SBARC-list November 2013

sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com

21 participants
24 discussions

SBARC governance, 2014 and beyond
by Jay Hennigan 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Feel free to call this a position paper, platform, or vision as appropriate. Several of the documents sent to this reflector have been rather lengthy, and in some cases length is needed to fully explain a position. However, readers may skip those portions that are repetitive or just too long. Here I've tried to express myself with short statements and follow up with more detail. 1. I didn't ask for this job. 2. We are in the communications business, and we don't communicate. 3. Fundraising is a means, not an end. 4. Inclusion of member input is essential. 5. Conflicts of interest should be fully disclosed. 1. I didn't ask for this job. I was recently asked what I had done for SBARC in the last five years, and my reply was everything that was asked of me. Like most or all of the membership, every year I return a reply form with my annual dues on which there are several check-boxes denoting ways that a member is willing to help the Club. I have always checked every box, and have rarely if ever heard from the Club. I've been an SBARC member since the late 1970s, have served on the Board numerous times, and have been President twice. Within the last five years I have given presentations at meetings, perhaps once. Three years ago the Club didn't even bother asking me to renew my membership. Only a week ago after I expressed my opinion about the surprise Bylaws change and my ideas for direction was I approached to run for office. I will withdraw my name from consideration should a trusted individual with a similar vision to mine step forward. 2. We are in the communications business, and we don't communicate. I'm delighted to see Key-Klix again, and feel that the Board and membership needs encouragement to submit articles and contributions. If the Board seeks a major change in Club governance, this should be disclosed to the membership well in advance and input sought from the membership. I would like to see a wiki on the website as an interactive knowledge base. (A wiki is a collaborative editable collection of data, like Wikipedia, not a spy-leakage site like Wikileaks.) A wiki for collaboration on the Bylaws change visible to all would have avoided a lot of headache and resulted in a much cleaner document. 3. Fundraising is a means, not an end. Money is the fuel that gets us where we need to go, without question. Fundraising is essential for a healthy organization. But fundraising isn't our mission. If you are planning a vacation by car, deciding where you want to go and what you want to do are the mission. Stockpiling gasoline is not the mission, even though gasoline is needed to complete it. Much of the argument for the proposed governance changes is about making it easier to stockpile gasoline, not defining where we are going with it. 4. Inclusion of member input is essential. Snobbery doesn't work. Discounting your constituency as "without a clue" is counterproductive. Considering yourself to be a high-level person and others low-level people doesn't gain their support. People have different skill sets. Good leadership uses their talents appropriately rather than dismissing them as clueless. As an example, Marvin offered to perform a service for the Club if he would have the power of a "benevolent dictator". That's a good description of a committee chairperson, certainly something within the current framework, and allows for independent action. But the dictatorship is for a specific task and the dictator can be overthrown by the Board should it turn out not to be benevolent or the dictator fails to complete the task. As a former board member and SBARC President, Marvin knows this. 5. Conflicts of interest should be fully disclosed to the membership. Anyone in a position of authority with such a conflict should not attempt to modify SBARC policy in such a way that SBARC is forced to sponsor or support their other interest(s). For the record, I am employed by Impulse Advanced Communications, a for-profit telecommunications company. Impulse is involved with voice and data communications, including wireless, in the greater Santa Barbara area. Impulse provides the bandwidth and server for this mailing list. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay(a)impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

1 0

Re: [Sbarc-list] Jay for President
by Marvin Johnston 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi Al, First, those people who put dogma ahead of facts should ignore this post... it is unlikely the facts presented will change your mind. You make some good points about the role of doer organizations and support organizations. And I do not disagree. And before I start pointing out the obvious, these points do not reflect on my appreciation of what some of these people, including you, Bill, and some others have done for the club... that type of dedication is needed. Like many other situations, there is agreement (mostly) on the problem. The proposed solutions are where the disagreement comes from. The fact of the matter is we are talking about apples and oranges: *** Benefits to the membership vs benefits to the people proposing these changes. Many people are basing their support on idealism vs realism with a blind faith these leaders know best. Facts: * the timing of these proposed bylaw changes creates implementation problems * the membership has not been informed in a timely manner, thus leaving them in the dark as to what the changes are all about when voting * this same board supporting the proposed bylaws changes is the same one responsible for the loss of somewhere between $6K to $10K at the last SW division convention. * the same people responsible for past failures to plan are saying this will magically disappear with the new bylaws * there are no really new changes except to change the board size/composition (in order to squelch discussion according to one description) * the same people supporting the changes have been unable or unwilling to work at increasing the membership numbers * if these same people who have a current interest in the club disappear, the club is STUCK with a structure that just won't work without specialized knowledge. * The current bylaws have been working. I doubt previous high level executives (Bob Dyruff, et al) would have tolerated them if they did not. Al, you know as well as I do the above points (and many more) are valid. The changes appear to be more to deal with the limitations of the supporters than to benefit the club. And you also know the concerns that were raised in the prior listserver posts have not been address publicly (with the single exception of Bruce's suggestion.) WHY NOT????? I doubt anyone with a knowledge of club history would deny I have a strong sense of membership "customer service." The people supporting these changes have an equal but opposite lack of appreciation for the membership. And judging by the above points, they also have a lack of knowledge about running this organization. So why is it you, Andy, Bill, and other supporters feel you can sell to other organizations for money, but ignore any selling to the membership? There are WAY too many questions raised by the approach supporters have chosen. And WAY too few answers to support the changes. And yes, I realize the above are stated pretty bluntly and succinctly. Please show the same concern and respect for the membership that you show for fundraising in the future. Thanks! Marvin On 2013-11-11 22:30, Alan Soenke wrote: > Be careful Marvin, there is a very fine line between being a > non-profit corporation and violating the rules we are obligated to > serve. I also consider it very bad taste to call a Non-Profit > Charitable education institution a beggar organization with a > dependancy. Organizations all over Santa Barbara are in the business > of distributing funds to worthy causes - it is there only business. > There are two types of Non-Profits the ones who do the legwork > providing the services and support to the community - That's our > Role. The other kind is the Non-Profits that raise the funding from > donors who want to contribute some they have (wealth) to the > community in the best way they can. The two work together to build > the community. > > This is a principle the new leaders of our club (Non-Profit > Corporation) need to live and breath in order to survive. > Telecommunications is not a bake-sale industry, those of us who help > build communicators through education and hands-on training cannot > function while being distracted by selling gadgets. > > The new structure proposed won't happen over night but it does > provide for the development of a separate branch that can do these > things without taking away from the rest of the hobby and the Club in > their programs, no matter how recreational it may be. > > The benefits you cite may be limited to only those who are interested > in getting an education in marketing and retail sales, etc. One thing > for sure is they will really get an education in dealing with the > State and Federal government in non-profits and taxation. > > I'm in favor of a board focused on learning how to run a non-profit > and having fun with ham radio in the process. I believe in a highly > efficient and well trained Board concentrating on communicators and > networks they use by getting readily available funding from eager > donors based on a thorough business model and conviction to succeed. > > One thing is certain, our club does not need a benevolent dictator. > As Darryl has delicately made a point, the main flaw in our proposed > by-laws revision could, under the worst case scenario, result in a > board request being granted by just 2 board members out of three > passing the order. > > So let me understand clearly that we should elect Jay President of > the Club, so you can feel comfortable as a member and seek the office > of benevolent dictator of e-bay commerce. > > I will gladly join the board as the (recent past president) > director-at-large because I think this will be a really fun year. > > > Best regards, Alan J. Soenke, WA6VNN President, Santa Barbara Amateur > Radio Club, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Marvin Johnston <marvin(a)west.net> > To: sbarc-list <sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com> Sent: Mon, Nov 11, > 2013 7:53 pm Subject: [Sbarc-list] Jay for President > > > > Since NOBODY has stepped up to talk about the candidate for > president (or any other candidate except for Andy), I do support Jay > and will rejoin the club if he is elected. > > Jay has served multiple terms as SBARC President and is very well > acquainted with the club history. > > The club does need money to continue operations. Personally, I am > very much against SBARC becoming a beggar organization *dependent* on > funds from outside sources. > > So as an alternative, if Jay is elected, I am willing to head up a > committee to sell "stuff" online. A business plan would be required, > and presented to the board for approval. > > My qualifications for doing so include 15 years of successful > selling online, primarily on eBay, as well as some 20+ years selling > at electronic swapmeets. > > For anyone who (ignorantly) might think the amount of money that > could be obtained that way would be insignificant, it would be > relatively easy to make up a business plan to sell at least $100K a > year. Doing only $1K a month would most likely take about up to a > couple of hours per week. > > The only condition is that I would be the benevolent dictator of the > committee, a phrase I first heard from Art Harris when he was in > charge of the (now defunct unfortunately) bazaar some 10 years or so > ago. I can't imagine the board disagreeing since that is the basis of > their proposed bylaw changes. > > The benefits to the club should be obvious. > > The benefits to committee members is they will get a first class > education on market research, pricing research, listing copywriting, > proper packaging techniques, and knowledge of the when to use the > various services for maximum ROI. > > Thanks! > > Marvin, KE6HTS > > _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing > list SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > > >

1 1

Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board
by bgordon＠rain.org 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Hi Everybody, Thanks for all of your inputs in the last few days. As I see it, the new, small board can be useful in getting funding from other sources than just our dues. It could also save time at board meetings for up to 8 other people. The downside is that it could drive members away if they feel that the club's interests become too narrow or that their ideas are not considered. It has been suggested that the slow and fragmented approach to this election might cause a damaging extended series of meetings and votes. Messy and unproductive! Below I have outlined a proceedure that should be fair to all who attend the meeting. Those that submit proxies will only be able to vote on the amendment of the bylaws, not for members of the new board if it is approved or for the old board. On election night, the discussion and vote on a small board should be done first because if it passes, the old style board is moot. If the small board idea does pass, there should be an election of officers for it at the same meeting where both members and election materials are on hand. In either case, the newly elected people would take charge at the begining of next year. Despite the bumpy start, I see no value in dragging out the decision and having an additional round of voting later. Bruce Gordon N6OLT

3 2

RE: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board
by Andrew Seybold 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Did the board of Directors approve this slate Al? Andy -----Original Message----- From: Alan Soenke [mailto:ajsoenke@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 3:13 PM To: Andrew Seybold Cc: bgordon(a)rain.org; sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board 1. Darryl needs to get board approval on any slate the nominating committee provides before it is posted. 2. Any member in good standing can stand up at a meeting of the general membership and present themselves as a candidate or be nominated from the floor by another provided they concur. Al Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andrew Seybold <aseybold(a)andrewseybold.com> wrote: > > Bruce--well said and I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw the list of nominations for the officers--I wish, as a member of the club I had a choice of multiple candidates for some of the offices--a no vote is my only option I guess but normally those running for office for any Board I am associated with at least have to post a bio and a several paragraph statement about why they want to run for office and what their plans are for executing that office--looks as if this time we are stuck with some candidates that I just cannot support in good conscience. Further the list was just made available to us. Some of the people on here have felt as if the move to a smaller board was to gain power for the few--now what I am seeing is that the nominations are designed to serve the few who have been working in the back-ground to set-up their own agenda instead of giving the members a far opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions. > > Andy W6AMS > > -----Original Message----- > From: sbarc-list-bounces(a)lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of bgordon(a)rain.org > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:02 AM > To: sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > Subject: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board > > Hi all, > > There has certainly been a lot of of opinion and arguement on this list recently about club organization and leadership. Daryl has provided a set of candidates for the existing club offices. We have no information on who would stand for election for the positions under the proposed new bylaws. Because of the increased responsibilities for each member of a smaller board, it would be important to know who would be willing to serve on it. Just like in the "real world", the quality of the result usually depends more on the character of the person than the job description. > > Bruce N6OLT > > _______________________________________________ > SBARC-list mailing list > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > _______________________________________________ > SBARC-list mailing list > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list

3 4

New, smaller board
by bgordon＠rain.org 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Hi all, There has certainly been a lot of of opinion and arguement on this list recently about club organization and leadership. Daryl has provided a set of candidates for the existing club offices. We have no information on who would stand for election for the positions under the proposed new bylaws. Because of the increased responsibilities for each member of a smaller board, it would be important to know who would be willing to serve on it. Just like in the "real world", the quality of the result usually depends more on the character of the person than the job description. Bruce N6OLT

6 6

Re: SBARC-list Digest, Vol 124, Issue 14
by james adriansen 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Hello Everyone, Will someone please post the minutes to Board Meetings on the website? The last minutes of the Board are August 14th. Confusion reigns. Not a good thing for such an important event. 73 de Jim, AJ4VP SBARC Member ID: 2000514255 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, <sbarc-list-request(a)lists.netlojix.com>wrote: > Send SBARC-list mailing list submissions to > sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sbarc-list-request(a)lists.netlojix.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sbarc-list-owner(a)lists.netlojix.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of SBARC-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FW: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board (Marina King) > 2. Re: New, smaller board (Jordan) > 3. Re: New, smaller board (Brian Milburn - K6BPM) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:02:08 -0800 > From: Marina King <marinaking(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: FW: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board > To: Andrew Seybold <aseybold(a)andrewseybold.com> > Cc: "sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com" <sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com> > Message-ID: > < > CAFfKGnmPJsKybT_jDLLcLgviz98F9rpuNiOudxLiWpbNqqpYRQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Remember that nominations for board positions can be taken from the floor > at the general club meeting. > > Marina > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Seybold < > aseybold(a)andrewseybold.com > > wrote: > > > Please see below—also would like to make it known that as a board member > > I said: > > > > If we are going to have a smaller board I will not run for one of the > > positions, however if the board is to remain the size it is then I will > run > > again. But obviously the nominations committee did not contact me before > > they published the list. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > *From:* emperorjordan(a)gmail.com [mailto:emperorjordan@gmail.com] *On > > Behalf Of *Jordan > > *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2013 11:54 AM > > *To:* Andrew Seybold > > *Subject:* Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board > > > > > > > > Andy, can you please send my reply below to the list, it will not let me > > reply to the whole group: > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I have avoided responding to this mess, but feel I need to say two things > > because some facts are being left out here. > > > > > > > > 1) Darryl was provided with a list of people willing to serve on the > > smaller board, why he did not publish that list as well I do not know. > > > > > > > > 2) Several people know, including Mr Anonymous has mentioned that the > > bylaws change came from one person or people and not the board. This is > > simply not true. I was at the last board meeting and witnessed the board > > vote and pass the motion to vote on amended bylaws at the November > general > > meeting. > > > > > > > > Take care and I hope to see all of you at the November Club meeting! > > > > > > > > Jordan > > > > KJ6YVJ > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Seybold < > > aseybold(a)andrewseybold.com> wrote: > > > > Bruce--well said and I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw the > > list of nominations for the officers--I wish, as a member of the club I > had > > a choice of multiple candidates for some of the offices--a no vote is my > > only option I guess but normally those running for office for any Board I > > am associated with at least have to post a bio and a several paragraph > > statement about why they want to run for office and what their plans are > > for executing that office--looks as if this time we are stuck with some > > candidates that I just cannot support in good conscience. Further the > list > > was just made available to us. Some of the people on here have felt as if > > the move to a smaller board was to gain power for the few--now what I am > > seeing is that the nominations are designed to serve the few who have > been > > working in the back-ground to set-up their own agenda instead of giving > the > > members a far opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions. > > > > Andy W6AMS > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sbarc-list-bounces(a)lists.netlojix.com [mailto: > > sbarc-list-bounces(a)lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of bgordon(a)rain.org > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:02 AM > > To: sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > > Subject: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board > > > > Hi all, > > > > There has certainly been a lot of of opinion and arguement on this list > > recently about club organization and leadership. Daryl has provided a > set > > of candidates for the existing club offices. We have no information on > who > > would stand for election for the positions under the proposed new bylaws. > > Because of the increased responsibilities for each member of a smaller > > board, it would be important to know who would be willing to serve on it. > > Just like in the "real world", the quality of the result usually depends > > more on the character of the person than the job description. > > > > Bruce N6OLT > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SBARC-list mailing list > > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > > _______________________________________________ > > SBARC-list mailing list > > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > SBARC-list mailing list > > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > > > > > > > -- > *Marina King* > *President* > > *SB Area Council of PTAs(805) 696-3424* > *www.sbpta.org <http://www.sbpta.org>* > <https://www.facebook.com/santabarbarapta> >

3 2

FW: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board
by Andrew Seybold 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Please see below-also would like to make it known that as a board member I said: If we are going to have a smaller board I will not run for one of the positions, however if the board is to remain the size it is then I will run again. But obviously the nominations committee did not contact me before they published the list. Andy From: emperorjordan(a)gmail.com [mailto:emperorjordan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jordan Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:54 AM To: Andrew Seybold Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board Andy, can you please send my reply below to the list, it will not let me reply to the whole group: Hello all, I have avoided responding to this mess, but feel I need to say two things because some facts are being left out here. 1) Darryl was provided with a list of people willing to serve on the smaller board, why he did not publish that list as well I do not know. 2) Several people know, including Mr Anonymous has mentioned that the bylaws change came from one person or people and not the board. This is simply not true. I was at the last board meeting and witnessed the board vote and pass the motion to vote on amended bylaws at the November general meeting. Take care and I hope to see all of you at the November Club meeting! [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] Jordan KJ6YVJ On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Seybold <aseybold(a)andrewseybold.com<mailto:aseybold@andrewseybold.com>> wrote: Bruce--well said and I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw the list of nominations for the officers--I wish, as a member of the club I had a choice of multiple candidates for some of the offices--a no vote is my only option I guess but normally those running for office for any Board I am associated with at least have to post a bio and a several paragraph statement about why they want to run for office and what their plans are for executing that office--looks as if this time we are stuck with some candidates that I just cannot support in good conscience. Further the list was just made available to us. Some of the people on here have felt as if the move to a smaller board was to gain power for the few--now what I am seeing is that the nominations are designed to serve the few who have been working in the back-ground to set-up their own agenda instead of giving the members a far opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions. Andy W6AMS -----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces(a)lists.netlojix.com<mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com> [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com<mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com>] On Behalf Of bgordon(a)rain.org<mailto:bgordon@rain.org> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:02 AM To: sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com<mailto:sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com> Subject: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board Hi all, There has certainly been a lot of of opinion and arguement on this list recently about club organization and leadership. Daryl has provided a set of candidates for the existing club offices. We have no information on who would stand for election for the positions under the proposed new bylaws. Because of the increased responsibilities for each member of a smaller board, it would be important to know who would be willing to serve on it. Just like in the "real world", the quality of the result usually depends more on the character of the person than the job description. Bruce N6OLT _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com<mailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com> http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com<mailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com> http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list

3 2

RE: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
by Andrew Seybold 10 Nov '13

10 Nov '13

Marvin--I am done--0ur conversations has already lead to several members unsubscribing to this reflector so you and Jay and I can be proud that we have chased some good members of the club away--was not my intention so I will just stop this nonsense and see what the members want to do Andy -----Original Message----- From: Marvin Johnston [mailto:marvin@west.net] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:50 PM To: Andrew Seybold Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment? Hi Andy, Your comments imply you haven't read my diatribes posted to the list :). Among other things: I am currently a board member on two 501(C)3 non-profit corporations I am currently an Assistant Section Manager of the SB Section I am currently up to date on the Internet and how to use it. I am currently reviewing books for two people, both with PhDs, one of whom is a fundraising consultant. I am currently doing work for another consultant who works with companies to help them keep employees etc., etc., etc. If you took a look at the mindmap link I posted, it should be obvious that the internet and social media use were critical to the convention success as I had it laid out. So how do you justify your statement I am not up to date on any of this stuff? I fully agree that change can be a good thing. But not when it causes the amount of contention these bylaw changes are causing. And especially not a good thing when it is not well thought out. Given all of the above, what makes you think the proposed bylaw changes are something that are needed? I respectfully suggest that SBARC needs some people who know how to plan for the future. A bylaws change may well be needed, but not before careful thought and planning as to their effects. And looking for some common ground, I think you will agree. Thanks! Marvin, KE6HTS On 2013-11-10 18:22, Andrew Seybold wrote: > Simple Marvin--you have not been involved recently--times have > changed, things have changed what worked 10 years ago no longer work, > the Internet, technology, and new issues with the FCC and education > have changed, so where have you been? I don't know what will work best > all I know is that what we have won't continue to work going forward, > I am not afraid of change I embrace it IF it is done logically and for > a purpose. I do consulting for a living and to many times those who > hire me are set in their ways, not willing to investigate new ways of > doing things, not willing to consider change--change is bad correct? > WRONG, if change helps us regain what we used to be and what we can > become then change is good. Change is scary--but it can work-- Andy > > -----Original Message----- From: > sbarc-list-bounces(a)lists.netlojix.com > [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Marvin > Johnston Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:15 PM To: > sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it > live on in this environment? > > > Hi Andy, > > First, does your not saying you agree with the existing bylaws changes > (hopefully) mean you don't support them, and will vote against them? > > What would you consider to be proof that SBARC could survive as it has > done for the past 90 years? > > There is no question both of us have dedicated a lot of time in an > attempt to make SBARC a better club. > > I dedicated some 17 years trying to help SBARC, most of that time as a > board member, with the emphasis on benefits to the membership... > mostly being the lone ranger in that attempt. That includes a number > of stints as hamfest chair, 3 terms as (IMO a not so good) president, > organized the beginners t-hunt at Lake Los Carnaros, started the > free-to-good table, taking the 2009 hamfest to a section hamfest to a > division convention before the board dumped it, and the list goes on. > > So why is it you think I don't know what I am talking about? > > Thanks! > > Marvin

1 0

RE: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
by Andrew Seybold 10 Nov '13

10 Nov '13

Ok Marvin--but what makes you think that by making that statement you can change people's mind-it is up to the membership, plain and simple, you are not a member you have just managed to stir to pot for your own pleasure and enjoyment. Not a great way to support this great club. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Marvin Johnston [mailto:marvin@west.net] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:32 PM To: Andrew Seybold Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment? Ok, if either the vote on the revisions is cancelled or the revisions are defeated, and a qualified consultant is retained to evaluate the club, I'll rejoin and start to get involved again as well. One person I would agree to without hesitation is Jeff Reinhardt, AA6JR, the Santa Barbara section PIO. His bio from the 2013 SW Division Convention: "Jeff Reinhardt has been a public relations professional for over 30 years. He is a Life Member of the ARRL, is currently the Public Information Coordinator for the Santa Barbara Section and served as the former chair of the League's National Public Relations Committee. His work has been published in newspapers and in ham publications. Jeff conducts "how to" seminars for beginning and experienced PIOs." Jeff is well known to SBARC as he has spoken at least three times that I can remember at club meetings over the past 20 years. He belongs to the Conejo Valley Amateur Radio Club. Thanks! Marvin, KE6HTS On 2013-11-10 17:57, Andrew Seybold wrote: > Ok Marina-and I will contribute to some of the cost of said > consultant-who else will kick in? > > Andy > > *From:*sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com > [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] *On Behalf Of *Marina > King > *Sent:* Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:48 PM > *To:* Jay Hennigan > *Cc:* sbarc-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > *Subject:* Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment? > > How about having the club acquire a consultant, either from the ARRL > or a successful club that we would like to model ourselves after. The > person would be objective and would have the necessary skills to take > us in the direction we want to go in order to meet our ultimate goals. My 2¢. > > Marina, KA6JWL > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay(a)west.net > <mailto:jay@west.net>> wrote: > > On 11/10/13 12:33 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote: > > Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine > > Actually, you haven't. You've called names, launched personal > attacks, and spread FUD. You haven't justified the drastic changes at > all. Even Mr. Anonymous went section-by-section with justifications. > > You've made vague and scary predictions of doom and gloom without > anything to back them up, and without demonstrating one single tie > between the proposed changes and a solution to these supposed problems. > > --up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my > view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what > the membership wants. > > I hope that they have both the time and facts to make an *informed* > decision, both of which the "pro-change" side obviously seeks to prevent. > > > Andy (end of dialogue) > > Goodbye. > > -- > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay(a)impulse.net > <mailto:jay@impulse.net> Impulse Internet Service - > http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - > 805 884-6323 <tel:805%20884-6323> - WB6RDV > _______________________________________________ > SBARC-list mailing list > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com <mailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com> > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list > > > > -- > > */Marina King/* > > */President/* > > */SB Area Council of PTAs > (805) 696-3424/* > > */www.sbpta.org <http://www.sbpta.org>/* > > <https://www.facebook.com/santabarbarapta> > > > > _______________________________________________ > SBARC-list mailing list > SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com > http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list >

1 0

SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
by Andrew Seybold 10 Nov '13

10 Nov '13

I write articles for a living, most are posted on the internet and people can post comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with me. I have learned over the years that those who post comments anonymously are not well informed, are just trying to create problems, or are just plain ignorant. As far as the new bylaws are concerned here is my perspective: 1) This club will cease to exist in the very near future unless some major changes are made. 2) Reducing the size of the BOD and having this "club" run in a more businesslike manner is one good start 3) Having been a board member for just a few years, I have dreaded going to the BOD meetings, they drone on and on, each committee has to give a report, which we have already received in writing, and then there is always a debate about anything the club might want to do. The current board is made up of way too many people, I serve on a number of broads for non-profits and for-profit organizations and NONE of them has a Board that is more than 7 members total. 4) The current board members want the club to continue to succeed, but there are a few "no matter what is proposed they will find a problem with it", there are few "this is the way we have always done it so why change", and then there are those who are willing to listen to everything and anything and discuss it. 5) IF we are serious about survival then we MUST change our ways-if we just want to continue on to be a "club of hams" and a hobby organization then you need to be prepared to lose your repeaters, your club station, you meeting place, and everything else that we currently do because we cannot support that on our dues. Most repeater organizations in the State charge $100 to $150 per year for membership, they don't have meetings, they don't get together more than once a year but they do run first class repeater systems. Get real folks, the dues for this club don't even pay to keep the lights on. 6) Maybe the new bylaws are not perfect-to me they need a lot of work-BUT I believe that the real issue that should be voted on is this: Are we going to continue as we are and fail, or are we going to investigate, and change what we do and continue to serve our community? Ham Radio is a privilege given to us by the Federal Government because we SERVE others, not because we are a club. 7) I will not serve as a board member of this club again, however, I will support this club as I have done for a few years, and I will serve under the leadership of the club and the Director of Telecommunications. You just do not HAVE a CLUE of what we do that benefits the club in so many ways. How many of you really know what we do beyond keeping your repeaters up and running so you can run your nets, and provide communications to the community and chat with each other? How many of you know about the weather stations, the ELT sensing devices, the AIS (look it up) sensors? How many of you know how much work we do within the community with UCSB, SARS, local volunteer organizations, other non-profits? How many of you even know that we rebuilt the Regan Ranch Secret Service command post with equipment we found that was original and so good that when the agents recently visited the Ranch they felt they were back in the command center just as it had been? 8) How many of you really know that a non-profit with the worlds Amateur and Club in the name has a VERY hard time raising funds? How many of you know how much funding we have raised in the last 3 years some of which has kept the club alive-if we had not raised the money this club would have been OUT OF BUSINESS 3 years ago. So-I have a lot more, but I am really upset that some of the BOD's seem to take so much pride in being able to say they are a board member that they are not looking at the bigger picture. A board member of what? I club with declining membership ? A club that might not exist next year? If you are one of these people, get over it. Ham Radio is MUCH more than a hobby, it is the gateway to opportunity, to serving our community and if we are not around we cannot do any of that. I ask all of you to put aside your egos and focus on what is, for now, the most important decision that we can make for the future of our club. Is it business as usual until we fail or is it time for some REAL changes to reinvigorate who we are and what we do. The choice is up to you. Ham Radio lead me to my profession, it has provided bridges into other worlds for me. I don't want to see SBARC just disappear-I want it to be reborn, with renewed energy and a renewed commitment from all of us to make the changes that need to be made to keep it alive. Andy W6AMS

5 22

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

SBARC-list November 2013