WBCCI New Constitution

[HowieE]

All right we have heard from several that were commented against a revision of the Constitution even before it was available for scrutiny. They have challenged the IP authority to have formed the Committee. They have complained all was done in secret forgetting they themselves have been able to comment openly throughout the process. For the most part that openness was wasted on a continual attempt to derail the process.

There has been no absence of the agreement that the Club seriously need reform. Again those that have been fighting so had to derail any attempt to present an avenue for reform are for the most part those that tried so hard to enact reform when they were in a unit Leadership roll.

We now presented with a revised Constitution that provides the greater membership to be counted as individuals and provide for Majority Rule. That Majority will be empowered with the capacity to revise, correct, amend, expand, or change the club as they see fit.

Yes we could take the suggestion that several committees be separately created and go off and write something that represents a Federal approved proposal. That is how we get $600.00 hammers and cost overruns that brake the bank.

Just think if those guys in Philadelphia had called for general comments and 100% acceptance of the population before signing the Declaration of Independence where we would be now. They recognized that they had not solved every concealable problem and provided an avenue for amendments.

Lets concentrate on what this provides and if it does not in fact directly address the every recognized problem that it does provide for a more meaningful means of addressing problems in the future.

[mbmbstreamer]

My primary concerns are as follows:
1. Elimination of the Delegate system removes the ability of the membership to collaborate and over-rule the IBT. Discussions at the unit level BEFORE a vote, provides an opportunity for discussion and collaboration. If a member is asked to vote with only one side of the story presented, he is much more likely to vote as the leadership would like.

2. 1M1V is better accomplished by allowing MALs to vote individually and have those added to the totals at the Delegates Meeting.

3. Final authority on Bylaws must rest with the membership! Incorporate Forrest's amendment into this change. Make the annual "Caucus" the body for interpretation of the Bylaws.

4. I am still misreading the IBT voting. How many votes for the EC and 5 for the Areas?

5. Why do we need a Nominating Committee? It is a simple matter to confirm qualifications and can be done in Jackson Center.

6. I agree with removing the July 4th as a mandatory part of the International Rally, however the IBT meeting in July should either be part of the International or held as part of an Area Rally. Don't add another costly gathering to the budget.

I agree with the bulk of the changes, but believe the elimination of Delegates eliminates feedback to the IBT.

Proposed changes for the delegates?

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

he also cites chapter and verse, inconsistencies and problematic or ineffectual portions, that can benefit from his criticism and proof reading of the draft.

Ok select one.

[rideair]

For me, in its current form, there are two many issues, changes, etc... that can be fixed in a one day, two day, etc... delegates meeting and hope to have something that even comes close to the changes that really need to be done to fix the problems with the WBCCI. It appears whenever someone tries to give input that does not go along with the thinking on the committee they are called a "naysayer" or "not someone working for change", "not thankful for the hard work done", etc...

Again, "THANK YOU" for all those that worked on it, you've created a nice rough draft document that you should be proud of and that should now be moved on to the next set of brains/writers to make changes, clean/clear up wording, etc... to make it even better. But again, this document "is not" ready for a vote and is not at a state where it can be tweaked at a delegates meeting. This fact is proven by in just two days many holes and wording problems have already been pointed out and that's just on a quick overview read by many. If it was a close to final document you would not have this issue. In the computer world this would be called "Alpha Code" knowing you still have "Beta Code Release" and then "First Customer Ship" where you really workout the little bugs with patches after it's put in place.


Enjoy,

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

The CBL committee by Don Shafer has taken it upon himself to release not only his report but an unofficial copy of the constitution.

My previous posting was mostly facetious. Maybe you missed the Smilies.

Seriously then, is the "unofficial copy of the constitution" different from what the Unit Presidents will get from HQ?

If it isn't then what is your real complaint? You've berated postings for making opinions without having read the document, but now you protest that the document is out and what? Shouldn't we read it and form opinions, ask hard questions or give it a critique?

At least you got a CBL committee report on a timely basis. The Denver Colorado Unit had to fight for half a year or more just to get a report at all. We never, ever, expected that Don would give our motion a positive recommendation (and didn't). And all we wanted was for him to produce a report - good, bad or indifferent. What more were you expecting from him? Did you really think he was going to fall head over heels in love with something so much more radical?

And if you can't convince us of the genius of the Revision Committee's work, what makes you think you'll be able to convince the rest of the membership? You answer our criticisms with mockery, or at best just tell us we don't know how to read. Your responses remind me of an artist who claims the public just doesn't have the acumen to understand his/her art. Well, I'm sorry, but it isn't art just because it isn't understood.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Just think if those guys in Philadelphia had called for general comments and 100% acceptance of the population before signing the Declaration of Independence where we would be now. They recognized that they had not solved every concealable problem and provided an avenue for amendments.

Seriously? Do you really think the Revision Committee's work compares with, "those guys in Philadelphia?"

But if you are, then consider that they didn't do their work in secret. The year was 1787. The place: the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the Declaration of Independence had been signed 11 years earlier. For 4 months, 55 delegates from the various states met to frame a Constitution.


The Constitutional Convention quorum required that 7 out of 13 state delegations must be present to conduct business. Rhode Island never sent delegates, New Hampshire arrived late, and New York left early. In addition, each state delegation had its own quorum requirement.

My point is that this was a deliberative assembly USING the delegate process. The comparison between the Revision Committee and "those guys in Philadelphia" is laughable because the revised constitution being offered eliminates the delegate process, but depends on the delegate process for its approval. I hope you see the undigestable irony of that.

[HowieE]

Forrest

Your civics lesson is accurate but you did pick up on the more important point of my comments. There are times when constructive and meaningful work has to be done in SECRET within a SMALL GROUP.

You and I talked several time in the last 6 months about the inclusion of your amendment in the revision. Yes I am disappointed that it was not or could not have been included word for word in the revision. However I do believe the provision for membership voting on future proposals will have the intended effect.

[mistral blue]

Hubris

[Pahaska]

John you have over 100 days! It takes about a half an hour to read this the first time.

Not really. We have one rally between now and July. That is the Texas National Vintage Rally where we, as hosts, will be working our butts off to host a hundred odd rigs. We have tucked a short business meeting into the schedule for our election and assign an alternate delegate. We had problems finding that time.

Analyzing the proposed constitution and instructing a delegate is a matter of hours, not minutes. I do not believe that the process can be done properly in one meeting, let alone done in the minutes we have available.

I doubt that the average unit has much more time to spend on a document that touches on about every aspect of the club.

Further, there is no way major disagreements can be ironed out at the delegates meeting and the ramifications completely understood by the delegates.

The club is a mess, but it has limped on as a mess for years and it can limp on for another 15 months of being a mess if the result is a clean, well understood set of changes.

[xrvr]

How are the regions to be reformed? How many? How if any will this affect voting? zz

[bugdoc]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Seriously? Do you really think the Revision Committee's work compares with, "those guys in Philadelphia?"

But if you are, then consider that they didn't do their work in secret. The year was 1787. The place: the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the Declaration of Independence had been signed 11 years earlier. For 4 months, 55 delegates from the various states met to frame a Constitution.


The Constitutional Convention quorum required that 7 out of 13 state delegations must be present to conduct business. Rhode Island never sent delegates, New Hampshire arrived late, and New York left early. In addition, each state delegation had its own quorum requirement.

My point is that this was a deliberative assembly USING the delegate process. The comparison between the Revision Committee and "those guys in Philadelphia" is laughable because the revised constitution being offered eliminates the delegate process, but depends on the delegate process for its approval. I hope you see the undigestable irony of that.

The author quoted above seems to be unaware of the committees request for suggestions and comments from the membership. The few that were provided were, in most instances incorporated, where appropriate, into the revision. The author should also recognize that the Delegates will deliberate, amend or not amend the proposed revision and then either approve or reject the revision. Also, the revision does not do away with the deliberative process, but then the information provided by the unauthorized release of an incomplete document does not provide the all of the information regarding the proposed revision that will be out shortly.

I would also like to call attention to the fact that WBCCI operates as an organization under Roberts Rules of Order that defines the manner in which change is accomplished, something that did not exist in 1787!

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Seriously? Do you really think the Revision Committee's work compares with, "those guys in Philadelphia?"

But if you are, then consider that they didn't do their work in secret. The year was 1787.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did meet in secret and was pretty good in keeping secrets during the process. The citizens of Philadelphia were constantly trying to get the delegates to reveal what was going on with rather limited success. It was a convention mostly composed of the more conservative politicians in the country who wanted to have a strong central government.

When the proposed Constitution was released to the public, there was an outcry amongst liberals who wanted protections for individual rights. The result was a deal: a group of amendments protecting those rights, eventually numbering somewhat over 10, were to be submitted to the states. Only 10 were adopted and we call them the Bill of Rights. Without that deal, the Constitution may never have been adopted. The supporters of the Constitution wrote a series of pamphlets which came to be known as the Federalist.

It took the delegates to the Convention 4 months to agree, imagine how long it would take if they had done it publicly? It was felt the delegates had overreached and a deal was made to submit the amendments with the Constitution. It took a long time to get this all done and there was lengthy and vigorous debate.

When states have constitutional conventions, it is done in public and it gets very heated and political in the worst ways. But that's democracy.

In a nonprofit, major changes usually start as a discussion at a board meeting, then are assigned to a committee which no one much cares about because it's more work, the committee reports to the board, and then there is some sort of vote either of the board or the members. Sometimes input is requested and there may be interim reports. The members may be informed of the process and there may be public meetings to go over changes and solicit more suggestions. The committee may re-draft things and resubmit. This could go on for years, but at some point, there has to be a final vote. The more significant the changes, the more time for discussion is necessary and the more members should be voting on the changes. Rushing things leads to active discontent. There are no set processes for making major changes to the document that sets the rules for organizational governance, however, wise leaders open up the process as much as is practical both for democratic reasons and to avoid arguments over process and personalities.

So far as I can tell, this process has been very flawed. Now there appears to be a couple of proposed constitutions floating around. There's an unofficial "spokesman" answering questions. Many distrust this "spokesman". There is so much distrust and confusion that substance may be subordinate to snarkiness. There may be insufficient time to analyze the document and come up with a coordinated response. When delegates meet, there will definitely little time to consider even one or two amendments per section no matter what the importance of the section may be. Unintended consequences are inevitable. This will not end well. The best constitution in the world cannot survive this process untainted.

(By the way, Bob is right—that wording does allow MAL's to vote in organizational-wide elections, but not in units or regions. It's the kind of drafting that causes confusion and to make everything absolutely clear to everyone results in 45 or more page documents.)

Gene

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Pahaska

Not really. We have one rally between now and July. That is the Texas National Vintage Rally where we, as hosts, will be working our butts off to host a hundred odd rigs. We have tucked a short business meeting into the schedule for our election and assign an alternate delegate. We had problems finding that time.

Analyzing the proposed constitution and instructing a delegate is a matter of hours, not minutes. I do not believe that the process can be done properly in one meeting, let alone done in the minutes we have available.

I doubt that the average unit has much more time to spend on a document that touches on about every aspect of the club.

Further, there is no way major disagreements can be ironed out at the delegates meeting and the ramifications completely understood by the delegates.

The club is a mess, but it has limped on as a mess for years and it can limp on for another 15 months of being a mess if the result is a clean, well understood set of changes.

John I understand an appreciate those issues, we did weekly and bi weekly tel conferences, perhaps you can consider several unit members doing the same and form a small committee within your unit.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi

How are the regions to be reformed? How many? How if any will this affect voting? zz

Makes little difference each member gets an independent vote.

[xrvr]

Okay, then how are the regions set up. And MALs still do not get a vote so it may matter to some. zz

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi

Okay, then how are the regions set up. And MALs still do not get a vote so it may matter to some. zz

I am not sure which part of the English language some have not gotten a handle on. If you go back and read the section on MAL or just read Crawford Gene's comments above you will see that MAL would have ALL RIGHTS of membership in the WBCCI, this includes the right to VOTE in any and all election relating to the WBCCI, but they do not have the right to vote in within a unit. As a MAL there are part of the WBCCI they have not chosen to be a member of a given unit and thus can not vote in a unit. To carry it to the extreme that some might present here they should have the right to vote in any and all units they so chose to vote in. That exceeds the idea of 1M 1V and I trust that is not waht you are advocating. That works in Chicago as voters are bused from district to district but should not be endorsed here.

[LI Pets]

Howie our posts crossed, you my friend are reading it correctly.

The MAL's get a vote.

The folks that say they don't, need to read it again.

[Gene]

But I also said the drafting was such that it could be misinterpreted. Misinterpretations of tightly worded sentences are common and it happens to all of us. Quick readings of an entire document cause lots of problems, but everyone does it too. Our vision does not strictly see what is in front of us, but what our brain expects to see plus what is in front of us, so if you are sure the drafters are out to screw everyone, you may well read things that way. Slow, careful reading is necessary.

The sentence: "A MAL shall possess all the rights and privileges of the club, except the right to vote or hold office in a Unit or Area." can be interpreted by ignoring the comma to deny the right to vote. When drafting you have to anticipate human error. It should have been written: "A MAL shall possess all the rights and privileges of the club including but not limited to the right to vote in WBCCI elections, however a MAL is not a member of a Unit or Area and may not vote in Unit or Area elections or hold office in Units or Areas." This may not be perfect because I haven't seen the whole document (and don't want to), and is twice as long as the original, meaning if I wrote it, the Constitution would be 90 pages long.

More important, as I already posted, is that the entire process is flawed and leads to potentially bad outcomes.

Gene

[HowieE]

Gene

That is one He-- of a powerful comma. It is there and it should be read as such. This committee was not Paid by the word, I hope we have come beyond that.

Had this been disseminated via Twitter there would have been lost of reason to question the intent.

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by bugdoc

The author quoted above seems to be unaware of the committees request for suggestions and comments from the membership. The few that were provided were, in most instances incorporated, where appropriate, into the revision.

Don S. and others are saying there was no opportunity for input from the members. There is no doubt that input was asked for here on the forums.
I think input may have been asked for other places also although no banner ads were in the Blue Beret.

I sent in 4 pages myself, poorly written, as they were dashed of during a rally..

Every thing I sent in was addressed in the new document with the exception of the MAL surcharge. Several committee members sent an e mail acknowledging they had received my input.

No complaints about no opportunity to express opinions here