WBCCI New Constitution

[HowieE]

All of your questions have been addressed previously in this threat.

If you review the thread you will note that the reason for 44 pages of print is that the original, the revision, and the reasoning will be presented in a 3 column format thus the need for 44 pages.

[JStanley]

Who’s in charge?
Why can’t the club put forth a candid and trusted spokesperson?

[LI Pets]

The IP is in charge.

Who would you suggest?

The others on the committee read this, for the most part they don't want to put up with the tone of some of the people here.

Perhaps they don't understand forums as you and I do and the culture of its users.

If you don't think I'm qualified to answer questions about a document that I spent hundreds of hours along with 4 others, fine don't ask here, ask someone else then please.

[DanB]

OK, right now I could care less if I receive the text written on the backside of a used McDonald's napkin.

I'm gonna just wait until the document is issued. I will then share it with my unit. No big deal. Until then, I'm considering these days "the calm before the storm".

In truth, I'm really falling under the belief that the constitution means nothing. All the power and rules will fall in the bylaws.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by DanB

In truth, I'm really falling under the belief that the constitution means nothing. All the power and rules will fall in the bylaws.

Dan,

The rules perhaps not the power per se.

Look at this way the Constitution is the locomotive, the Bylaws are the freight cars.

The Constitution is the power IMO

[rideair]

Bob,

Based on your responses to my answers, I can see you have now officially become one of the inner circle or as some might say, part of the problem and not the solution with the WBCCI, which is fine at least we know where you stand. Some of us worried more about people just getting a chance for members to cast a vote, I didn’t and don’t care if the vote was email, mailed, phoned, sent carrier pigeon or slow boat to China. Oh, and to make sure it was “approved by the C&BL Chair”; you’re really starting to sound like one of the IBT/EC7 now (again that's fine, we know where you stand). Again, what’s one of the biggest problems with the WBCCI “all the rules”? People don’t join a club to worry if they are following rules in everything they do, badge color, number/types of flags flown, etc… You are welcome to do your own research on the WDCU By-Laws. If you don’t like what you find, oh well.

I personally don’t have a problem with the delegate system. It has worked for over 50 years, if your unit does not show up, your vote does not count, not real hard to understand. You could always make a simple change, allow units to Send a proxy, send an email, this is not real hard. Oh yeh, that idea was shot down by the IBT/EC7 too.

All you would have to do is create a “MAL Unit” which is out of HQ. They could send their vote to HQ, it would be up to that group to get a delegate (if they wish) and make sure they go vote or see above. They would be able to hold office just like any member in a unit.

It appears whenever an “amendment” to change something is brought up from a Unit, the IBT/EC7 shoots it down for some reason, ask Forrest! So why waste your time and effort. If the IBT/EC7 were real leaders they could have brought that forward no problem a long time ago. They have been able to bring forth the MOHO, Name Change, the re-writing of the whole Constitution, etc... no problem for them to do that. But bringing forth the right for a MAL to vote, no way! Let's to a total re-write for that.

Allowing a MAL to vote would have been cake-walk and a slam-dunk, asking Units to use proportional voting would be as easy as a letter out to the Units.

You’re in business Bob, what’s the biggest pain in your butt? That’s right, following all the rules put down by the Fed’s, State and Local governments. What makes you think this is any different here?

Some people just enjoy creating complex solutions for simple problems.

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Look at this way the Constitution is the locomotive, the Bylaws are the freight cars.

And its one hell of a train wreck.

[LI Pets]

spoken like a true naysayer

[Boondocker]

By the way, the gist was in jest.

You really can't throw out softballs like that and expect them not to get hit. You really can't.

[Gene]

Maybe this minitreatise on corporate structure will help in understanding.

The stuff about differences between "constitution" and "bylaws" confuses the issue. The WBCCI does not use standard corporate law terms; I will.

Corporations have rules of how to run the organization either in Articles of Incorporation or bylaws. The Articles are usually very general. The bylaws generally include a mission statement, what membership means (shareholders in a for profit corp.), powers of officers and directors, executive committee powers, how to conduct directors' meetings, annual meeting, amendments, financial matters, conflict of interest rules, where the assets go if the corporation is dissolved, committee powers and types, employees, nondiscrimination statements, relationships between other groups (regions and units in the WBCCI).

I may have left out some things, but it's about how to govern the organization. Different corporations may have other rules specific to them—for the WBCCI this could be about rallies and caravans. Sometimes there are two levels—bylaws for standard stuff as I outlined, and "rules", "regulations", "policies" or the like. In this case the bylaws are more likely to be about the usual power relationships and how to govern. The "lower" level is more likely to be about things specific to the organization—say, how many flags to have, beret colors, rallies, but you may find conflict of interest or an employee handbook there, for example.

The rules may be mandatory or suggestions or guidelines. The bylaws are more likely to be mandatory. Bylaws are usually harder to amend than rules or policies. Sometimes only the members can amend the bylaws and maybe only by a super majority. Rules often can be amended by a board. Amendments to bylaws need to be noticed (lawyers have turned this into a verb) to anyone who votes on it. If a significant number of potential votes do not get notice, I think there could be a challenge to the vote. Power point is not enough (power point is designed to put people to sleep). The actual document needs to be distributed even if it costs money—democracy has expenses.

The WBCCI does it differently, but mixing up names is not unusual, especially in non profits.
Constitution should mean a basic document from which power flows. That is the purpose of Articles of Incorporation. "Constitution" usually is for governments. The WBCCI uses the term "constitution" for what is usually "bylaws". The WBCCI uses the term "bylaws" for what would be policies, rules, etc. Generally I am using the term "bylaws" as it is used in corporation law, not the way the WBCCI uses it.

There should be a clear difference between bylaws and policies, rules, etc. The latter should not be about how the corporation is governed (i. e., power). Changing bylaws should have little effect on other policies and rules, but it can. If the latter conflict with new bylaws, the bylaws control. If there are a lot of conflicts, the rules and policies should be amended at the same time.

I see a lot of talk about the WBCCI's bylaws as if they had to do with governance. This seems like bad form to me. If so, they should have been looked at with the "constitution". Most, if not all, power relationships should be defined in the Articles and bylaws, not elsewhere.

Carry on and don't forget the personal insults. This thread is often the virtual room where you lock everyone in and see what happens.

Gene

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

This thread is often the virtual room where you lock everyone in and see what happens.

Gene

Great post Gene. I do disagree with the above comment though. The fact is, the majority of people are not allowed in the room let alone a seat at the table. Despite Bobs positioning himself as some sort of WBCCI spokesperson, as far as I know, the club has never appointed him to any such role. The larger membership had no voice in the decision to rework the documents, nor has the reasoning for doing so been made public through anything approaching official channels. Setting aside the spurious thread here, no input was sought. There was absolutely NO venue for official comment: none. Now that the document is being released, it is being done so in the least effective manner possible.

No, Gene, this thread is the virtual thread where you lock everyone outside and see what happens.

[LI Pets]

Great post if the facts were the case herein, but their not.

Gene Have you reviewed Roberts Rules?

Generally you have Constitution, Bylaws and a Policy manual.

To use the term bylaws to also include the Constitution is more common than stating each, either way is correct.

The current Bylaws have policies interspersed between the each Article, that will be separated in the finalized re-write of the bylaws after the New Constitution is adopted.

It will be much easier to read & understand, many clubs are structured like that.



.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Boondocker

There was absolutely NO venue for official comment: none.

That is not true, that issue was covered too many times to repeat again

Now that the document is being released, it is being done so in the least effective manner possible.

Its release is up to the IP, the manner I described is not yet in stone, so wait a bit to find out...........

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

That is not true, that issue was covered too many times to repeat again
.........

Show me one single solitary official WBCCI document seeking input. Just one.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by Boondocker

Show me one single solitary official WBCCI document seeking input. Just one.

Rod there are two features you may want to try one is the search feature.

Now stop harassing points please

Originally Posted by dwightdi

From: Norman Beu <beu146@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:44:19 -0500
Subject: Membership
Friends

The selection of members for the Bylaws Revision Committee, approved by the Executive Committee on July 5, 2010, is now complete. I am pleased to announce the following appointments:

Dona Garner, Chairman, WBCCI Parliamentarian
Kerry Mattila, President, Ontario Canada Unit
Joe Perryman, 1st Vice President, Region 10
Bob Novak, Member, Metro New York Unit
Tom Smithson, First Vice President, Northern California Unit

I have encouraged Dona to consult with the 2020 Committee, the Vintage Airstream Club, and others as appropriate. I want to thank Dona, Kerry, Joe, Bob and Tom for stepping forward to the challenge of this significant task. My personal interest is to make the Blue Book more user friendly, to reduce the bulk, to review Standing Committee Job Descriptions, and to identify impediments to "fun, fellowship and adventure" - all the while retaining the essential character and the traditions of the WBCCI, including the Code of Ethics. Should you have an input for study by the Committee, please communicate directly with Dona.

Safe Travels

Norm Beu
President, WBCCI

The other feature is the ignore option.



.

[Boondocker]

Interesting, how was that distributed? I don't recall seeing it. If you can show it went to everyone, then I halfway withdraw my show me a single document comment. But if it did not, then I wont. Beyond which, that announcement does not contemplate a complete rewrite, it clearly implies a tweaking.

My comments are not harassment, they are the voice of someone who is deeply frustrated and will not be cajoled into saying the Emperors new clothes look great.

Bob, it is not your place to decide who gets to comment or what topics are appropriate grist for the mill of discourse. That type of conduct is the very essence of the arrogance that so many have found so distressing.

In the mean time, I suggest you enjoy your moment in the limelight. On the information available (i.e. observable behavior as opposed to unsupported suppositions) it seems increasingly likely that the whole rewrite is spurious. Consider that a constitutional rewrite is an event of major importance; yet from the beginning the process has been under the radar. Now that the proposed changes have been vetted, it appears that the leadership has little interest in spending the appropriate resources to ensure that the membership is informed, educated and on board. This is not what one would expect from a legitimate effort to institute change.

More likely, this has been a sop to diffuse the lawsuit, and the leadership is not committed to change. When the half hearted efforts fails, as is inevitable, the leaders will walk away pretending they tried. And you, Bob, after a year of being their apologist will no longer be of use and will find yourself tossed on the scrap heap of no longer useful mere members. So enjoy your moment of pseudo spokesmanship because thats all you will get out of it.

By the way, you are right: I am a naysayer. When stupid things are going on, I say NAY. When the will of the membership is ignored, I say NAY. A reasonable man has the duty in this world to stand up on his hind legs and say no when these things happen; going along with whatever is fed to you is not good character. So, yes, I am a naysayer in this case; and proud of it.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Great post if the facts were the case herein, but their not.

Gene Have you reviewed Roberts Rules?

Generally you have Constitution, Bylaws and a Policy manual.

To use the term bylaws to also include the Constitution is more common than stating each, either way is correct.

The current Bylaws have policies interspersed between the each Article, that will be separated in the finalized re-write of the bylaws after the New Constitution is adopted.

It will be much easier to read & understand, many clubs are structured like that.

.

Yes, I have read Robert's Rules, more than once. The original was published in 1876 by Gen. Henry Robert and were written to standardize parliamentary procedure. The basic design is for plenary assemblies, but adapt fairly well to other meetings.

Section 67 of Robert's Rules of Order has a discussion of constitutions, bylaws, charters and such. Since the original text was written 135 years ago, some of it is out of date—even in the updated versions. Robert presided over two major revisions in 1893 and 1915 and others have further revised it subsequently. In the 19th century, many states chartered corporations by an act of the legislature and the primary organic document was called a "charter". Unincorporated associations used all sorts of terms including "constitution", "charter", "bylaws". It became unwieldy to charter each corporation individually and states adopted corporation codes or laws. The corporate organizers filled out a form called Articles of Incorporation, sent it to the Secretary of State, staff reviewed the form to see if it complied with the statutes, and approved or not. The term "corporate charter" is also accurate, but not often used now.

Robert's Rules do not have the force of law, but many organizations adopt them in their bylaws when they do not conflict with the Articles, bylaws, or laws of the state or nation.

They are rules of order, not rules of governance, though there is some overlap. To understand how corporations work you have to understand statutes and case law, then look over the usual (and unusual) ways they are organized. If you want to run a meeting, study Robert's Rules. If you want to understand power relationships, you have to study a lot more.

It is true that many names are used for organic documents. To understand where the power is, you have to look behind the names and look at the purposes of each document and how they distribute power.

If you think, Bob, Robert's Rules are the answer, you have a lot to learn, but perhaps, you prefer to quibble and attract attention to yourself. It's your choice.

Gene

[Boondocker]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Great post if the facts were the case herein, but their not.

Gene Have you reviewed Roberts Rules?

Generally you have Constitution, Bylaws and a Policy manual.

To use the term bylaws to also include the Constitution is more common than stating each, either way is correct.

The current Bylaws have policies interspersed between the each Article, that will be separated in the finalized re-write of the bylaws after the New Constitution is adopted.

It will be much easier to read & understand, many clubs are structured like that.



.

You got to be kidding, right? You are trying to explain rule structures to an attorney? REALLY? For your next trick how about explaining wallowing to a pig?

[mbmbstreamer]

I'm still confused. We have an opportunity to look at a proposed revision. To find ways to improve it and then to find the votes to pass it. If we don't like it, it will be relatively easy to gather 1/3 of the votes to stop it. If we like it, we can accomplish more in this short period than in the last 5 years.

The key? Get a sufficient number of Delegates who are instructed to vote as they believe their membership would wish and then engage in constructive debate.

Why complain? Modify and approve.

[Boondocker]

Matt, in principal, and in fair game, you would be correct in your assessment. On the other hand, on the basis of past behavior from the chair, I think there is a high probability that their will be creative use of Roberts to thwart genuine efforts from the floor. As a recent case in point, I direct you to the shenanigans related to the proposal from the Denver unit. Nobody would be happier to be proven wrong on this than me, but I do not foresee that happening.