So it does not look like "sour grapes," I want to comment now --before the vote is announced-- about how the Club mishandled the Constitutional Amendment. It was so mishandled that it would take a miracle to muster a two-thirds vote in favor of the Amendment. What follows are the many ways the deck was stacked against it. You decide how much of it was intentional.

Probably a lot of members didn't know there was an Amendment vote, what they were voting on, and/or what was the rationale of those offering the Amendment. Remember, most members are not bulletin board lurkers. (In reading this, remember too that it was the current Board that ended the long-standing by-law rule that required Chapter members to be National members too. The Amendment's goal was to reverse the Board and restore the rule.)

In brief:

¶ The ballot came in the last (Jan., Feb., Mar. 2001) issue of the "Casino Chip and Token News." They should take "News" out of the title of the magazine. Not one word in the 128-page magazine mentioned the Amendment even though the editor was emailed information about the Amendment by those favoring it, and it was all over the bulletin boards. (Whoops! I just noticed there was ONE mention of the Amendment. On page 8 in the President's Letter, in one short paragraph, David Sarles mentioned the Amendment and asked all to vote. That was evenhanded, although I wish he was more accurate. He said the Amendment required ".....it be mandatory for all chapter members to be members of the National." I wish he had added the clause of the Amendment that I think is crucial -- that Chapter members be required to join the National within one year of joining a Chapter.)

¶ The ballot (a loose page) came with the magazine. The ballot asked for a Yes or No vote on the Amendment, but didn't even give a title to the Amendment or synopsis of it. A member looking at the page would have no idea what this was about.

¶ A Club member would have to take it upon himself to look at the reverse side of the ballot to know anything about the Amendment. (And some members said that they did not recall seeing anything printed on the reverse side of their ballots.)

¶ The top of the reverse side of the ballot gave the Board's rationale for it's
changing the long-standing by-law rule that chapter members (who pay about $5 a year to a Chapter to be Chapter members) must be national dues-paying members ($20 per year to the National/Club). No mention was made of the Amendment's one year trial period (that a Chapter member would have to become a national member after a year), AND NO CASE WAS GIVEN ANYWHERE FOR THE RATIONALE OF THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THE AMENDMENT. (The Board gave the tired, false argument that the Amendment would be a burden on the Chapters to enforce; yet, in truth, the Chapters need do virtually nothing. The National could check things out by comparing the Chapter membership rosters [which the present rules require being submitted to the National] with the National roster. Alternately, the National could collect dues renewals for both Chapter and National! How easy!)

¶ WORST OF ALL, they made an abortion out of the wording of the Proposed Amendment (which was printed on the reverse side of the ballot) by leaving out the crucial word "year." That made it practically unintelligible. In my opinion the key thing in the amendment is that it is "inclusive" in that collectors initially could join just the Chapter (and not the National). They just had to join the National after one year -- by the time they renewed with the Chapter. The botched sentence said, "members of a Chapter need not be Club members when they join a Chapter, but they must be Club members within one of their joining any Chapter....."

So, in summary, what we have is this -- virtually nothing about the amendment in the last newsletter, nothing about even the name of the Amendment on the first page of the ballot, only arguments against the Amendment on the reverse side of the ballot, a faulty printing of the Amendment on the reverse side of the ballot, and empire-building Chapter leaders urging their chapter members to vote against the Amendment so as to keep their cut-rate, cheap chapter members buying and selling chips locally at the expense of the National. They are out to enlarge their treasury and membership at the expense of the National.

Maybe in the future a wiser Board will change the by-laws back to the 'status quo ante' when Chapter members had to be National members, or else we will see a more informed Amendment vote where the deck is not stacked.

Marvin Weaver submitted the correct wording of the Amendment. It got botched further up the line. I had emailed the Editor of the magazine asking if he would accept pro-Amendment arguments into the magazine as a letter to the editor or as an article. I gave arguments in favor of the Amendment. I received no reply.

Robert

P.S. Here were my arguments in favor of the Amendment:
http://www.antiquegamblingchips.com/goodrecp.htm
http://www.antiquegamblingchips.com/amend.htm