Hi Pierre.
Someone quipped rececntly that there was something strange in the ACWGC water lately as quite a number of outspoken Club Members were agreeing with each other in relation to matters, when 'normally' they could be expected to be on at least 3 different sides of an argument.
Well . . p'raps there is - because, generally speaking You and I have ended up in the same shade of opinion more times than not - I cannot specifically remember a topic where we disagreed before now.
AND I stress that I believe we are aiming at the same thing - the maintenance and care of the Club and Membership of the ACWGC. However, on this topic, we appear to have a divergence of opinion as to how to proceed/continue.
I believe that the path taken by this subject thusfar, could not have been foreseen or predicted. My post was not offered as a route to get this current situation resolved, rather it was offered as a method to consider what was actually being attempted.
The Cabinet could have spent the past 8 months debating and refining the nuances of ACW Command positions and still arriving at a 4/3 Vote to place the matter before the Members. To the Membership - this vote 'fell from a blue sky' and (going by some of the now missing comments), as such appeared to be a trivial, petty and insignificant matter for the consideration of the entire membership regarding minutely altering the Club Rules.
Now - we have a situation where an area for the artistic, historically minded, enthusiastic, interested and opinioned section of the Membership could contribute, debate, discuss and 'diss' various aspects of ACW Command and perhaps partially remodel the structure/admin of the Club.
We have had 'Best Westerns', 'Worst Generals', Most Over-rated Commanders' and the like . . . debates recently. Launching a similar Debeate on the M-D shouldn't be a difficulty and if opened for say a month (allowing for the summer vacation season), members could throw Aide de Camps, Executive Officers, 'Grand Wings', 'Super Corps', 'Demi-Divisions', Brigade-Divisions, etc and their potential value/worthlessness to the ACWGC as roles/models for gentle restructuring and individualisation of individual Armys, Corps, Divisions . . . . whatever.
These could be gathered and collated, included in a proposal and Cabinet could then appraise the contributions and nominate the seemingly popular offerings for inclusion in the Club's Terminology for a substantial Membership vote. If the GinC is important to a section of the Club - perhaps there are other ideas out there waiting for their turn.
Round 'em all up I say!!
You indicate that a 'sole GinC' vote achieved a comfortable majority vote at Cabinet, yet when the practicalities emerged and the GinC plus CoA option was decided upon, support fell for the proposal. Balancing the 'triviality' of the Vote, placed by many who spoke on the matter and the effort put in to the presentation of the GinC to Cabinet, I think that it is more important to address the concerns of the Members with a little added weight, unfortunately at the expense of the effort already spent. I also feel that if opened up to the Membership, there would be a degree of interest that would be more representative of the entire Membership's opinion.
There is a danger here of 'The Ball has been set in motion and MUST be allowed to reach it's destination', mentality rolling over all objections. The Ball was set in motion by Cabinet. Some of the Members have cried 'Halt!' I suggest exercising the Membership's right to set the Ball and any others that grab their fancy, in motion themselves and THEN see where it/they end up.
There also appears to be a degree of 'Rush, Rush' involved. The GinC has been in unofficial use for 18 months. If it has to wait until Christmas to receive it's 'Official Ticket', Happy Christmas to the Union and all the sweeter for the Wait. What's the Rush?
Entrenched Conservatism is Bad. So also is Headlong change at the whim/bequest of a minority in the name of progress. The Middle-Road is surely where we should be heading?
Pat.