Being part of a nonprofit organization without established bylaws is chaotic, akin to operating in a lawless environment. It resembles the fictional worlds portrayed in television shows like Yellowstone or 1883, where the absence of structure leads to disorder, and individuals turn on one another in pursuit of control and power. Within this organization, the atmosphere often felt like a behind-the-scenes game, but one with very real and serious consequences, a high-stakes competition in which influence and dominance took precedence over cooperation and shared mission.

Let us explain what transpired within this nonprofit organization, which until recently, operated entirely without formal bylaws.

Initially, there were ten administrators managing the group. However, due to the lack of clearly defined roles, protocols, and accountability, a division occurred. Four administrators aligned on one side, while the other six formed a separate bloc. The group of six began making a series of calculated moves that appeared strategic, if not politically motivated, to undermine the efforts and influence of the other four.

In the absence of any governing rules, the situation deteriorated. One administrator from the group of six secretly recorded a private conversation between two of their own administrators. This recording was later shown to the President and one administrator from the opposing group. This incident served as the trigger for a formal meeting to be called.

During the meeting, the President and the administrator from the group of four directly confronted the two individuals involved, offering them an opportunity to explain or respond to the issue. Both individuals chose to remain silent, offering no explanation. Despite multiple administrators being involved in the broader context, the group of six collectively decided to remove just one administrator, an individual whose only action was asking questions and seeking clarity. This selective and seemingly retaliatory removal reduced the group of four to three.

This act underscored the deeper internal power struggles and personal alliances that were driving decision-making in the absence of a proper governance framework. Rather than fairness, transparency, or due process, decisions were increasingly influenced by loyalty and unchecked authority.

The situation escalated when the group of six voted to place the President and the President’s spouse on a mandatory two-week leave, giving them no option to decline. They were told that refusal would result in their removal. During this forced break, the Vice President changed all relevant account passwords, effectively locking the President and spouse out of the organization’s systems and communication channels.

During their absence, the six administrators proceeded to operate independently. They began drafting new bylaws exclusively among themselves, without seeking input from or consulting the President or spouse, both of whom held leadership positions.

Further breaches of protocol occurred when the Vice President began engaging with members publicly without the President’s knowledge. Through a series of vlogs, the Vice President implied their candidacy for the role of President, highlighting a number of organizational accomplishments. However, many of the achievements mentioned were not the Vice President’s alone, but the result of contributions from other members.

In response, the President convened another meeting and formally presented evidence of the Vice President’s misconduct. Despite clear documentation, the Vice President denied wrongdoing. As a result, the President made the decision to remove both the Vice President and one of the six another administrator involved.

This decision, however, was met with resistance. Two of the six remaining administrators argued that the President did not have the authority to remove administrators unilaterally. The President, choosing not to escalate the matter, remained silent, allowing the six to continue acting according to their own draft bylaws, which had not been reviewed, finalized, or signed.

The six administrators pressured the President to accept changes in organizational structure, including role reassignment and leadership transitions. Though reluctant, the President responded with passive acceptance, replying only, “Okay,” without taking active steps to intervene or resist.

A new nomination and voting process was initiated under the authority of the draft bylaws. Unsurprisingly, the former Vice President, who had resigned on June 16, 2025, but later returned in an unofficial capacity, was nominated and subsequently elected as President. Her ascent to leadership was attributed less to direct effort and more to her skill in gathering information from administrators and members alike. Her charm and ability to win the support of the broader Deaf trucking community further solidified her influence, rallying others to protect and support her.

Another of the six administrators, who had long sought the Member-at-Large position, failed to secure enough votes during the election. It is believed that, if one of the six administrators won, there may have been a coordinated plan to remove the current President and possibly the remaining three administrators.

Despite being fully aware of these coordinated efforts, the President chose not to interfere, observing in silence as the six administrators continued to consolidate power.

Recognizing the untenable nature of the situation, the President made a decisive move to reestablish balance. All administrators were placed on a mandatory two-week administrative leave, during which they were denied access to the organization’s affairs and platforms. At the end of this period, the President reached out to all administrators to determine their willingness to continue.

Of the ten original administrators, four chose to remain, and the remaining six voluntarily opted not to return. It is important to note that their decision to leave was made independently and not as a result of any action or coercion by the President.

With a restructured and more cohesive leadership team in place, the four remaining administrators, joined by a newly appointed member with extensive nonprofit leadership experience, resumed work on finalizing the organization’s bylaws and advancing toward 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. This renewed effort was particularly critical, as prior treasurers had failed to submit the required financial reports to the IRS since 2013. Moreover, certain organizational funds remain unreturned; the matter is currently the subject of a small claims court filing and a police report alleging theft. Initially, the former Treasurers sought to divide the funds, allocating half to their new organization. Their strong desire to assume the presidency or vice presidency of DTU appeared to be motivated, at least in part, by an effort to conceal the prior use of organizational funds and to position themselves either to control the remaining assets or to misappropriate them.

This time, the process was inclusive, deliberate, and principled. The bylaws were completed, reviewed, finalized, and formally signed into effect. New contractual agreements for the Treasurer now specify that all funds must remain the sole property of the organization and be used exclusively for its purposes. A formal agreement was also implemented for all administrators, requiring acknowledgment that no administrator may be removed without the consent of both the President and the full Board of Directors.

Subsequently, a new round of nominations and elections was held in accordance with the adopted bylaws. Leadership roles were confirmed through a transparent and legitimate process. The group also announced plans to expand the leadership team by welcoming additional administrators in the near future.

This experience has taught us a difficult yet invaluable lesson: it is absolutely imperative to establish and finalize bylaws before proceeding with any nominations, elections, or group formation. If we had done so from the beginning, much of the internal conflict and dysfunction could have been avoided. Unfortunately, we cannot go back and undo what has already occurred.

What we can do now is move forward, united, focused, and determined. Despite past challenges, we remain deeply committed to our mission. Our responsibility is to support one another and to serve the Deaf truckers’ community with integrity and purpose. That includes fostering cooperation with other Deaf trucker organizations to strengthen our collective impact.

We are resolved to continue this important work. Together, we move ahead with renewed clarity, stronger governance, and a firm commitment to advocate for the rights, needs, and visibility of all Deaf truckers.

DTU Team