expenses - The Wally Byam Caravan Club International, Inc, is a non-profit corporation and no part of its income or profits shall inure to the benefit of its certain members/officers.
• The IBT failed to act prudently and reasonably in regard to the management of the organizations affairs.
• The IBT failed to its duties to ensure effective organizational planning, establish programs and services consistent with the organization's mission and assist in implementing and monitoring the plan's goals.
• The IBT failed to provide financial oversight and assist in developing a balanced annual budget and ensuring that proper financial controls are in place.
• The IBT failed to manage, supervise and control the activities, affairs, property and funds of the International Club.
• The IBT failed to ensure legal and ethical integrity and maintain accountability for adherence to legal standards and ethical practices.
• The IBT failed to establish procedures to ensure that each board member understands and complies with his or her duties as a board member.
• The IBT failed to monitor the conduct of its board members to ensure the organization is being properly managed.
• The IBT allowed frivolous grievances to be filed.
• The IBTs broad definition of the wording "avoid disharmony and ill feelings among club members".
• The IBT failed to follow the bylaws or Roberts Rules in adjucation of grievances.
• The IBT draconian measures terminating members and defamation of several members.
• Discrimination unfair practices of raising MAL dues.

[LI Pets]

I tried my best between the flames to answer legitimate posts in the last few days and correct what I believed were inaccurate statements.

But the rhetoric now needs to stop, time to move forward and get the work done.

I started a new thread about the bylaws revisions, those of you who want positive change lets take it there.

[wheel interested]

Can we positively change you out for another? Hey don't laugh, it happens every day...

[Frank's Trailer Works]

Leo you will always be welcomed at a TAC rally. If I am there, I will even cook you breakfast. Sorry it went this way.
PS For what it is worth, I never doubted your heart was in it even if I did not offer my support.

[Silvertwinkie]

You can't pay for this kind of entertainment.......

YouTube - Thriller Laugh

[Goin camping]

The post that was but now is not was very interesting.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Goin camping

The post that was but now is not was very interesting.

Knowledge many have was temporarily visible but now is again invisible, yet can be found by Googling one of the principals on the thread with some fortitude. Much is warehoused on the Google.

Gene

[hampstead38]

Actually, it isn't that hard, Gene.

In general, civil litigation is a matter of public record. Once upon time, searching public records was a laborious task. These days, you don't even have to be an attorney with one of the exclusive subscription services. (Love the whole "Shepardizing" thing, by the way.)

So, let's say you're in a situation where you'd like to know if a person has been involved in a lawsuit. Sometimes finding out is as simple as using a search engine, typing the person's full name with the word "lawsuit." Of course, the more information you have the better. Some people have common names. Adding a location or some other relevant tidbit--say a person's business interest--can greatly improve the odds of finding useful information.

Not all litigation is accessible through the standard Internet search engine, but say someone has been involved in a lawsuit where's there been some media coverage. Even a passing mention in the press can give you the information you need to unravel a mystery. The really great thing is once you have a "hit," there's normally a wealth of information. And information, as we all know, is the true coin of the realm.

[lewster]

You know..........

It seems to me that when I pledged to support Defend Wally there was a law suit that was going to be brought against the WBCCI for the many reasons originally listed.

Now there is no lawsuit and we are being told that the contributions are being held in escrow........FOR WHAT?

Please enlighten me here without BS or heated rhetoric......name calling or any other diversion. Some folks are in....others out. I simply want to know where my contribution is and WHEN I CAN EXPECT IT TO BE RETURNED now that the original purpose for the funds no longer exists. I did not donate funds to form a committee, I DONATED FUNDS FOR A LAWSUIT THAT WAS TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE FAILING WBCCI AND TO GET Leo G RE-INSTATED!

I'm a patient person, but from where I come from, you don't solicit funds for one purpose, then spin around and change course and expect that the original contributors will remain happy with this new path...one that ostensibly does not require the funds that were originally donated.

Am I missing something here????????????

Some straight answers will suffice nicely!

[Lily&Me]

Originally Posted by Goin camping

The post that was but now is not was very interesting.

There have been several posts to this thread that have disappeared in the last few hours. However, if you subscribe to a thread, the posts show up in your email inbox, and you still have access to their content.

This is getting very, very ugly, and there are undoubtedly those watching the deterioration with glee as people turn on one another and infighting stoops to a new level.

Maggie

[Aage]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

There have been several posts to this thread that have disappeared in the last few hours.

Well, it could be that...

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by lewster

You know..........

It seems to me that when I pledged to support Defend Wally there was a law suit that was going to be brought against the WBCCI for the many reasons originally listed.

Now there is no lawsuit and we are being told that the contributions are being held in escrow........FOR WHAT?

Please enlighten me here without BS or heated rhetoric......name calling or any other diversion. Some folks are in....others out. I simply want to know where my contribution is and WHEN I CAN EXPECT IT TO BE RETURNED now that the original purpose for the funds no longer exists. I did not donate funds to form a committee, I DONATED FUNDS FOR A LAWSUIT THAT WAS TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE FAILING WBCCI AND TO GET Leo G RE-INSTATED!

I'm a patient person, but from where I come from, you don't solicit funds for one purpose, then spin around and change course and expect that the original contributors will remain happy with this new path...one that ostensibly does not require the funds that were originally donated.

Am I missing something here????????????

Some straight answers will suffice nicely!

Lew, I couldn't agree more with you. I want my money back too and I think everyone should get their money returned and Bob collect his own money for the committee's (?) purposes. He is no longer advocating or representing Defend Wally but dissolved it in return for his seat on but yet another special interest committee created by the IBT without even trying to follow through with the supporter's wishes. Would that have been decided at an emergency meeting, perhaps through e-mail or teleconferencing? They can do business quickly if they want to? Are there minutes or a record to soon be disclosed? But what of the individual members that sought a legal representative on their behalf to go up against the WBCCI for them and the redress of their concerns and not the least Leo's reinstatement? That's how they empower and strengthen their elitist group. There was a definite reason they selected Bob and not Leo to be a representative and it isn't because Bob is more eloquent or capable, but because he is more malable and predictable.

Carol enough, just stop it, you talked long enough about the club but when are you going to become a member?

I have been a member since 2004 Bob. I used my dues money for 2010 to contribute to the lawsuit instead and have been waiting for Leo's reinstatement ever since. Who knew the action wasn't even being pursued while we all waited for the lawyer to file with WBCCI when what really happened was secret deals between officers hand selecting candidates and the Defend Wally Funds set aside while we all waited for breaking news as per the lawyer so you kept telling us.

Originally Posted by lewster

AND SPEAKING OF PLEDGES, WHEN CAN I EXPECT THE RETURN .....
The DW funds will remain in escrow.
In the end each pledge will be returned pro rata against expenses. __________________
Bob

For how long? What expenses? I want my money that you did not spend on a lawyer to reinstate Leo. I had no qualms risking the money on behalf of having a lawyer represent the case but keeping the money and saying this is a New York lawsuit is fraudulent.

Now finally I have had an e-mail update from Howie. We miss hearing from Howie, don't we? For those that were not contributors and on the e-mail list, this is what was sent out.

Hello to all Defendwally Donators

We have all been waiting a prolonged time for any official announcement relating to the Defendwally Lawsuit. That delay was necessary as we evaluated an option other than a lawsuit. After reviewing all options and with advice of our lawyer we have decided to place the suit on hold and to allow a less confrontational approach is considered.

I apologize for the delay in advising you but I am on the road and only have limited access to the net

While I do not expect any significant announcements for the duration of my vacation there is an on going discussion on Airfourms

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f286/wbcci-board-lawsuit-61787-59.html#post886698

Again I am going to ask all to give us a bit more time to determine how this will unfold. I am quite sure it will not parallel the 2020 committee as a dog and pony show with no intent of action if for no other reason because of who initiated it


HowieE


Defend Wally/Metro NY withholds lawsuit against WBCCI, seeks amicable resolution

Numerous Defend Wally and Metro NY members are dissatisfied with the WBCCI status quo, and feel that positive change in the club is both urgent and necessary if it is to survive. These same members believe that their voices are not being heard, and that positive change is being blocked by antiquated, cumbersome club procedures and disinterested past officers. To address this situation, Defend Wally created a legal fund and Metro NY later came on board as an additional plaintiff. Legal counsel was retained to file suit against WBCCI and institute change.

During the course of preparing the law suit, Defend Wally/Metro NY was contacted by WBCCI. Discussions began, and eventually centered on withholding the lawsuit in exchange for appointing a representative from Defend Wally/Metro NY to sit on a newly created “By-Laws Revision Committee.” This five member Committee would be tasked with consolidating and incorporating changes to the club’s Bylaws and Constitution. Encouraged by this turn of events and intent upon having a seat at the table to institute positive change within WBCCI, Defend Wally/Metro NY has decided to withhold filing suit in the hope that changes in the club can be achieved amicably through this new Committee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Leo G has declined such compromise. He has moved on in another direction and is in no way involved with Defend Wally/Metro NY’s desire to achieve change through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise.

Defend Wally/Metro NY has chosen a representative to the Committee, and he has been duly appointed by WBCCI. It is the desire of this individual to represent any members who are dissatisfied with the club, and to bridge the disharmony between our groups. This representative will be a conduit for these dissatisfied members, and seek to institute constructive change and cooperation from within the club. We believe it is critical to the club’s creditability that the concerns of these members be properly addressed, and that the parties continue to operate in good faith, toward the resolution of any outstanding issues.

To this end we have directed counsel to suspend legal action while the By-Laws Revision Committee meets to generate its recommendations, and the WBCCI act upon same.

Sincerely,
Michele M. Curley
President Metro NY Unit
and on behalf of Defend Wally