American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have a question regarding the final sentence of proposed rule 2.6.3, "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."

Will an officer always know whether or not he is "under threat of expulsion"?

If not, a club member may be under such threat (meaning, I suppose, that a motion has been made in a Cabinet meeting but not yet voted on) and not be aware of that, then resign his membership, and be automatically expelled - and not know he was expelled.

_________________
General 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

[quote="warbison"][size=150]
We are a welcoming ACW Gaming Club that is now 23+ years old. People leave for different reasons and folk's life responsibilities change as they mature. We all make mistakes from time to time and do or say things that we may regret at some point! Rules are necessary for the general guidance but a strict no going back rule makes no sense to me! I would rather have an avenue for all that have left the Club at one time or another to return and enjoy our wonderful hobby! He without sin cast the first stone!

Your Obedient Servant,[color=#804000]

General Nick Kunz

Sir
I believe this covers expelled members
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.

_________________

Gen Lynn Newell
Army Of the Potomac
V Corp
Commander

Gentlemen of the Cabinet <salute>

As this is my first experience with the procedure associated with approving a rule change in the Club, I ask for further explanation of what the process is.

Based on General Ludwig's answer above, it appears that the Cabinet voted unanimously to bring the language under consideration forward as a proposal. Does this mean the Cabinet will then again vote to adopt (or not) the rule change after the voting is completed? Said another way, is the voting and discussion underway an advisory or ratification procedure?

Respectfully,

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

An excellent question. I would think a period of open discussion would have come first, followed by a period of Cabinet review and/or revision of the proposal based on Club-wide discussion, then the Cabinet approving a final version (which could, of course, include simply a re-approval of the unchanged original version), followed (finally) by a vote. This thread appears to be asking for discussion at the same time as voting. So someone could vote on the proposal, then hear discussions that changed his mind.

_________________
General 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

I agree, it should have been discussed first then put to the vote. I took some time to read some comments and consider things and concluded it seemed too draconian for me. Also, I could see no obvious benefit to the ACWGC through such a rule change.
If in doubt, vote it out.

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

Perhaps the Cabinet ought to pull this one back and wait for the presidential election to conclude. The comments of the two officers above and those of others questioning the rationale of the process ought not to be ignored!

_________________
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)

While one could complain about the procedure, one should also look at the details & benefits of these rules.

2.6.3 is just closing a hole that could be taken to doge expulsion, it's obvious that such should be closed and with this simply rule it looks like it's achieved. That is obviously a benefit to the club.

The new 2.6.5 and 2.6.5.1 compared to the old mostly cover the same ground but the new ones go into detail and are explained better. Yes there are new spots like the "probation" time of one year prohibiting to enter certain positions but as that is only limited for one year this is no point for a major concern. Again letting expelled members back but giving them this probation time is obviously a benefit to the club as they ensure safety & stability.

So. no major changes and all for the benefit of the club, that can very well allow for a quick discussion & voting at the same time.

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

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

God bless Gen Kunz

_________________
Lt. Colonel Scott Reed
First Brigade
2nd Division
XX Corps
Army of the Cumberland

The cabinet discussed this rule change.

The cabinet voted and unanimously voted yes to place the change before the membership.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015- Dec 2020
7th Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps, AoT
ACWGC Records Site Admin

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

Just seems strange to me that the cabinet would choose to do this since 5 of the 8 cabinet members are way past due on their elected terms.

I think the new rules are fair. Note that General Meyer is quite right, the "no going back" is temporary and can be removed by unanimous vote of the Cabinet after what amounts to a two year probationary period.

_________________
Lt. Gen. Steve Sober, ACWGC
UA Cabinet Secretary
1/4/V AotP

The Cabinet page is pending some updates.

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

Could not agree with Joe more on this one. There should always be a period of discussion and then a vote on an issue.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Gentlemen of the Cabinet <salute>

Previously I requested clarification of whether the present “polling/discussion” is an advisory or ratification procedure. This question has not been clearly answered.

Changes to Federal regulations use a process where a proposed rule change is presented for public comment along with supporting information as to why the change is being proposed. Following review of the comments, the action agency produces a final rule with along with documentation of how the comments received were responded to (or not) in the final rule.

Washington State has what is called an advisory process which is used to provide legislators with a sense of where voters are at relative to prospective legislation.

As I noted before, this is my first encounter with a rule change and I expect that there are other members, particularly those who have joined the Club in recent years, who are new to this process as well.

What is confusing in the present process is its combination of discussion of the merits or intent of the proposed rule change with voting simultaneously. It does not make sense to me that an election such as that occurring now in the Club’s Presidential race would combine campaigning and voting to within the same timeframe and, of course, the campaigning and voting in that election is distinct and logically sequential. David Mallory suggested in a previous post in this proceeding that: “This thread appears to be asking for discussion at the same time as voting. So, someone could vote on the proposal, then hear discussions that changed his mind.” He’s right. And that should be the purpose of inviting the comments on the proposed rule. Propose, debate, vote, enact.

I respectfully submit that the process used in Club elections be used for rule changes. Meaning that a draft rule is adopted by the cabinet and posted on the Forum with a specified period for making comments on the proposed rule. FOLLOWING the close of the comment period the Cabinet would propose a final rule after considering comments and revisions to the rule as it deemed warranted that would then be voted upon.

My suggestion in the present case is that the Cabinet announce that the existing voting process is terminated and that voting on a final rule proposal will commence for a specified time period beginning on a TBD date following the close of the comment period on December 28, 2020.

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

I have read the old rule and the proposed change and find nothing earth shattering with the change except maybe to clarify the language and close a possible loophole. and there is a ongoing discussion right now. Why stop now? You want the change you vote Yes if you don't vote No very simple. I see nothing in this rule change that will affect any member who is follow the club rules.

_________________

Gen Lynn Newell
Army Of the Potomac
V Corp
Commander