ITOWAIR 02-11-2007 @ 1:00 PM
I am Andy Neumann , Past President of the Metro Detroit Unit of the WBCCI and this is only my opinion and I do not speak for the general membership of the unit, however,
I believe that the motion to change the constitution is invalid, and not in accordance with the Blue Book Article XVI Section 1. Per the Blue book an amendment must raise through
The ranks from a Unit, to the Region and then to Headquarters before it can be presented to the IBT.
Below is the motion as posted on the official WBCCI web site, note the use of the pronoun “I” , to me this indicates that Mr Emlinger made the motion on his own behalf and not that of a Unit of his Region. It is not the function of the IBT to amend the Constitution the function IBT to ratify proposed amendments made by the general membership.
“I move that the International Board of Trustees bring forth to the WBCCI delegates at the June, 2007, Delegates Meeting to amend the WBCCI International Constitution to include the words after “manufactured by Airstream, Inc.” as follows: “as well as the Class A motorhomes manufactured by the Four Winds International Division of Thor Industries, Inc. The Class A models of Four Winds motorhomes will be labeled “Airstream Edition” at their respective factory or by an authorized dealership in order to make their owners eligible to remain or become WBCCI members.”
The original motion, made by Region 12 President Jim Emlinger, limited eligibility for WBCCI membership to owner of Four Winds models Mandalay, Presidio, Valencia, Hurricane, Windsport and Magellan, which are both diesel and gas models and range in length from 30 feet to 40 feet.
The original motion was amended by Region One President Robert Thompson to eliminate the reference to Four Winds models and include all Class A motorhomes manufactured by Four Winds. Thompson said that in the future Four Winds could change model names and this would result in having to have another constitutional amendment. Thompson’s amendment also passed by a unanimous vote.
Below is the Article and Section of the Blue Book. It clearly states that Proposed Amendments follow a path that begins at the Unit level not the other way around.
ARTICLE XVI
AMENDMENTS
Sec. 1 Proposed amendments to this Constitution may be submitted to Headquarters in writing by any chartered Unit of the club. Any such amendment(s) shall bear a certification by the Unit President that it has been approved by a majority vote conducted in accordance with the Unit's Constitution and Bylaws. The proposed amendment(s) shall also bear a certification by the President of the Region of which the originating Unit is a part, that the amendment has likewise been approved by a majority of the Units within that Region. Upon receipt of the proposed amendment(s) bearing the required certifications, Headquarters shall distribute copies to the Presidents of all other chartered units for ratification or rejection. When two-thirds of the club's chartered Units have ratified the proposed amendment(s) by majority votes according to their Constitution and Bylaws and the Unit Presidents have so certified to Headquarters, such amendment(s) shall be deemed to be adopted. If two-thirds of the Club's Units do not ratify the proposed amendment(s) within one year following the distribution to the Unit Presidents, the proposed amendment(s) shall be deemed to have been rejected and to be of no further effect. (6/30/93)
dwightdi 02-11-2007 @ 1:51 PM
If that is the only place in the Constitution that refers to the origination of amendments, he has a valid point. The leadership may have overstepped its authority in trying to react to a preceived threat in a rapid manner. The proposal to set up a Motorhome study committee came from the president and was not comunicated to the general membership in the Blue Beret or other universal means. A letter went out to the presidents in December but many of them are not in communications with their membership during the winter. The IBT then failed to include the fact that there was to be a discussion about motorhomes at their Perry meeting when they published the Agenda on this website. There seems to be a lack of transparency in what was going on. I am not saying that their intentions were not right. I think they rightly preceived there might be a problem in the future and were very timely in coming up with a committee to address it. The methods however were flawed in not being in conformance to the constitution. Other proposals about grandfathering in existing members might be easier to sell to the general membership but it is too late to make that a valid proposal for this June's meeting.
jimbo 02-11-2007 @ 1:56 PM
Very good Andy. I hope that this is brought up at Perry, and that this motion is put where it belongs, in the shredder.
65GT 02-11-2007 @ 3:45 PM
Actually Jim's motion is valid. Jim's motion is requesting that the IBT bring forward a motion. That was approved by the IBT 18-0.
ARTICLE XVI
AMENDMENTS
Sec 2
"...Such proposed amendment(s) may be submitted in writing by any chartered unit, by the Board of Trustees and by the International President."
Only the unit method has membership approval attached to it. Under Sec 2 an amendment does NOT have to pass a majority of units within a region. It merely has to pass the majority of a Region's Board.
Again (from another post) this motion was originated by the IBT (member) for the simple fact that this motion could not survive the traditional travel and approval required under:
ARTICLE XVI
AMENDMENTS
Sec 1
This is how leadership gets THEIR agenda to the table regardless of what the majority of members may want.
66Overlander 02-11-2007 @ 4:21 PM
Whether the procedure to bring forward the motion was allowed under club rules or not, I disagree with the way it happened. While I appreciate Club Leadership looking at issues (or in this case potential issues) proactively, I think they jumped straight to a solution (quite possibly the wrong solution) in this case, without allowing due course to evaluate other possible solutions. The fact that this went from idea to the Winter IBT Agenda without anyone else knowing about it does suggest suspicious intentions, even if none were there.
The Study Committee should have been charged with looking at all possible alternatives on how to address the issue of Airstream getting out of the Class A MH business. They should not have jumped straight to a plan to bring non-Airstreams into the club. They should not have been given a very short deadline to come up with a proposal. This short deadline may have been the reason they went straight to one possible solution without consideration for other alternatives.
The "Grandfather" alternative that many have suggested should have been seriously studied. Also, before the study committee even proposed the idea of admitting non-Airstreams, they should have looked back on the results of the Membership Survey of 2004. This would have caused them to proceed with caution. If they still believed that membership beliefs on this issue had changed since 2004, they should have put together another quick survey of the full membership to convince themselves that the membership was ready for this idea. At an absolute minimum, they should have polled the alledged 860 or so MH owners in the club to find out:
1. Do they have a recent Class A AS MH, a Classic MH, or a B-van?
2. For those that have a recent Class A AS MH, do they intend to replace it in the near future? (The other MH owners would appear to be unimpacted by the Airstream decision to get out of he Class A MH business).
3. Also for those that have a recent Class A AS MH, do they want the club rules changed to allow non-Airstreams in? (I am already aware of more than one Class A AS MH owner that is opposed to opening up this club to non-Airstreams.)
The best course of action on this issue would be for the IBT to withdraw this issue now and restart with a proper study. This issue is already causing far more negative discussion than last year's Name Change. The club will not survive this much continued turmoil on the heels of last year's Name Change fiasco. Many are already stating that they will quit if this club is opened up to non-Airstreams.
My question to Club Leadership: Have you forgotten why you joined this club in the first place? I think the answer for 99%+ of members is that it was the AIRSTREAM club, not that it was a Caravan Club. It is a brand specific club. Without this we are just another RV club, like Good Sam's, Escapee's, and others. Some may say in that regard we are inferior to those other clubs in many ways. But thse clubs will never be AIRSTREAM club's. That is what makes us special.
Joe Peplinski
WBCCI #5533
Communications Advisory Network Member
This message was edited by 66Overlander on 2-11-07 @ 4:24 PM
65GT 02-11-2007 @ 6:17 PM
I sincerely apologize. Did I somehow paint myself to appear to be sympathetic to their cause?
The inner circle of this leadership is completely out of touch with the membership. How many out of the nine Executive Council members participate in motor homes? Count them -- go ahead and count them...
They clearly are looking at their own personal issues and personal agendas with complete disregard for the membership.
We have a Region 2 VP still proclaiming that motor home members represent MORE than 20% of the club when the FACTS lie somewhere between 11-14%. Does that make a difference? You bet it does -- especially when the SCCAM would like you to believe that more than 2 out of every 10 members will have to leave the club if unit members vote NO to this amendment.
If the SCCAM had done their homework they would most likely have discovered that this dilemma probably affects ~100 members. Grandfathering (Associate Member class) would have cured this painlessly but the Mid-Winter IBT audience wanted to hear nothing of it because their minds are set on bringing in SOBs. Small manufacturer's labeling -- large "Airstream Edition" STICKERS!
Our leadership should be ashamed -- Thor management should be ashamed for being led in this direction.
You are correct -- the motion should be withdrawn by the originator for the lack of research in investigating the problem and for completely overlooking the negative ramifications of such a change. Do you expect that to happen? I do not.
This group of leaders learned NOTHING from the name change fiasco. They put together a committee that came up with a name that was abhorred by the masses. Now they've put together the SCCAM that completely disregarded the very 860 members it claims to protect. To this day they have not been polled yet the amendment moves forward.
FRIGHTENING is the correct descriptor in this instance. This one won't be met with pros and cons in Perry. This one will be met with harsh criticism. Criticism over our leadership's ability to identify a problem, and vet out potential solutions for that problem.
For the total disregard that has been shown to both Travel Trailer members and Motor Home members. There are more than a few MoHo members that do not want to be protected under this scenario. They own vintage units (Argosies and Classic MoHo's), or they have no intention of buying another MoHo ever. There are still others that are already contemplating moving back to Airtream Travel Trailers for their next RV. Then there are others that believe labeling SOBs as Airstream Editions will devalue their Class A Airstreams! You know, the REAL Airstream motor homes.
THESE folks are truly loyal club members. They have not already gone shopping for their next MoHo and tried to get it approved for club use using a sticker as a vehicle for membership.
I still maintain that ALL members should vote no to this entire slate when they come up for re-election in April(if you could even call this farce an election). Do not allow your unit to cast a unanimous YES vote. Let the misguided sit through a 45 minute roll call before we re-hand them the reins.
If we don't send the message -- they simply won't get it -- yet again...
Vote NO to SOBs. One Brand - One Club -- the Wally Byam Caravan Club.
This message was edited by 65GT on 2-11-07 @ 6:20 PM
bryanl 02-12-2007 @ 5:36 PM
Any WBCCI member can make a motion in the business meeting of his Unit to the effect that the Unit start the process of governance change.
The IBT is, in essence, the Unit for the regional and international officers. (yes, I know, the intollerant will rise to pick nits and complain and moan, but let's try to find constructive ways to understand what is, OK?)
What is very very sad is that an individual seeking a change is seen to have a "cause" or that there is suspicion before education or the offering of a suggestion is taken with such hostility and intolerance.
This is the shoot first aim later approach and does not credit the organization.
A much more effective way would be to recognize that a member sees a problem and is trying to fix it. Rather than lambaste them, get involved, find out about the problem to properly understand it, and then suggest other possible solutions via accepted methods.
This penchant to take sides, lambaste those who do something you don't like, create an 'us' versus 'them' approach, and make for a win/loose scenario is not what this club is all about. It is an ill wind. It is up to each and every one of us to find better ways to solve problems, ways that are inclusive, tolerant, ethical, and set high standards in working together to solve problems.
Alumiphile 02-12-2007 @ 7:55 PM
Andy,
I very much appreciate your bringing this potential parliamentary defect to everyone's attention.
I do believe that this question should have been given a much wider airing before being proposed as a take-it-or-leave-it motion to amend the WBCCI constitution.
To whom would a procedural defect be appealed? It appears that the IBT is the sole and final arbiter of its own actions.
Maybe the best thing at this point would be to convince the members of the IBT to withdraw the proposal to allow time for an adequate discussion of the issues by the membership. The parliamentary objection that you have raised provides a face-saving opportunity for the IBT to do that.
To this end, each of us who passionately believes that opening up WBCCI membership to non-Airstream RVs would be a disaster needs to contact, not only members of our own Unit, but also each of the members of the IBT, to give them a sense of the hornet's nest they have kicked open. I would suggest letters and phone calls rather than emails as some (although certainly not all) members of the IBT seem to discount the opinion of members who use the internet.
Best regards,
Alumiphile
tincantom 02-12-2007 @ 9:38 PM
quote:
What is very very sad is that an individual seeking a change is seen to have a "cause" or that there is suspicion before education or the offering of a suggestion is taken with such hostility and intolerance.
Perhaps education of the membership BEFORE the fact would not lead to so much suspicion and subsequent distrust.
quote:
A much more effective way would be to recognize that a member sees a problem and is trying to fix it. Rather than lambaste them, get involved, find out about the problem to properly understand it, and then suggest other possible solutions via accepted methods.
With such short notice of impending doom, it seems that at least one very reasonable alternative (grandfathering) was introduced at the winter IBT, but it was not met with even a pause for consideration.
Sounds like bryanl is making a case FOR that alternative
tom
bryanl 02-15-2007 @ 7:23 PM
quote:
Perhaps education of the membership BEFORE the fact would not lead to so much suspicion and subsequent distrust.
This process _is_ a means of education! It puts the idea out there and allows for months of discussion in the appropriate venues.
Even when it hits the delegates meetings it is not pre-ordained (that is one of the complaints about the name change issue, as a matter of fact). The delegates can change it or table it if they think it needs more input or discussion.
The fact is we have some folks sowing distrust and suspicion that I have yet to see any reason to support. The process is misrepresented, dissent is made by making aspersions about supposed oppenents motivations, and divisive rhetoric used.
The attitude I see here is 'trust no one' and I do not think that is the way we should work. We should take this effort to solve a problem as an honest one by well meaning folks. We should accept that process is being followed unless we have hard evidence to the contrary. We should trust our delegates to represent our views honestly and with integrity. We should allow others to have opinions different from ours without casting judgment on them as persons. We should accept the decisions of the organization if made in a proper manner. We should seek change by the appropriate methods and by creating friends who understand and appreciate our views.
