ACWGC Forums

As the club has had a decline in membership, we have to adapt our rules to keep up. The recent COA election period went with NO nominations, so the cabinet looked for ways to broaden the field of candidates, by adding Major General to the list of eligible members.

There are TWO issues of adding Major General to those ELIGIBLE to be COA AND to those able to VOTE for COA; these make for consistency in the process.

ALL MEMBERS MAY VOTE FOR THE RULE CHANGES.

Current Rule:
3.3.4.2.1 Candidates for Cabinet Secretary or Club President must hold the rank of Colonel or above. To be eligible for a CoA position, a member must hold the rank of Lieutenant General or above in their respective Army.

Proposed Rule:
3.3.4.2.1 Candidates for Cabinet Secretary or Club President must hold the rank of Colonel or above. To be eligible for a CoA position, a member must hold the rank of MAJOR GENERAL or above in their respective Army.

Current rule:
3.3.4.1.2 In the election of a CoA, only members at the rank of Lieutenant General or General, at the time the voting period begins, may vote for the CoA representing their respective military group. The Election Committee will use the Department of Records to verify ranks to determine office eligibility, and such other criteria as may be necessary to determine voting eligibility. Nominations for the CoA may be made by any regular officer subject to the restrictions in Rule 3.3.4.2.2, below

Proposed rule:
3.3.4.1.2 In the election of a CoA, only members at the rank of MAJOR GENERAL, Lieutenant General or General, at the time the voting period begins, may vote for the CoA representing their respective military group. The Election Committee will use the Department of Records to verify ranks to determine office eligibility, and such other criteria as may be necessary to determine voting eligibility. Nominations for the CoA may be made by any regular officer subject to the restrictions in Rule 3.3.4.2.2, below.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

Are we allowed to comment and/or discuss?

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

Sure.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

While I would agree that a CoA candidate should be someone who has at least experienced the successful command of a division, and thus establishing some measure of administrative credentials, I am not so inclined, nor have ever been, to believe that the vote ought to be restricted to the same rank and above. I think that I understand the original reason for a restricted, upper-rank vote for a CoA; that being some form of a guarantee that the candidate's capability would be more specifically recognized by his close peers in rank. But this thinking seems to fall short on a number of items.

First, while a candidate's suitability may be seen by his former commanders from one side of the administrative spectrum, it may also be viewed from a different perspective by those formerly under his command! Thus, if the vote were opened to a general format, there would be input for endorsement or non-endorsement from both upper and lower ranks, although each group would, in some cases, be small of necessity. But their input and comments delivered within the forum would provide the rest of the Military Group with additional information.

Second, such a restricted vote as has been and is now proposed, excludes the bulk of the officers from taking a hand in their Military Group's own good health. Such general voting functions, especially that of selecting a chief group administrator, serve to strengthen and knit the group's character, providing for a more cohesive and contributing environment. As long as those charged in administering the voting process adhere to recognizing only those votes cast by an officer "in good standing," the legitimacy would be secured.

Finally, such an open, general vote for a Military Group CoA would by necessity generate a consciousness on the part of the candidate(s) to speak to his group in all of its various parts, thus effecting a platform which would become the foundation for his administration.

As the proposal now stands I would be more inclined for an unrestricted CoA vote. But I am certainly not adverse to hear opinions and arguments to both sides and parts of this proposal. To that end I will reserve my vote until shortly before this poll closes.

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

Returning after a long period away sorry to hear we have declined in population so much but I understand. I would step up but afraid I could not promise the time needed. That said I think the proposal is sound based on the circumstances. Just glad this old soldier was welcomed back no matter what SALUTE!

_________________
GEN. Tony Malone

"Do your duty in all things, You can never do more, You should never wish to do less".

The proposal only addresses the change to allow Major Generals to be COA and it lets stand the current rule for those allowed to vote for the COA.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

"Proposed rule:
"3.3.4.1.2 In the election of a CoA, only members at the rank of MAJOR GENERAL, Lieutenant General or General, at the time the voting period begins, may vote for the CoA representing their respective military group."

I'm questioning whether it would be better to allow any officer in the Military Group who is in "good standing" to vote. According to the quote above, the vote would be restricted, much like it currently is.

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

Maybe that aspect should be discussed at another time, but increasing the voting pool is not what this rule change is about.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

The Cabinet seems to have very definitely proposed a change to the voting rule for CoA's: major generals are now proposed to be included along with generals and lieutenant generals! As you have already stated: "There are TWO issues of adding Major General to those ELIGIBLE to be COA AND to those able to VOTE for COA; these make for consistency in the process."

You have indicated that "consistency" is among the core values of the two proposals. Yet I have some slight trouble equating that with the apparent main reason for the change: the necessity to adapt our rules to keep up with a decline in membership. Would not an unrestricted vote for the CoA make maximum use of our existing cadres and provide for a greater sense of contribution? In my mind such an adaptation would in its own way serve to increase the value of a club membership and thereby help move it in the opposite direction.

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

Please make the case for another rule change in " Questions for the Cabinet, Ideas, Suggestions".

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

Let me jump in here as that proposal was my idea.

There are two aspects to cover.

First the aspect of participation by the membership. While one can surely agree that more participation is better as to integrate members tighter & deeper into the club, the fact stands that the current cabinet setup provides already a high degree of participation by the membership. The candidates for Cabinet Secretary and Club President must only hold the rank of Colonel or above and voting is allowed for all regular officers. That ensures that each side has a high degree of influence on 2 of their 3 cabinet positions while the complete membership has influence on the position of Club President. That only leaves the CoA from each side to be more restricted and in my opinion that should stay this way. It should stay because if we can choose between the option of taking the risk of getting some clueless person on the position by the vote of clueless members and the option of denying a wider participation to ensure a certain degree of quality & experience we have to eliminate the risk of the former option and go for the later. Just imaging we add some new games, get a flood of new members, they attempt to turn the club more into their way of thinking, and then they get a CoA in position that turns the faction upside down. Of course this is a very unlikely scenario but not impossible.
Besides this doomsday scenario the fact just stands that we need quality & experience on that position and we can only ensure this by limiting the pool of eligible candidates and the eligible voters.


Now the second aspect is simply to ensure quality & experience of voters & candidates, they need to have command experience, even if it was only the command of a division. That this limit is now at Lieutenant General was something I never understood because the minimum requirements for Major General may only be divisional command but there is no limit upwards and so an MG could very well have had or still be in the position of Corps or even Theater CO.


So these 2 points made me think that the limit on candidates & voters for the CoA position had to stay but that we should lower it to include Major Generals. This widens the participation as voters & candidates to more members but ensure still that it's limited to personal with command experience.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM

Well I suppose that I ought to exert an effort be calm and collected after reading these two latest statements, but I’ll ask for both the reader’s patience and forbearance as I stumble my way through my responses.

The Cabinet has certainly done its first job by facilitating the presentation of the proposed rule revisions to the club membership for a vote. The two proposals are clearly stated and compared to the present rules. It has, however, through the voice of its President, unilaterally ruled out any consideration of an alternative, stating that any changes to the proposal must be submitted as a separate submission. So much for facilitating if we are being told that its either this way or nothing on this particular vote. Would the Cabinet really insist on such a severe process after having obviously spent a fair amount of valuable time on fashioning the proposals?

Would it not be more realistic and direct to consider the options within this discussion period and then provide alternatives if needed? As far as that goes, why not separate the two proposals, the first of which makes eminent sense, and conduct two separate discussions and resultant votes? By what measure does the Cabinet presume to abandon its duties as a facilitator and focus so exclusively on a single pathway?

We have been told that there is a remote danger of clueless voters electing a clueless candidate as a CoA. I believe that there’s a greater danger involved if the club membership, clueless or not, allows such an individual win his election through simple apathy!

Winning an election by acclamation is not specifically the same thing as winning by apathy. Yet how many recent CoA elections have been won by the former. Are we to believe that each officer so elected by that process has proved to be clueless? Of course not! I believe that the Military Group would not stand for such a CoA for long. We’ve not experienced a removal in such a situation, but I believe the cadre involved would not hesitate to do so given the motivation. An apathetic cadre could not hope to remove a clueless CoA.

Are we in each Military Group nothing more than a collection of apathetic morons? I don’t think so. It takes a fair amount of intelligence and desire just to play the games we use. That intelligence and desire is measured in our academies by very qualified instructors, who also make certain that the cadet has a good understanding of his personal responsibilities as a club member. Cadets who don’t exhibit those qualities are discharged or simply disappear.

All of that provides for an active field cadre, each officer of which must continually express his desire to remain a club member through the regular Muster processes. Simpletons can’t do that. Clueless members can’t do that. A club member might not want to participate in every vote, but by God, if they are “officers in good standing,” they’ve certainly earned the right to vote!

The other side of the coin is this business about how only senior officers can decide if a candidate can make a good CoA. Really? If that’s the case, then only generals who’ve actually been CoA’s can provide what supposed to be the correct recommendation! I’ve already said that in the election of a CoA that the opinions of senior officers are, and should be, valuable guides in making a good choice. But it is actually up to the candidate to successfully sell himself to the voting cadre. The greater the voting cadre, the harder the candidate must work to make himself and his values known. He would have to carry the majority of all the “officers in good standing,” not just a clique of seniors, if the vote were made unrestricted.

I simply refuse to believe that the majority of officers in both Military Groups are simpletons or clueless about the club operation. If we should still be worried about the remote possibility of a sudden influx of members tied to a newly accepted and sanctioned game package, then I’m sure we can fashion a suitable safeguard against that specific issue with out resorting to such a draconian and patronizing vote restriction. If we can’t, maybe we don’t have the smarts that we think we do!

By my count we still have 10 days to find out!

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

I said this VOTE was for the proposed rule change, as presented. I also said IF there are additional rule changes wanted that they should be presented in another forum specifically for NEW proposal discussions. The rules governing voting (and the governing of the ACWGC) have been in place for (something like) 14+ years of the 20+ year existence, so there has been considerable time to have presented NEW expanded voting, during that time. Expanding voter participation has merit, but it is not part of this specific proposal.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

"If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there."

Let me again jump in here.
Unlike other proposals I made, this one did not go public as I thought of it as a minor adjustment and nothing really worth discussing club wide as the goal was simply a wider incorporation of the commanding personal, like an adjustment of the cut in a golf tournament.

That is why I agree with General Sands that any further changes, that obviously would have a much bigger impact, should go the way of a formal public proposal that can discussed and further processed. Also because any bigger change will likely take a lot time to be discussed as changes to these solid voting rules, that are in place for so long, would need thorough public discussion(maybe with adjustment to the proposal that again lead to further discussion) and later by the cabinet a lengthy process of discussion to decide the proposal. That is nothing we get done in the next few months even if a proposal would pop right out tomorrow.

For now this here is just about the proposed rule adjustment that should hopefully lead a better conditions regarding candidates. Of course things can be pointed out here too but should be confined closer to the proposed rule changes as anything else is simply beyond the scope of this vote.
Taking golf again, talking about the cut in the tournament is OK, talking about access conditions to the tournament would need a new thread.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

Support adding a AAR SUB-FORUM

Yes

_________________
General Stewart Stiles

Army of Northern Virginia