American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Yes, current rules require an unanimous vote to be reinstated but this new rule then introduces a 'probationary' period [new] that includes restrictions on elected positions and command [also new]. It is also important to note that the way it is written means that the restrictions exist for a minimum of one year - there is no upper limit on how long they may last. As I said, it would only take one member of the cabinet to frustrate the process. Also, those on the cabinet who unanimously agree to reinstate such a person will not necessarily be there after a year or more has elapsed so it will be imposing upon such a person the need to petition on two separate occasions to gain standard rights that are afforded to every other member.

I do not think I was especially creative in interpreting the statement on the ruling being retroactive and think it can definitely be read that way because that is what it says. If the intention was to include any member expelled prior to such a rule being introduced then that would occur without the need for the 'retroactive sentence'. Any expelled member seeking to rejoin the club would be rejoining under any rules that exist at the time of their application to rejoin (not those that may have existed at the time of their expulsion).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

Ok I think we can't agree on the fact that the probation is a benefit and not a burden. With the current rules the cabinet has to think more then carefully what an expelled member might pull of if reinstated without any kind of restrictions, and usually would lean to decline a reinstatement, at least I would have done so if on the cabinet. With the probation a reinstatement is more likely to happen as there is a "save valve" of restriction to the membership to protect certain "critical positions". All in all that new ruling can only find my approval.

Regards retroactive, maybe it was "overkill" to add that sentence. But my understanding of the intention is that expelled members since founding of the club have to run this new process to be reinstated. That members are hit by it that have their reinstatement already behind them isn't something I can read out of it.

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

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

I've not been on the board in several days and this is the first time I've seen this post. Is open discussion complete and the rule change firm, or is discussion ongoing and the rules subject to change? I ask because the "Ballot" at the top of the page indicates that the changes are ready for a final vote.

Thanks,

_________________
Lt. Colonel Mike Terhune
New River Greys - 24th Virginia Infantry
Army of Northern Virginia
I/4/4

"Up, men, to your posts! Don't forget today that you are from old Virginia
MG George E. Pickett, July 3, 1863

"Is open discussion complete and the rule change firm, or is discussion ongoing and the rules subject to change? I ask because the "Ballot" at the top of the page indicates that the changes are ready for a final vote."

The proposal was approved by the Cabinet for a vote by the club. No changes have been made as a result of any of the discussions.

The Cabinet is following the letter of the law, for which I applaud them. However, I think it would have been better for them to have presented the proposal for discussion, then followed up with a vote.

_________________
General 'Dee Dubya' Mallory
Chief of the Armies, CSA

I guess if the proposal would have been first posted on the "Questions for the Cabinet, Ideas, Suggestions" section the point of discussion wouldn't come up again and again.

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

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

General Hecht <salute>

I am not certain this is a matter of again and again. The fact is a rule revision was proposed to the Club membership without any previous notice that is needed that I am aware of.

There was no explanation provided as to why the rule revision is needed. I think the point is simple. The Cabinet determined that a rule revision was necessary and they should be able to do this independently of whether or not something was proposed in the "suggestion box." But how and and why the Cabinet arrived at proposing the rule change is unclear or absent altogether.

So in this case a rule revision is proposed where previous discussion of its merits has not occurred. So that discussion is obviously now happening but is not clear whether any of that discussion has any purpose given the simultaneous timeframes for comments and voting.

The solution is simply to maintain the comment deadline and establish a voting process that will occur after the comment period has ended and the Cabinet used the comments to formulate a final rule revision proposal to be voted upon.

I again suggest that the Cabinet agree to this and honor the effort members have made to comment on the proposed change.

Respectfully,

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary
UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader

I agree and no die has been cast. The process David suggests can be implemented simply by terminating the voting process now underway and bring it forward after the comment period had ended. I ask what is the issue with doing it this way? Surely no one would suggest that having to click a button to vote after such a comment period is an excessive burden?

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary
UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader

I think that would require them to admit they acted foolishly in the first place. As we have had no Cabinet input in this topic, aside from Gen. Sands quoting the Rule verbatim and Gen. Ludwig trying to do some damage control by unconscionably updating the Cabinet's terms, I do not expect them to act in the best interest of the Club here.

As you and your running opponent have both stated you recommend postponing this issue and proceeding in a more appropriate manner with it I can only lament that the original term limits were not honored and a new President and Chief of the Armies already in place sooner.

If they wish to bang on the table and quote the rule 9.1 again, and proclaim they always follow the rules, then I will bang on my table and quote rule 3.3.3. Terms of Office. Each Cabinet member will serve a term of two (2) years. And continue to question the validity of their current status as Cabinet Members. They pick one rule to follow "the letter of the law" and then choose another to throw out the window.

I may be a newer member overstepping my bounds but I have nothing to lose by telling the facts as I assess them.

_________________
LtC Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders

Those two comments I've bolded in the above quote make the whole thing look like a big mess.

If a rule revision resulted from some event then it seems we should be given some background on it (no need to name names).

If it was something that the Cabinet instigated on their own initiative then surely we should be provided with some information as to why this change (or any change) is being proposed.

It seems a bit arrogant to say here is the rule change, we will not give you any other information about it but now you must vote on it.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I am a new member have been following this thread with interest. Some feel there should have been a discussion before a vote well the way I see it we have over 4 pages of members views and more coming and then you vote Yes or No, why drag it out for 2 weeks of discussion and another 2 weeks of voting because as the thread header says Notice of PROPOSED RULE CHANGE not notice of rule change.

Present Rules as they are now
2.6.4 Expulsion. An officer may be expelled from the club by a unanimous Cabinet vote for actions and/or speech deemed by the Cabinet to have been detrimental or abusive to any other member of the club or disruptive to the good order and functioning of the club. Expelled members will be removed from the Club for a period of one year.

2.6.5 Reinstatement. Officers who have been declared MIA, or voluntarily resigned their commission may request to be reinstated to the Club. Such requests should be made to the CoA of the military group in which the returning officer served when he left. The returning member may be reinstated at his past rank and points or he may be required or elect to start over, determined by the respective CoA. Members who were expelled from the Club may ask to be reinstated by the Cabinet after one year. They must receive a unanimous Cabinet vote to be reinstated. A Member who is reinstated would return at the rank of Second/Field Lieutenant and given 15 points.

Proposed changes
2.6.3 is additive to the existing rules. 2.6.5 and 2.6.5.1 together replace the current Rule 2.6.5.

2.6.3. Resignation. Any officer may resign from the club at any time for any reason by notifying the first two officers in their chain of command. Officers do not have to state their reasons for resignation. Acceptance of the resignation is automatic. The club will maintain all records and OBD (Corrected typo) points of resigned officers. Officers who resign while under the threat of expulsion under Rule 2.6.4 will be considered expelled rather than resigned for purposes of reinstatement.

2.6.5 Reinstatement. Officers who have been declared MIA, or voluntarily resigned their commission may request reinstatement. Officers desiring reinstatement will apply via email to the CoA of the military group in which the officer was serving when he departed. The CoA will approve such requests. The CoA will normally reinstate the returning member at the rank last held and with the OBD points he/she had amassed at the time of their departure. The CoA may require the returning member, or the returning member may request, to rejoin at the rank of Second/Field Lieutenant with 15 OBD points. Officers seeking reinstatement may request to join a different military group.

2.6.5.1 Members who were expelled from the club may ask to be reinstated by the cabinet after one year. They must receive a unanimous cabinet vote to be reinstated. A member who is reinstated would return at the rank of Second/Field Lieutenant and given 15 points. Any previously expelled member reinstated by the Cabinet is ineligible to hold any elected position within the club and may not hold a command above Corps level. The cabinet will consider exceptions for Academy or War College Commandant and Chief of Staff Positions on a case-by-case basis. After one calendar year, the reinstated member may petition the cabinet to have all command and elective restrictions removed. A unanimous vote of the cabinet is required to remove all restrictions. This ruling is retroactive to 01 MAY 1997.

Anything else should be brought up as a possible change to sections 3.0 and 9.0
Because the majority of the comments concern those 2 sections. Just my opinion.

_________________

Gen Lynn Newell
UA COS

It is good to see a lot of debate about the proposed rules change, however please keep in mind how the process works as the system/process being followed is correct - it is as follows:

A member/s of cabinet thought there was an opportunity for improvement, they punted up the proposal, it was discussed, formalised, voted on and then sent out to the rest of the club to be voted upon. End of story really because that's how we are meant to roll. If it gets voted up then it becomes the new rules. Any member can, if they so wish, put a new proposal to the cabinet to change the rules back etc and we go through the same procedure.

9.1 Revisions to these rules must first be approved by a simple majority of the Cabinet, then by a simple majority of club members voting. Club-wide votes are to be organized by the Cabinet, but must allow at least two weeks for votes to be received. The exceptions to this rule will be the inclusion of new games, as per 1.1, above, as amended on August 13, 2008 and changes for spelling or grammatical errors.

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

No. It's not. Rule 3.3.4.1.6a The Voting Poll will be structured to allow only one vote per officer, the results of which shall remain undisclosed until the end of the voting period.

The vote results are not currently hidden. I am sure it is not a big deal to you. The same as changing term dates is not a big deal or answering why these errors, intentional or not, continue to happen. This club seems to have a "us vs them" mentality that starts at the top. Either the leaders feel they lead because they are entitled to by seniority and do not allow such pesky points of order to interfere with their hold on the club or they really are incompetent and lecture people about the rules while ignoring the ones they choose. I hope the new president will begin to address and answer these issues.

_________________
LtC Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders

I believe you are confusing the vote for President with the vote for a rules change.

_________________
Yr. Obdt. Srvt.
Lt. Gen. R. Sickbert
First Division, Fifth Corps
Army of the Potomac

You could be right. Having one set of rules for electing a cabinet member via the forum and other, non-specific, rules for voting on rule changes on the forums seems appropriately ridiculous.

_________________
LtC Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders