#1 of 6

From: "Allen Trapp"

To: "Gentlemen"

Subject: Constitutional amendments

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:54:29 -0400

Gentlemen,

Apparently there is an e-mail floating around that reports I am opposed to all the constitutional amendments. That is not true; I am only opposed to the bad ones. IMHO, there are entirely too many this year, but the ones to which I am adamantly opposed include:

1. Removing all but the last 3 CiC's from the General Executive Council. This is so transparently an attempt to retaliate for the March 21 vote to reinstate Hawks that nobody can seriously deny it, unless you really want to buy swamp land in Florida and think the fact that this amendment was all over the internet within 24 hours of the vote was just a coicidence.

I realize it can be said in all honesty that Norman Dasinger was there for the first time in a long time. Granted. But none of the others were strangers, and THE OTHER SIDE DID THE SAME THING on May 24, when Bill Hogan made his first appearance in a decade.

The men who propose this amendment think that if they can get the amendment that allows officers to succeed themselves approved, they will just grin and bear Pete Orlebeke for a second Wilson term, but they will still have the only two past CiC's they like on the Council and be rid of all the ones they don't like except Pete. If the amendment that would let officers succeed themselves fails, they are rid of Pete next year but will have their two favorite past CiC's plus Wilson. If you think this is coincidental, remember that swamp.....

Let me ask you why anyone in their right mind would want to remove Earl Faggert or Pete Orlebeke from the GEC? There is ANOTHER amendment that would remove those past CiC's who do not come to a meeting in a year. That is a good idea. Those who do not take part yet make it more difficult to obtain a quorum should go. Vote for this amendment, but not the revenge amendment.
Last, the fewer members of the GEC, the more power the CiC has. I will bet you a handsome sum that the author of this amendment would not vote for it if Norman Dasinger was CiC. C'mon. We all know he would not.

2. The amendment that would let officers succeed themselves should be shouted down. We have too much talent and do not need a bottleneck. This would not have been proposed if Norman Dasinger was still CiC, or at least those who currently support it would have denounced it as a cynical ploy to centralize power and/or cling to power. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored to some people, but I would have opposed it 8 years ago and oppose it now.

Too much power in the hands of one man or a handful is a bad thing - period. I hope nobody thinks I am picking on Norman Dasinger, but the truth is that he was a boogeyman to most of those behind these amendments. He was accused of trying to centralize power and exert control over people's thoughts, etc., and now his loudest critics are attempting to do the kinds of things of which he was accused.

3. Adding the Heritage Defense Chairman, not even a general officer, to the GEC is a bad idea. Do you really want to give the CiC another vote? If you add the Heritage guy the CiC will control seven votes. If you take all but 3 past CiC's off the council, there will be :

3 past CiC's

6 elected army cdrs. and councilmen

1 Lt. Cic who usually does his best to get along with the CiC

7 the CiC and his six appointees (unless the editor-in-chief is removed, in which case it would be 6 again).

If a CiC has just one, just one friend, among the first nine, he controls every vote, every issue, everything. Doesn't this bother some of you who are suspicious of centralized power? If concerns me, and it would concern me even if Pete Orlebeke or Earl Faggert was CiC. It has nothing to do with Ron Wilson.

Like I said, I am not opposed to all the amendments. The prorating dues amendment looks good. These three listed above must be defeated, or we are truly heading in the wrong direction. Just think about it and, if you have been inclined to vote yes, ask yourself if you would vote differently if we had a different CiC. If you would, then vote your conscience and vote NO.

With kindest regards,

Allen Trapp

Commander Trapp is currently the Commander of the Army of Tenn and former GA Division Commander.

"The Admiral’’s Log" No. 7, Vol. XXIII, July 2003

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Raphael Semmes Camp

Mobile AL

At the May 2003 FL SCV-MOSB Convention Luncheon SCV CIC Ron Wilson stated that "The SCV you joined is not the SCV of today." Most members had probably already figured this out, but what was lacking was an official announcement as to where the organization is being taken. We regret to have to say that the current regime has made us painfully aware that it has become too accustom to making decisions by personal choice of the CIC and those who adhere to him rather than by the SCV Constitution. We have no reason to believe this matter would be approached any differently.

The first official sounding insight into this matter came in the form of a June 11, 2003 e-mail from Adjutant-in-Chief John Adams who stated that "The SCV is moving towards a civil-rights/heritage defense organization....." Presumably when a top lieutenant of the CIC makes such statement and it is not contradicted by the CIC, it must be what the CIC wishes the members to know.

We note that heritage itself does not really seem to have a secure place in the heart of the current regime. We see this in the words of Adjutant-in-Chief Adams and others. In his June 11 e-mail, Adams castigates the MOSB for being what he calls a "historical remembrance society." The current regime supporters have been critical of what they call "gravestone polishers." We may well ask how anyone can be an honest defender of anything without having an appreciation of and support for those who remember, preserve and care for the objects they say they wish to defend. It is almost as if heritage is not an end, but rather something to use to achieve a goal considered more important to them. It would be interesting to be able to compare the amount of time & money spent by the current regime on heritage remembrance, preservation and care of objects with what is directed toward what is termed "heritage defense."

Here we should reflect upon the fact that in the Preamble to the SCV Constitution are found the purposes of the SCV. Listed here are statements that would support acts of heritage remembrance, preservation and care as indicated by the following: "...To aid and encourage the recording and teaching with impartiality of all Southern history..., seeing to it especially that the events of the War Between the States are authentically and clearly written and that all documents, relics and mementos produced and handed down by the active participants therein are properly treasured and preserved for posterity..." "...To urge, aid and assist in the erection of suitable and enduring monuments and memorials to all Southern valor...." Nowhere does it make mention of participating in "T-shirt/lunch box" cases in and out of court. These activities seem to be the major drive of those who speak of "heritage defense." The so called "heritage defenders" seem to have priorities that do not match those established by the SCV Constitution; yet it is those who uphold the constitution who are being denounced and expunged by the current regime.

We also observe that the methods of choice for exercising "heritage defense" so far exhibited by all too many are highly questionable as far as behavior befitting and benefitting the organization goes. Examples of this include called boycotts, acts that invite confrontation and/or arrest (there have been two arrest in AL, ie, Mobile and Montgomery) and less than veiled threats to withhold votes from specified political candidate. In all honesty these tactics appear to be more appropriate for the mode of operation for the NAACP than the SCV and may have been "borrowed" from them. We do not know if acts of this type meet with the approval of the CIC but we do know that no one in the SCV has been held accountable for acts of this nature by the CIC.

As for being a "civil-rights" organization, the SCV Constitution makes no mention of such a mission for the SCV while the current leadership gives little indication of concern for the actual "civil-rights" of its overall membership. Remember Gilbert Jones? Remember the suspended Camps, Camp and Brigade Commanders of the NC Division? Remember Randy Kerlin? Remember Charles Hawks? Their crime was that they did not agree with or support the leadership, and for this, a "pound of flesh" was extracted from each. Apparently people with different views will not be tolerated or extended "civil-rights." The Hawks case also shows most clearly the willingness of the current regime to set aside the SCV Constitution at the pleasure of the CIC. When the General Executive Council voted to return Hawks to his ANV Department Commander post the CIC refused to do so stating the "...the GEC is not...competent or capable of restoring Charles Hawks to office...by...any...method." These words of the CIC are as dangerous for the well being of the SCV as are the following words for the nation’s well-being as uttered by US Representative and presidential candidate Richard Gephardt: "When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the (US) Supreme Court does (on)...any...day." [Gephardt quote taken from Page 19-A of the June 26, 2003 Mobile Register] For a regime reported as moving towards a "civil-rights" organization this is a terrible civil-rights record.

If what Adams said (about the SCV becoming a civil rights organization) is in reality only "smoke and mirrors" then where is the SCV being taken? As the current regime is loathe to tell us, perhaps they would not mind if we try to discern the question without them. Based on past actions within the SCV, Nostradamus, if he were alive today, might not be faulted if he contemplated the mystery at hand and offered the following observation and prediction:

The SCV is no longer to be an organization where Confederate Heritage matters. The end product (those who believe it should continue to be so are being called "grannies’’, "bedwetters’’ and "gravestone polishers"). It is a political party, in fact if not name, where heritage is a means to an end, ie, political power. The aspirations of this party would be heavily influenced by CCC/LOS views such as refusal to Salute the US Flag or give the Pledge of Allegiance and in working to elect people to political offices who would vote to support modern day Southern secession. There could also be a possible tenet of Libertarian Party idealism. The core ingredient for the success of such a political conglomerate would be the votes of the SCV membership and SCV funds. Loyalty of the SCV would be secured by wrapping the party and its leaders in the Confederate Flag and the calling upon the names of Confederate personalities to preach heritage defense against both real and perceived enemies. In all of this the current government and the news media would be pictured as the arch-enemy and all in the SCV who do not fall in line would be considered "traitors." Should this not be an accurate view of the situation the CIC is called upon to plainly tell us what is his reality.

If all of this seems to be strange logic, remember that although the CIC has stated that he withdrew from the CCC/LOS, he still appointed five of their members to his general staff. Remember that SCV affiliation with political groups as the CCC/LOS is no longer prevented but rather encouraged. Remember that the SCV sponsors a PAC (Political Action Committee) which is more than a little strange for an organization that is "non-political" by its constitution. Know that 4th FL Division Lt. Commander Bob May has resigned his office and in a June 9, 2003 e-mail to FL Division Commander/Adjutant-in-Chief John Adams, he alluded to political campaign contributions made to people in West FL especially around early October 2000 and warns of 501-C-3 status loss for the SCV due to such acts.

As to having money available to invest in such an adventure, know that General Executive Council talk has been of paying the new Editor-in-Chief in excess of $50,000 yearly (the old one did the job for over 15 years free). Know that 2 of 3 Field Representatives (fund raisers/recruiters) are currently operating and are receiving $30-50,000 yearly with the ATM Department to have such a Field Representative by this summer. Know that the SCV leadership is making plans to buy out the MOSB interest in "Elm Springs." Know that a new bi-monthly magazine, Southern Mercury, will be published by the SCV starting July 2003 (it is to be dedicated to the one subject of "heritage defense"). Apparently money is available as never before. Regarding money, might we ask when we last heard of funds being expended from the $1,000,000+ Brooks Fund for medical research grants? Is this money just sitting there or what?

Like all political groups, once the current regime in today’’s SCV came to power, it has sought to perpetuate its position. Those in the SCV who are not adherents to the regime and who cannot be neutralized have been intimidated and/or banished. The SCV Constitution has only been upheld by the regime when it suited its purposes and is quickly circumvented, ignored or out -and-out violated when it does not provide what is desired. In this we see a connection to Abraham Lincoln’s treatment of the US Constitution. We should also note the obvious power grabs that are inherent in many of the proposed constitutional amendments for the consideration of the 2003 General Convention, ie, add another appointee of the CIC (Chief of Heritage Defense) to the General Executive Council; allow a second term for all General Staff officers (including the CIC); remove Past CIC’s from the General Executive Council and eliminate their General Convention vote; remove the MOSB CG as an ex-officio member of the General Executive council.

What do you think concerning the situation?

Gentlemen,

Please notice the e-mail that follows [our #4 of 6], wherein Kirk Lyons complains that Pete Orlebeke and I have prevented him from obtaining all the the SCV funding he would like to have and asking for $10,000 at the convention.

Do you remember the trouble we had here in Georgia back in 1998 when the division convention voted to give them $1000? After that was over I vowed never to give them any division dues money.

I have voted against direct gifts or grants to the SLRC. If you are also afraid of being too closely aligned with this outfit, you need to be in Asheville to vote. You can bet they will bus in their supporters.

I for one do not want to see the SCV become the fund raising arm of the SLRC. Any of you feel the same?

Allen Trapp

----- Original Message -----

From: CSA NEWS UPDATE

Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:10 PM

Subject: SOS –SLRC

Gentlemen,

Pardon the impersonal nature of this communication. The SLRC is is dire economic straits. Our small support base simply cannot keep up with the demands of 5 Federal lawsuits against a rogues gallery that includes: the FAA, Dupont, Bechtel Corp, Lawrence Co, AL schools and Brinks International Security. They can outspend us 100 - 1 and once we get to Discovery (which is where we are at in the Bechtel case) I am afraid we will be overwhelmed.

We have 4 employees Mim, (who is way behind in her salary of $800/month), Alllison, our case manager, who is a month behind, Neill (one paycheck behind) and myself. I make $3,000/month, when I get it, to raise a family with 5 kids. I spend 50-70 hours a week on the road or at the office.

We lost our computer assisted legal research because we got behind in our bill of $545/month. Right now we owe them about $5000. We need to be back on line.

For major research we use Texas/National Legal Research. They use one of their attorney's and he charges us $85/ hour. Their work is excellent and they are worth every penny we pay them. They churn out the grunt work which I can then alter or distill to suit the case I am working on. I cannot tell you how much they have helped us keep up with our more monied adversaries. Right now we owe them over $6000 from a variety of cases, and they have been very gracious to us, but as we continue to use them, one day they are going to want their money.

Going through the Division's for monery has been very frustrating, mainly because manytimes the Trapp/Orlebeke coalition have shot down our request for funding at the GEC. Some of the GEC are afraid or unwilling to give us money, but they poney up to give the Rutherford Institute $8000/ year. I don't begrudge the Rutherford Institute a thing, they have done some fine fighting for us. They also have 20 times the SLRC's resources and we have done important fighting too. I am very tired of the SLRC being treated as a bastard relation.

It's time Pete and Allen learned that the rank & file SCV member wants the SLRC helped by this organization. Here is what I am asking:

I want a resolution from the floor requesting that $10,000 of the first available heritage money be given to the SLRC [emphasis ours] - strictly for the purpose of reestablishing our computer assisted research by paying our bill to WestlAw and the rest be allocated to pay outstanding SCV related legal research bills. None of this money will go to SLRC salaries ONLY to outstanding research bills!

If the Division Commanders of FL, KY, PA, TN, SC, NC as well as national officers endorse this resolution I think it can pass. AL, GA, VA, & AR I think would be inclined to support such a resolution.

We have important and funds draining cases in VA, FL, AL, PA and SC. We could take a dozen more school cases in SC, FL, VA & NC if we had the funding. And it will save the SLRC, for now. Gentlemen please keep this under your hat while we consider this. From a timing perspective I would be happy to see this considered after we see how the constitutional amendments do. I beg for your help on this. I am afraid that the SLRC could collapse at any moment. It wouldn't take much.

We are trying to help ourselves by moving into other areas of fundraising, but first we must survive this Summer.

Also encourage your JAGS to attrend our continuing Legal Education course on Thursday at the Reunion. At $100 it is a bargain.

Thank you,

Kirk

Forwarded Message:

Subj: FW: SOS -SLRC

Date: 7/15/2003 8:32:29 AM Eastern Standard Time

Gentlemen,

You need to know about this if you don't already. What Kirk said about Allen and me isn't true, and I'm against the idea of the SCV propping up anybody's law practice, including Kirk's.

Pete

(Pete Orlebeke is a past Commander in Chief.)

Subject: Fw: No succession

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:20:28 -0400

Here is some additional information a friend (a Ga. commander) sent to me about the SCV's long tradition of not allowing elected general officers to succeed themselves.

At our 3 hour, 15-minute camp meeting marathon last Thursday night, we discussed the dynasty amendment at length. One of the members said he had made a study of the UCV and the SCV, and that the SCV deliberately adopted a one-term limit at its inception or very early in its existence to avoid the ""monarchy"" that then existed over in the UCV.

The UCV was in the ""iron grip"" of John B. Gordon and later, Stephen D. Lee, and G. W. Gordon, for the first 25 years of its existence. And, although we look back on those men today with great respect and admiration, apparently their ""iron rule"" of the UCV from the 1880’’s until well into the next century caused major resentment. After their hold on the UCV was broken, the UCV began electing new CICs ever year or two, to broaden the appeal of a dwindling base and to mitigate the grumbling.

I dutifully recorded this argument in the meeting minutes. I think I have heard Ed and Jeff say something about this in the past, so I will defer to them and anyone else with information about this. In a recent conversation with JEB, I think he also said that he thought this was the case. JEB’’s grandfather was the first CIC of the SCV.

Also, I looked at the Centennial Edition (""Our First 100 Years"") Yearbook and counted 65 CICs over the first 100 years. I can’’t tell from that how many may have died in office, causing a successor to step up and complete a term, or how many were elected to a one-year term, and succeeded to a second one-year term, but it’’s clear that the average time in office for each CIC, from Stuart through Dasinger, was less than two years. In any event, when measured against the amendment to give the General Officers four years in office, you can quickly see this is an unprecedented, radical departure for tradition. Or, perhaps tradition plays no part in their thinking?

Here is an extract from our camp meeting minutes:

3. Amendment to Allow the General Officers to Stand for Re-Election. The SCV Constitution bars the General Officers, that is, the CIC, the Lt. CIC, the three army commanders, and the three army councilmen from running for re-election. This proposed amendment would permit the General Officers to serve for four consecutive years, if re-elected to a second two-year term.

Discussion: This is a major departure from tradition, after 107 years. There are many reasons why this effort must not succeed. Here are some of them:

First, at the beginning, a handful of officers dominated the United Confederate Veterans, and it wasn’’t until after that organization had been in existence for a quarter-century that the elections became open contests without predetermined outcomes. The SCV’’s founders were aware of the monarchal structure in the UCV, and intentionally adopted a one-term, two-year limit for the SCV’’s General Officers to avoid the ""dynasty"" problems that plagued the UCV.

Second, the SCV is a non-profit organization, and non-profit organizations –– unlike for-profit organizations –– depend upon a constant flow of new leadership. Under the current Constitutional provisions, the CIC’’s single two-year term imposes a sense of urgency on the CIC and his GEC. A second two-year term opens the door to static behavior, the major problem of every non-profit organization.[Footnote: These proposed amendments, if adopted, would apply to (unknown) CICs and GECs in office decades from now. What about them? All of the proposed amendments have to be measured for theirlong-term effect on the SCV, not on the short-term prospects of individuals. If the CIC’’s strategic plan is right for the SCV, he will accomplish his goals in two years. If he leads, the SCV will follow, even in difficult times.

Third, the right to run for a second "two-year" term would become a de facto four-year term at the inception. In the case of incompetent General Officers, including the CIC, their incompetence would not stop them from running for a second term, and in most cases, the SCV and the armies would be stuck with them. How often would someone challenge an incumbent CIC, even an incompetent one, who was seeking re-election? Rarely, if ever, especially in view of the powers of incumbency. This proposed amendment creates an ""automatic"" four-year term.

Fourth, the right to run for re-election would create a ""ripple"" effect all the way down to the division level. The ""best and brightest"" among the SCV’’s membership might face a 25- or 30-year quest to reach the highest office in the SCV and complete his term. Assuming an outstanding leader among us began his rise through the ranks, he could expect to spend a half-dozen years serving in leadership roles in his camp. Next, he could expect to spend four years each as a brigade and division commander, and then another four years as an army councilman, before he could even think about running for one of the three higher offices. And then he might have to pull a four-year tour of duty as one of the appointed members of the GEC. At that point, he might be ready to declare his candidacy for army commander. If he is moving through the chairs, he still has another twelve years in front of him, if he outlasts the mortality table. It will play out this way. As long as the CIC, the Lt. CIC, and one of the army commanders are in a line of succession, which would usually be the case, the ripple effect would work all the way down to the division level (and lower). That is the effect of the serious ""bunching"" at the top. Most of our best and brightest aren’’t going to have that kind of time to devote to the SCV. Many don’’t now. The SCV has a surplus of outstanding executive talent. This proposed amendment will hold them back and drive them off.

Fifth, the SCV has budgeted tens of thousands of dollars to hire top flight, full-time executive management. Much of the impetus behind this effort was the growing concern that the CIC’’s position was becoming ""full-time."" Now, by proposing the CIC’’s re-election, some are conceding that the CIC’’s position is full-time, and this will necessarily bar all but the wealthy, the self-employed, or the retired from ever holding this office. How many, for example, could drop what they were doing to essentially live in Columbia for two (or four) years in the middle of a successful career and in the middle of raising a family?

Sixth, political patronage within the General Executive Council is already very powerful, if not irresistible. A GEC with four years in office would have the power to perpetuate itself, perpetually, through appointments and political grooming. It would be almost impossible, under the circumstances, to overcome the status quo, as was done in 1998 (with the election of new army commanders and councilmen) and in 2002 (with the election of a CIC, who entered the contest late but overcame three other qualified candidates).

Camp’s Vote: Against