WBCCI New Constitution

[Gene]

I want to correct a statement made long, long ago (actually long ago in posts, yesterday in time) by Boondocker. It was about how to amend a motion. A member of the assembly (delegate in this case) may propose a "friendly amendment" before a second to the motion is made. Often this rule is ignored and friendly amendments are accepted after a second is made, but strictly, this is not ok. Once a second has been made, the normal amending process is to be used—one can move (the "maker") to amend the motion and then a second has to be made, discussion must follow, then a vote.

My understanding is the changes will be presented as amendments, but that must be done by a motion to amend (that would be the "main motion"). It may be the chair making the motion since it was his committee. I don't think anything prohibits the chair from making motions, although it does not look good and either the chair of the committee should make the motion, or the chair should step aside and have the vice chair run the meeting.

The idea of having the constitution amended to permit the members or delegates amend them is a good idea. I think that it will have to be included in one of the amendments being presented since they will probably be the only ones before this group. Why not eliminate the leadership (trustees or whatever they are called) entirely? Then just substitute the word "members" for "trustees" and include "only the members may amend or adopt bylaws notwithstanding any other provisions in this constitution". Then you have to amend them to establish control before the leaders use the un-amended ones to consolidate their control. I don't know how that will get on the agenda unless you include it in that amendment. Something to think about anyway.

There are many versions of Robert's Rules. They are similar and mostly identical in their main points, but page numbers and some things may differ. The edition the organization uses should be stated in the constitution or bylaws. If it is not, then the parliamentarian may be using a different one and that can lead to disputes. It best to check on this and use the same edition when challenging things.

Gene

[Ed Emerick]

Just vote no, there is nooooooo benefit for us WBCCI members with the proposed changes. They are so minor and so not helping grow the club that I feel this is a real waste of time. OR is it just a smoke screen...........

Me, I smell smoke.

[DanB]

Seems like the non-members have won this battle! Congratulations.
This thread is now ignored.

[rideair]

Ed,

I’m with you on this one. There’s not a nickels worth of difference between Regions/Areas and Delegates/Caucus. So let’s look at the number of IBT guys. If you take away all of their travel dollars does it really matter if you have 6, 12, 20, etc… if you don’t pay them, who cares how many you have! As for 1M1V, have them vote through the WBCCI HQ, if they wish to send a delegate to cast their votes “OK”, if not, “Fine”.

The “New Constitution” does not give the power of the purse to the membership, until that happens, nothing will change.

VOTE NO!!!


DanB, I’m a member and I’m still here!

[wkerfoot]

Dan,

I am still here also. I have sent my prior questions, and a few more, to the committee and will post their response.

The committee told me that they will gather, either some or all, they were unclear on which, the questions on the WBCCI site.

Hopefully they will notify the entire membership about that as well as the ability to ask the committee questions.

Bill

[rideair]

What I find funny about this whole subject is we were told in the begining "We need to past the New Constitution" but never really told "How" this will fix anything in regards to the spending, military style ceromonies, etc...

When people asked these simple questions, they were put down and not answered or were told it could be fixed later. I thought that was the whole reason for the re-write in the first place.

I'll keep asking the questions in hopes of someday getting a straight answer.

I understand Bob will be the moderator over on the new "Revision" forums. I hope it all works out well though I doubt I'll be posting over there.

[RickDavis]

The proposed constitution may have its flaws but it does get 1m1v which could be good if there was more than one person running for office. They might even have to campaign.

It also does away with ethics and grievance which almost justifies passage just to do that

[wkerfoot]

The ethics and grievance committee is part of the bylaws as is the entire disciplinary procedure.

I don't think that the revised constitution changes any of that.

Bill

Originally Posted by RickDavis

The proposed constitution may have its flaws but it does get 1m1v which could be good if there was more than one person running for office. They might even have to campaign.

It also does away with ethics and grievance which almost justifies passage just to do that

[Gene]

Originally Posted by 65GT

Not an expert at this by any means, but my guess is that prior to the second being asked for, a delegate should rise and call a 'point of order' in order to be recognized to propose this 'friendly amendment?

The plan as it has been discussed is that while there is one major motion, that each individual section will be discussed and voted on separately. I believe that the motion as released is completely out of order based on this piece by piece procedure and may fall on its face on that aspect alone.

Once an amendment has been introduced it has been a customary practice within these meetings that any member can offer an amendment to the amendment and from there it can go off in just about any direction, about as far fetched as you can imagine.
__

A point of order is to challenge the order (procedural question) being followed or to question what is going on. I don't know of a way to make sure a friendly amendment is proposed before a second is made. It's just luck, or the person proposing the amendment has discussed it with the maker of the main motion beforehand and they have worked it out with the chair so the chair recognizes the friendly amendment person right away. But why do it this way?—just move to amend.

Making one major motion is sloppy I think. It makes the procedure (order) confusing. That would be when a point of order would be helpful with an explanation that the procedure makes the procedures overly complicated. Ask the different parts be taken up a separate motions, then when they deny it, appeal the decision. These are points and motions that take precedence over everything else, so if they don't recognize one person, another should be be prepared to make the same points and appeals.

If they permit amendments to the main motion that have little or nothing to do with the substance of the main motion, that's great. That's when to introduce things like making the bylaws amended by the membership. I suppose you could offer an amendment throwing out the leadership and calling for an election of temporary officers and and directors (or trustees or whatever) by the delegates. I would print and distribute these amendments with the reasons for them beforehand—they'll know what you are up to anyway and the delegates should not have surprises because people vote against surprises.

Gene

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by Ed Emerick

Just vote no, there is nooooooo benefit for us WBCCI members with the proposed changes.

Originally Posted by rideair

Ed,

I’m with you on this one. There’s not a nickels worth of difference between Regions/Areas and Delegates/Caucus. . .

The “New Constitution” does not give the power of the purse to the membership, until that happens, nothing will change.

VOTE NO!!!

The need for a 2/3 majority to amend (or “revise”) the constitution is a fairly high hurdle and it may very well not happen. Between the Constitution and Bylaws Committee recommending against the adoption of the revised constitution, and widespread suspicion surrounding the “shell game” aspects of its presentation to the membership, the revised constitution is far from a done deal.

At this point it would be nice if we had someone to do the job that Save Wally did with the motor home amendment, that is, tally the unit votes before the delegates meeting so we know where we stand.

Two possibilities would greatly simplify the delegates meeting:

1. The revised constitution doesn’t have the necessary votes to pass going in, so is DOA.

That moots the proposed amendments to all the sections. The delegates can just rubber stamp the nominating committees list of officer candidates, vote down the revised constitution, and adjourn.

2. The revised constitution has the votes to pass as written, but enough delegates are pledged to vote against the revised constitution if amended at the delegates meeting that any amendment will result in its failure. (After the experience with the name change amendment I believe a number of units put this constraint on their delegate for the motor home amendment.)

That also moots the proposed amendments to all the sections. The delegates can rubber stamp the nominating committee’s list of officer candidates, vote in the revised constitution as-is, and head for the vintage parking area for a prolonged happy hour.

Only if the revised constitution has sufficient votes for passage and sufficient delegates free to pass it as amended (and who knows what that might be) is there any point in spending the hours or days it will take to hammer out all the proposed amendments to all the sections.
.

[Jimmy100]

In boarding school in the early 60's, there was a term related to futility. It was named "quesney," in part because it sounded real and very official, not only because of the spelling but also that it was faintly French and thus was difficult to challenge especially without a pocket French-English dictionary. The accepted definition was someone who beat farts from a dead seagull with an oar. A fair amount of action with few results.
Hunt

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

The ethics and grievance committee is part of the bylaws as is the entire disciplinary procedure.

I don't think that the revised constitution changes any of that.

Bill

It was my understanding that the code of ethics would be replaced by a code of conduct and the ethics and grievance committee would be a thing of the past. This would eliminate a method of harassing vocal members.

It would seem certain of the bylaws would be voided by the new constitution, for example the code of ethics. If in fact the code of ethics is gone, then you can't be accused of violating it.

Differing opinions welcome

Living in the trailer right now in the driveway due to a power outage from this afternoons storms

[azflycaster]

If the IBT wants to eliminate the EGC they can do so without a new constitution.

[Nuvite-F]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

The ethics and grievance committee is part of the bylaws as is the entire disciplinary procedure.

I don't think that the revised constitution changes any of that.

Bill

It was stated at the Mid Winter IBT that the Ethics and Grievance Committee was being eliminated, but they didn't say what was replacing it.

Maybe E & G is being replaced by a Disciplinary Committee, analogous to eliminating Regions and instituting Areas. Meaning--what? The numbers and boundaries of the Regions are set in the Bylaws, not the Constitution.

As you say, this is determined by the Bylaws, which we are not going to be allowed to see until after we vote in the new Constitution.

All a shell game.
.

[RickDavis]

It would be a lot easier to know what to support if we could see the bylaws. Perhaps this should be delayed a year so the whole package is available.. I have developed so much patience waiting to get to this point whats another year?

[RickDavis]

Originally Posted by azflycaster

If the IBT wants to eliminate the EGC they can do so without a new constitution.

We can probably all agree that the IBT does not want to get rid of it

[rideair]

Hunt,

Not real sure about the farts, but there has been a bunch of crap here.

All part of the fun.

I now need to go work on the Historic Rt. 11 Caravan agenda from Bristol, TN to 1000 Island, NY in June

[mbmbstreamer]

Benefits?
Fewer International Officers, reducing cost
Fewer Regions and Region Officers, reducing cost
Allowing the International to avoid the July 4th Holiday, reducing cost.
Eliminating the Code of Ethics, eliminating grievances based on said code.
Requiring all qualified names be brought forward for a vote.
Allowing MALs voting rights.
Allowing units to vote even if they aren't at International.

Seems there are many changes which the folks on this forum have been pushing.

Let's "Perfect" the revision in June and make these changes. Let's add member interpretation / veto of Bylaws.

Take it when you can get it, don't complain because you can't have it all.

[Gene]

There was a post about how to gain recognition from the floor during the meeting.

The way to gain recognition to make a motion is to raise your hand. When making a point (of order, information, personal privilege, etc.) you raise your hand and say what type of point you are making. But, when the time comes for motions to be made, people raise their hands and wait for recognition. Then you can make a motion. Once a motion is made and seconded, the floor should be open for discussion. There may have been a time limit put on discussion and normally, it takes a 2/3 vote to close discussion to a certain time limit. The constitution or bylaws may change that, however. There may be a motion at the beginning of the meeting to adopt certain rules that you don't know anything about and it's best not to let the chair ram that through.

Obviously chairpersons ignore people at times and the remedy is to start making procedural points—for ex., the sarcastic approach would be to make a point of information and ask the chair if he or she intends to ignore people trying to make motions, or a point of order requesting how the chair can not acknowledge people.

These are the simple parts of Robert's Rules. It gets a lot more complicated when you really get into it. Looks also for any procedural rules in any of the organization's documents. Of course, it is good to know the statutes under which the organization is incorporated. Lawyers get these things wrong sometimes, so don't get discouraged if it is confusing—it's like learning anything. It doesn't come overnight.

For those who want to vote down the whole thing: if you do, then what? Are you better off, worse off, the same? Wouldn't it be better to try to amend each part, of you can't, then vote it down. And if you tie the hands of delegates you show distrust of them and maybe make it impossible to make things better.

Gene

[mbmbstreamer]

Excellent point! It is easier to change direction while moving, than while stationary.