WBCCI MOHO issue - 2010 to 2012

[dayner]

After owning a AS Flying Cloud for a few years, and meeting a lot if wonderful people across this country both AS owners and owners of other RVs (dreaded SOBs?) I joined WBCCI at large recently. Then I stumbled upon this thread, read it ad nauseam, and have determined that maybe WBCCI is really just not for me. Wish i had read it earlier. I like my AS, but I don't and won't worship it, nor do I have any zealous loyalty to AS jackson or any intellectual elite heritage some seem think it has. My AS is not perfect, in fact the quality is really not as expected for the price. I have modified it with interior ductwork and insulation, added a receiver that works perfectly with no damage after almost 50,000 miles of hard use now, and have defiled it with other mods and will change the suspension to leaf springs in a few weeks to raise the trailer for practical reasons. But above all my AS is just a portable home on the road. I truly don't want to be an elitist RVer listening to arguing over who can and can not associate with me. This thread just screams all that I am not; and WBCCI wonders why membership has fallen over the years, me thinks its not the economy.

[dwightdi]

The Bylaws need to follow the rules set up in the Constitution. No mere member has seen the secret bylaws yet. I wonder how the IBT is going to adopt the new bylaws in January before the new constitution is approved? I would hope that the large loop holes in the new constitution, that was presented to the Units last spring, would be fixed as there is no hope of it being adopted in that form. Has a undesclosed section in the new constitution been added allowing SOB motorhomes into the club? I think that would be a real killer.

[mbmbstreamer]

Unless Jackson Center sends the proposed Constitution Revision to the Units in preparation for their Business Meetings, their Delegates cannot vote on the change. The 2010 Delegates had instruction from their units. There has been no question posed and will be no direction to these delegates, unless it is presented for the Unit Business Meetings.

[dwightdi]

Jackson center is under no obligation to send out the new constitutional proposal until April of next year for the delegates' meeting and vote in June. We will really not know whether the EC7 and IBT will approve the motion to move forward until after the January 2012 meeting. I did not stick around for the July 5th IBT meeting this year so I am not sure that a formal vote was held to approve the new constitution proposal to move forward. Bob only said that a verbal agreement was made. The units must vote on the proposal at their spring business meeting. The model Unit constitution do not mandate a spring business meeting and that is a problem for those units that do not hold a spring business meeting giving their members a chance to vote.

[wkerfoot]

The new constitution must be approved by the delegates. The motion was tables a the last delegate meeting. I believe that we have a promise to bring the new constitution up for vote in 2012 by the delegates and a promise to release the new bylaws for member review.

I believe that most if not all units have a spring meeting to discuss the slate of officers and any items for delegate voting.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Bill

Originally Posted by dwightdi

Jackson center is under no obligation to send out the new constitutional proposal until April of next year for the delegates' meeting and vote in June. We will really not know whether the EC7 and IBT will approve the motion to move forward until after the January 2012 meeting. I did not stick around for the July 5th IBT meeting this year so I am not sure that a formal vote was held to approve the new constitution. The units must vote on the proposal at their spring business meeting. The model Unit constitution do not mandate a spring business meeting and that is a problem for those units that do not hold a spring business meeting giving their members a chance to vote.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Are we going to continue to talk to ourselves or are we going to do something?

There are some 25 or 30 members posting to this thread all of which have stated their convictions against the presence of none Airstream MH in the Club. If we continue at this rate we are doing no more than spinning our wheels.

If there is not a concerted effort beyond what has been done so far we have all but thrown in the towel. Having taken a lot of criticism for my past efforts to curtain the actions of the Leadership I am not the one to organize the fight. However I do have the e mail list for 2/3 of the membership and I am willing to work with anyone interested in leading the assault.

It is time to start to inform the general membership on this issue and the Denver Amendment because all too many unit officers are not.

PM me if you have an idea.

Maybe when you say somebody ought to lead a charge, see if any of the x-SW members now holding titles are willing to take up the charge. Or maybe a general call should go out - whatever happened to SaveWally? They would have been all over this like flies for months now, informing units of everything...

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by dayner

After owning a AS Flying Cloud for a few years, and meeting a lot if wonderful people across this country both AS owners and owners of other RVs (dreaded SOBs?) I joined WBCCI at large recently. Then I stumbled upon this thread, read it ad nauseam, and have determined that maybe WBCCI is really just not for me. Wish i had read it earlier. I like my AS, but I don't and won't worship it, nor do I have any zealous loyalty to AS jackson or any intellectual elite heritage some seem think it has. My AS is not perfect, in fact the quality is really not as expected for the price. I have modified it with interior ductwork and insulation, added a receiver that works perfectly with no damage after almost 50,000 miles of hard use now, and have defiled it with other mods and will change the suspension to leaf springs in a few weeks to raise the trailer for practical reasons. But above all my AS is just a portable home on the road. I truly don't want to be an elitist RVer listening to arguing over who can and can not associate with me. This thread just screams all that I am not; and WBCCI wonders why membership has fallen over the years, me thinks its not the economy.

I know it's a long pull from the New Orleans area, and there may well be some fantastic units down around you (though since you joined "At Large" you may be moving around a lot.) Still, I'd recommend you camp with a unit like mine (Heart of Texas Camping Unit) or the Texas Highland Lakes Unit (I have wonderful fun friends who are members there, so I'm sure it's a fun unit to camp with as well) before you decide you can't stay in WBCCI. I've also heard only great things about 4CU.

There seem to be 2 schools of thought... there's a group who take the retail-boycott approach of "I'm not giving a penny of my money to go to those IBT guys" and the group who are determined to fit vocally instead of by quitting. (I guess there's also a 3rd group who either don't care or think that everything the IBT does is great.)

I'm a new member, we bought our first trailer this year and I lucked into a great unit. I oppose the inclusion of non-Airstream products in the WBCCI because to me it's the official Airstream club, and I think members should have a significant individual influence via votes. Even if both decisions go against my wishes, if my unit continues to be comprised of fun, interesting, friendly people who are entertaining to camp with, I'll continue to be a member. The old guard won't live forever, after all.

[airstreamhobo]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

I disagree, about one third the sites are Airstream, it is still thought of as an Airstream park by those who stay there.

If it was Airstream only it would have been out of biz a long time ago.
The sewer plant required cost over 1M, golf course cost about 100K to maintain a year.
It needs 90% occupancy to stay afloat, would I rather see all silver bullets, sure.

I don't think you can compare that to the club it self.

.

Did Travelers Rest grow?? Last Feb. 2011 I was there for 3 days and saw very little airstreams, some had only 1 or 2 airstreams in the rows. I saw mostly park models there.

[mbmbstreamer]

The IP placed the revision on the agenda last year. He may do the same this year. No action required at IBT.

[rideair]

Carol,

I love your post:

"Maybe when you say somebody ought to lead a charge, see if any of the x-SW members now holding titles are willing to take up the charge. Or maybe a general call should go out - whatever happened to SaveWally? They would have been all over this like flies for months now, informing units of everything... "

The problem Carol is, the ones that led the charge, did the real work keeping it going, getting the word out, making the trip to Perry to fight on the floor, etc... have all either been thrown out, quit or don't really care anymore, except for maybe you.

The ones that are left have either become part of the "inner circle" (thus part of the problem) or mainly as a single voice (being you) can only do so much.

There are few people to thank for this, so "Thank You Inner Circle", Hope you enjoy your new MOHO friends and the killing off of those who you once stood with, yet have become against.

[Coloradobus]

Just received our Ballot from the BEAVER AMBASSADOR CLUB, asking members for vote to change the BEAVER CLUB constitution to allow NON-Beaver Coach Class A motorhomes into the BAC
Rationale: Beaver Class A motorhomes are no longer manufactured by parent company Monaco. Member attrition caused by "aging out" is more of problem than members wanting a new coach.
They plan on limiting Beaver-member sponsored non-members entries to 10% of the total Club population each year.
We voted no! Its happening elsewhere.

[wkerfoot]

Would the amendment allow any motor coach or just Monaco manufactured?

Bill

Originally Posted by Coloradobus

Just received our Ballot from the BEAVER AMBASSADOR CLUB, asking members for vote to change the BEAVER CLUB constitution to allow NON-Beaver Coach Class A motorhomes into the BAC
Rationale: Beaver Class A motorhomes are no longer manufactured by parent company Monaco. Member attrition caused by "aging out" is more of problem than members wanting a new coach.
They plan on limiting Beaver-member sponsored non-members entries to 10% of the total Club population each year.
We voted no! Its happening elsewhere.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

Sheesh... 2 moho letters published in 2 months. I responded to this one, I thought the one last month was annoying as well but it was so poorly written and unfocused I thought no one would actually give it much credence anyway.

That a WBCCI VP is grinding his axe about it in the letters to the editor was enough to make me write. We'll see if any anti-Thor-moho letters get published.

I was startled to see that both of the Letters to the Editor published in this month's Blue Beret were AGAINST allowing non-Airstream MOHO owners to be full voting members who can hold office in the WBCCI.

David

[Coloradobus]

Bill,

This vote in the Beaver Ambassador Club would allow any Class a Moho to enter; see below.
October 16, 2011

FELLOW BAC MEMBERS:

We all know that our Club has been under tremendous pressure in recent years. About half of our operational income disappeared when the production of Beaver motor coaches was discontinued, leaving us dependent largely on dues income for operation of the Club. However, we have been able to maintain a strong and vibrant Club, partially through the development of non-dues income sources and partly through the decisions of your officers to personally cover a greater portion of the costs of holding office.

One problem that will not go away is that our primary source of new members – sale of new Beaver coaches – is no more, while the factors that cause us to lose members – primarily age-related ones such as health – continue unabated. As our coaches age and are disposed of, some of them do not find new owners interested in BAC membership, and in too many cases we are unable to track the ownership of a coach that is sold. We cannot realistically look to resumed production of Beaver coaches as a solution to our problem.

If we do nothing, we can expect our membership to decline by about 10% each year, so that in just six years we will be half the size we are now. That level of membership will not support the active program of rallies we have enjoyed for so many years and will not support the high quality we have come to expect of our Beaver Tales newsletter and membership services. We could very well survive, but it would be a very different club.

Your Board of Directors and other leaders have spent a lot of time considering our alternatives for increasing membership. The foremost objective has been to maintain our unique BAC culture, which is hard to describe but is nonetheless very real. This ruled out merger with another “orphan” club, because that would almost certainly result in factions developing within BAC due to the natural affinity of members of that club for each other. (In addition, this would be only a temporary fix, because that club would be subject to the same pressures as are we.)

The solution, we believe, is to permit owners of other brands of coaches to join BAC as individuals subject to controls that ensure that they can be integrated into our Club. We think that limiting such new members to owners of Class A diesel coaches will maintain a commonality among our coaches so that our ability to help each other – either directly at rallies or through the Forum – will be maximized. We believe that our primary way of recruiting new members who own other brands will be through personal relationships with current members, so each such new member will come in with a BAC sponsor. To ensure that the entry is measured to permit full assimilation of the new members, we think a 10% limit each year makes sense. And to make sure that your officers are fully aware of how BAC operates, we think that an officer should have been a BAC member for at least two years before being eligible for election to office.

We all wish that we could go back to the good old days when Beaver coaches were coming out of the factory at a good clip, but that does not appear to be likely in the foreseeable future. Your Board believes that the proposal in the ballot that accompanies this message is a solid basis for going forward, and is an important enough measure to warrant this special election. The Board voted unanimously for the proposal and we encourage you to approve the proposed By-Laws change.

Mike Collins
National President

[RickDavis]

Text of the proposed MoHo amendment as published in Nov. BB

(Motion: Regular members who are LIFE
MEMBERS may, upon request, retain
their membership as Regular Members
if they replace their Airstream manufactured
recreational vehicle with a Class
A motor home manufactured by a division
of Thor Industries, Inc., the parent
company of Airstream, Inc.)

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

The IP placed the revision on the agenda last year. He may do the same this year. No action required at IBT.

Barry stated that he would do so to many people, I believe he stated that intent on the record.

The Bylaws just went out to the Region Presidents about 10 days I learned,
I suppose you can ask your RP for a copy.

Myself and others have been pushing for the WBCCI member only forum to be turned on.

The ECC has the software in place ready to go.

.

[RickDavis]

Anyone have any idea how many motorhome owners are also life members. I would bet it is not very many. Of course this could be the proverbial camel trying to get it's nose in the tent. If this one were to pass you can bet they will be back for round two in another year

[mistral blue]

Linking it to a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP is interesting.
Of course the trick will be in trying to scratch together the ~$1500 extra (probably less) into the price of your new quadruple slideout, triple AC, two and a half bath Tuscany.

MONEY makes the world go ROUND!!! - YouTube

[mbmbstreamer]

If the Amendment is revised to 1) only apply to current Lifetime Members, and 2) make the membership non-voting and non-office holding, then I think it is fair. Otherwise, I vote NO.

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by mbmbstreamer

If the Amendment is revised to 1) only apply to current Lifetime Members, and 2) make the membership non-voting and non-office holding, then I think it is fair. Otherwise, I vote NO.

I'd guess if it fails again, they may finally give in and make it non-voting/non-officer. Lots of people (myself included) have advocated that change. I'm confident that they could have gotten THAT passed the first time it was introduced, I don't think anyone is interested in throwing long-time members out of the club, just keeping it an Airstream club, and therefore any official representative of the club should be traveling in an Airstream product.