CV News & Views Crossing the Adjutant's Desk
Perry Outlaw, Adjutant, Raphael Semmes Camp 11, SCV, Mobile, Al
APRIL, 2005
Is the SCV rising or setting? The matter rests with the SCV Sons!
1. COURT RULING OF MARCH 9, 2005
The Adjutant's Notes of March 2005, pp 5-6-7, noted that a special meeting of the SCV GEC was held on February 16y 2005. Said meeting was called to basically address acts of SCV CIC Denne Sweeney considered to be illegal. CIC Sweeney was notified of the meeting and its purpose but chose not to participate and worked to get others not to take part in the meeting he called "illegal". During the meeting 13 Corporate Resolutions were approved including the removal of CIC Sweeney from office. On February 17 a temporary restraining order from Judge Robert Jones of the Chancery Court of Maury County, TN, ruled that the February 16 special GEC meeting "was properly called, that a quorum was present and that the action taken at such meeting appears valid and binding." The response of the radicals to the actions of the GEC and the ruling of the court was an example of "men behaving badly". They flooded the Confederation with e-mails denouncing the GEC members who had approved the action taken of February 16, calling for their resignations and declaring everything done to be illegal, even the action of the court. GEC members removing Sweeney were deluged with hate mail while the telephone numbers of Dr. Anthony Hodges, SCV Lt. CIC, were posted along with messages urging that he be called day and night regardless of the time. They pledged over-and-over again their loyalty, not to the SCV organization or its constitution or the rule of law but to Sweeney personally. They constantly repeated their view that as Sweeney was elected to office by the membership he should not be able to be removed by the GEC. We note that the US President is elected by the people of a nation and he can be removed from office by Congress. Why should the SCV CIC have a right different from the most powerful man on earth as it relates to removal from office? When the permanent injunction hearing was held in Judge Jones’ court on March 9, 2005, the radicals were apparently prepared to continue their "men behaving badly" manner in the courtroom. Reports indicate that about five dozen radicals attended the hearing and became so boisterous that the court bailiff had to inform them that this continuous behavior would not be tolerated by the court. This must have secured their attention as there are no reports of anyone being arrested in the court-room.
At the conclusion of court on March 9 Judge Jones made the following rulings:
(1) The GEC meeting of February 16 was legal.
(2) Three GEC members can call a meeting.
(3) The GEC has the right to remove the CIC. in this regard. Judge Jones stated that although haying "considerable sympathy for why the three members of the GEC called the February 16 meeting" Sweeney should have been given more than a two-day notice there-fore the Judge found that Sweeney must be restored as SCV CIC. Although restoring Sweeney to office due to a procedural error, Judge Jones stated that Sweeney had "exceeded his power (as CIC) at the detriment to the organization". The Judge went on the rule that
(4) the CIC does not have the authority to suspend, either permanently or temporarily, any member of the GEC thus all suspension of GEC members are revoked. [Here we pause to lament the fact that if legal action had been taken earlier during the reign of CIC Ron Wilson ANV Commander Charles Hawks would not have been deprived of his rightful place on the GEC and to the office he was elected to - see The Admiral's Log, December 2002, pp 6-7-8].
(5) All business conducted at the special GEC meeting of December 18, 2004, as called by CIC Sweeney at Concord, NC, is null and void. This is because without the suspension of GEC members not in attendance a quorum for said meeting was not achieved and since the CIC has no authority to suspend GEC members a legal quorum was not obtained.
(6) The appointment of a ATM Councilman by CIC Sweeney was ruled illegal.
Attention is called to the fact that Judge Jones ruled against Sweeney's claims that the GEC had acted illegally, had held illegal meetings, did not have the right to call meetings and did not have the right to remove the CIC. We also point out here that Sweeney has been returned to office as CIC, the beneficiary of a procedural error, while noting that he was not found innocent of the charges proffered against him at the GEC meeting of February 16. We wonder why the radicals insisted upon the resignation of GEC members they claimed to have acted illegally but have not demanded the resignation of a CIC who has been found to have acted illegally by a court of law? Judge Jones has left the case open to see if his orders will be complied with. This is a very wise decision on his part. Information for this article was secured from a plethora of e-mails, telephone calls, a newspaper article and an article from The Rebel Yell of Camp 1303, Oklahoma City, OK.
2. THOUGHTS ON A SPECIAL CONVENTION
No sooner had Judge Robert Jones issued his legal decision (see "Court Ruling of March 9, 2005" in this issue) than the radicals began making preparations to call for a "special convention" to be held prior to the General Convention of July 20-23, 2005. E-mails flooded across the Confederation again this time asking that a form requesting a "special convention" be completed and mailed to, of all people, CIC Sweeney. A deadline of March 16 was set for returning the forms. The first e-mails sent out were somewhat unclear regarding the purpose of a "special convention" and what Delegates would be asked to vote on. Everything was made crystal clear within a few days. On March 14, 2005, reinstated Adjutant-in-Chief James Dark, in an effort to secure votes for calling a "special convention, quoted radical SC Division Commander Michael Givens as saying "The recent court hearing in Tennessee has taught us...that our SCV Constitution is seriously flawed. The judge ruled that 12 members of the GEC constitute a quorum. These' men, if so disposed, can vote out of office...anyone else with a simple majority vote....The only people exempt from this are the Past Commanders-in-Chief....This is why we must change our constitution." As your Adjutant understands these remarks the SCV Constitution served the purposes of the radicals when they believed the SCV CIC could declare a quorum by simply suspending GEC members not present regardless of how many members actually attended or when they believed one man, the CIC could, by himself, remove a GEC member from office at his pleasure when ever he desired to do so. But now the radicals would have us believe that the SCV Constitution is "seriously flawed" because by court decision:
(1) A quorum for meetings cannot be obtained by reducing the size of the membership via suspensions and
(2) A simple majority of GEC members can remove other members from their GEC office, including the CIC. Also in his March 14, 2005 e-mail Dark went on to list four proposed constitutional amendments a "special convention" would consider:
(1) Limit Past CIC's on the GEC to the immediate past three. NOTE: This has been proposed several times and is designed to give Sweeney and friends a clear majority in the GEC. In theory and practice it would be the same as gerrymandering the GEC.
(2) Remove the MOSB Commander General from the SCV GEC. NOTE: This has also been proposed before and as the Commander General is a non-voting member of the GEC, as is the CIC to the MOSB GEC, this is strictly a "for spite” amendment that serves no other purpose but to create bad feelings between the SCV-MOSB.
(3) Make changes to rules regarding GEC meetings to include prohibiting use of teleconference, changes in notification methods and a requirement to make meetings open to the membership. NOTE: This is a new one. The first two parts have never worked to the detriment of the radicals before so once discovered they would naturally have to go. As for the last part except for a teleconference meeting the GEC meetings have been open to the membership, it is only under the Sweeney administration that large numbers of members have been specifically contacted to attend in an effort to sway the outcome of votes/actions taken. In an effort to make this easier to do, Sweeney has made the GEC a "traveling road show" by having meetings not at Elm Springs but in areas of the Confederation dominated by radicals. He seems to especially like NC for meetings.
(4) A clause making Robert's Rules of Order the governing authority for the SCV and all subdivisions thereto. NOTE: Exactly what is meant here? Does this mean that in the day-to-day operation of the SCV its basic principles and rules that determine the powers and duties of the administration and the guarantees of certain rights of the membership as set forth in the SCV Constitution are to be super- seeded by Robert's Rules of Order? Does it mean that at meetings of the various levels of administration within the SCV Robert's Rules of Order would be supreme in all matters? Currently if there is an inconsistent with the SCV Constitution or the Standing Rules, Robert's Rules of Order would be the one to yield with the SCV Constitution being supreme over the other two. In order for a constitution to be a constitution it must be supreme within the organization's operations subject only to the laws of the states and the nation. Changing the status of the constitution cannot be seen as a good idea. We would note that the radicals have been most critical of what they label as minority rule by the Past CIC's. And yet, they called for the use of a process ("special convention") that can be called by 5%. This is 5% of the SCV membership rather than a majority of Camps in the Confederation. Apparently this new tactic is used because efforts in 2004 to hold a "special convention" by call of a majority of the Camps failed. Somehow, even after doing the math several times, your Adjutant just cannot make these figures come out to be majority rule.
On March 22, 2005 material was mailed to Camps from SCV IHQ announcing that after they counted the votes the radicals found that they had 2,000+ votes and thus enough to call a "special convention". In essence the number of members requesting a "special convention" numbered about 200-300 more than the total membership of the AL Division. No doubt they could obtain such a figure from the radical divisions in NC and VA alone.
The "special convention" will be held April 23, 2005 in Concord, NC, well within radical territory and in the same city where the CIC held a GEC meeting on December 18, 2004 that was declared illegal by Judge Robert Jones (see the article "Court Ruling of March 9, 2005" in this issue). We would note that although Adjutant-in-Chief James Dark listed four proposed amendments in his e-mail of March 14 only the first two on his list were noted in the official announcement to Camps as mailed from SCV IHQ on March 22. These are the ones to limit Past CIC's on the GEC to the immediate past three and to remove the MOSB Commander General from membership on the GEC. Both of these amendments are sponsored by radical Chris Sullivan of the radical SC Division. Should the proposed amendments fail to pass during the "special convention" you no doubt will see them again during the regular General Convention of July 20-23 and maybe even the other two that Dark mentioned?
In reference to court action sought by members of the GEC to enforce the provisions of the SCV Constitution that the national leadership had chosen to ignore we noted on page 7 of The Adjutant's Notes, March 2005 that "How successful the (court) action will be in the long run will depend upon the so called 'silent majority' giving up their silence and un-involvement and taking a stand. Become in formed, become involved, attend meetings/conventions and vote. Failure to do this, the efforts and sacrifices of many of your fellow compatriots to correct the wrongs in the SCV may well have been for nothing....Prepare yourselves....Radical efforts to pass an amendment to the SCV Constitution...to remove Past CIC's from the GEC will intensify." This time is now upon us. What will be your response? The struggle for the soul of the SCV depends on the answer.
3. A VALID POINT
In the previous article we noted that a "special convention" was called on the basis of a request by 5 of the total membership rather than by a majority of Camps. This is because CIC Sweeney says he must follow MS law rather than the SCV Constitution. In so doing the CIC made specific reference to MS Non-Prof it corporate law statute 70-11-199. A compatriot has raised the point of why the CIC used only part of the law instead of all of its sections. Section (4) requires that "Special meetings of members may be held in or out of this state (MS) at the place stated in or in accordance with the bylaws. If no place is stated or fixed in accordance with the bylaws (which is the case in the SCV), special meetings shall be held at the corporation's principal office." It is noted that "Elm Springs" in Columbia, TN is the "principal office", i.e., IHQ, and not Concord, NC. The observation ends with the statement "As usual, the radicals use what benefits them and overlook or disregard all else."
4. YOUR CONSIDERATION IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED
During the 1st Century AD, Paul, as recorded in ACTS 20:28-31, spoke to the elders of the Ephesus church as follows: "Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock....! Know that...savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. Therefore be alert...." Paul's message could have just as easily been directed to the SCV of today. There is a school of thought in vogue within the SCV that appears to hold as its paramount view, in the "unpleasantness" concerning the leadership and direction of the organization, that the situation involves nothing more than a battle of egos between two factions. They seem to sincerely believe that regardless of the outcome the SCV membership and Camps will not be affected in the least. This stance permits its adherers to assume, in their own minds, a superior moral position over the clash that swirls around them thus allowing them to believe they have the luxury to remain aloof from events and passively await the outcome. While it is true that people are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs your Adjutant would be negligent in his duties to the membership if he allowed this position an opportunity to thrive without calling attention to some important considerations that need to be pondered.
One major force involved in the current SCV struggle is known as the conservatives (condescendingly referred to as "grannies", "tombstone polishers" and "old guard"). They wish to maintain the organization in accordance to the wishes of the founders as expressed in the "letter and spirit" of the SCV Constitution using a literal interpretation of its content, in the same manner used by our 19th Century Southern ancestors to interpret the US Constitution, while holding serious reservations regarding amending the document. These men also desire a responsible fiscal accounting procedure for reporting to the members Inepter force is known as the radicals (of late they have taken to referring to themselves as "reformers") who bring agendas and operational procedures from outside the SCV and endeavor to have the SCV adopt these intrusions as its own. They look upon the Constitution of the SCV as something in their way that must be altered, twisted or ignored (of late conventions have been flooded with constitutional proposed amendments, some of which require more pages to explain than the current constitution is long) so that their new agenda for the SCV can become dominate. Those who have honest disagreement with them and openly oppose them have been threatened with or actually found them-selves suspended from office and/or expunged from membership. They wish to control the $6-7 million assets of the SCV to promote their new order (while creating high salaried jobs and granting funds for projects as rewards to the faithful at the exclusion of others) and the 30.000+ SCV members as a recruiting pool for their inter and intra SCV purposes. In the process the radicals have exposed to us the weakness in a written constitution which is that rights granted are only available to those who have the power to see that they are enforced. This is why it is sometimes necessary to seek the protection of rights through the court system. The radicals have also shown to the membership the trepidation of conventions where the rule, or misrule, of the majority in simple majority votes is all powerful and there are no recognized safeguards for the rights of the minority.
Past CIC Ron Wilson, a major player within the radical faction, has stated that, "This is not the SCV you joined". Let us list a few of the changes introduced by the radicals that prove Wilson's statement:
(1) The discourage presence of US flags and the saying of the pledge at many Camp meetings;
(2) Subversion of the SCV Constitution;
(3) Introduced political activism and political action committees into the "non-political” SCV;
(4) SCV association with fringe groups holding such ideas as modern day secession;
(5) Elimination of opposition through threats of or actual carrying through with suspensions/expulsions/recalling of Camp Charters;
(6) Due to their "in-your-face" behavior and bullying tactics the term "gentleman" can no longer automatically be applied to a SCV member;
(7) Honoring the Confederate soldier is no longer an end in itself but rather a means to other ends they consider to be of more importance;
(8) Within the SCV their loyalty is not to the Constitution of the SCV, which currently does not give them what they want, but to the CIC, who, as a radical, does all within his power to grant their every wish.
The list could be expanded but enough has been stated for us to understand that "This is not the SCV you joined". "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." [Edmund Burk, 18th Century AD] Those who contemplate sitting on the sidelines during these trying times in the SCV and doing nothing to restrain the radicals need to consider what they are enabling by this passive position. Is what the radicals want for the SCV what you really want for the SCV? Do you really wish for their agendas to define the SCV? The time grows short.