SBARC-list

sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com

5 participants
2687 discussions

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

Re: [Sbarc-list] SBARC Bylaws proposal
by Jay Hennigan 09 Nov '13

09 Nov '13

On 11/9/13 4:49 PM, Brian Milburn - K6BPM wrote: > I too received a communication yesterday by mail. However, I certainly > would not consider it anonymous or by any means fraudulent. The mail I > received came from SBARC, and contained an enclosures consisting of > proposed by-law changes, and a proxy voting form. While it may have come with an SBARC return address and logo, that doesn't mean that it came from SBARC. > The amended by-laws > were exactly what was handed out at the last meeting. The meeting > handout did include a cover letter and a marked up version of the > by-laws showing the changes. Was the cover letter at the meeting signed? If so by whom? Did it state that the proposed changes were drafted or approved by SBARC management? Did it identify the author of the changes? > The proposed changes were also presented to > the club verbally at the beginning of the meeting. Was the author identified? Was it stated that the Board had reviewed and approved the proposed changes? > It doesn't matter who > stuffed the envelopes and licked the stamps. SBARC's obligation is to > provide a copy of the proposed by-laws to members and include voting > information, and that obligation was met. If the SBARC board indeed approved the changes, then I would agree. If an SBARC member or group of members is acting personally and without Board authority, then in my opinion the proposed changes should NOT be mailed by SBARC or have the SBARC logo. Those proposing the changes without Board authority should have the burden of mailing using their own return address and without any implication that the proposed changes are submitted or endorsed by SBARC such as a logo. > Any cover letter or other > identifying information may have incorrectly conveyed the impression > that SBARC or the Board of Directors endorsed the changes. As would an envelope bearing the SBARC logo. If SBARC and the Board of Directors didn't endorse the changes and they weren't signed or the author identified, then the document is anonymous if mailed in a plain envelope and both anonymous and fraudulent if mailed in an SBARC envelope. > I also received the anonymous email message this morning. Now I may be a > little more cynical than most, but I see no purpose in sending anything > one intends to promote productive discourse - anonymously. I am > admittedly a new member, and I don't have a clue about the "politics" of > the club, nor do I really care. I have met many friendly and > knowledgeable people in the club and in the ham community, and have > found no one whose opinion I would discard out of hand. However, an > obviously obfuscated anonymous opinion, from a newly created or forged > Gmail account, seems like nothing more than messages I see from "trolls" > in other forums every day. That argument has merit, and considering the source is indeed a wise thing to do. The anonymous email may be from a Board member who is taking extra care to avoid having his Board position construed as carrying extra weight. It may be from a concerned SBARC member who doesn't want repercussions from expressing concern. We don't know. The points made in the anonymous email, regardless of author, in my opinion also have merit. Just as the proposed changes, regardless of author, may have merit. I wasn't at the meeting so I haven't seen the cover letter. Does it explain or give reason point-by-point for the proposed changes? Does it explain or give a valid reason why this is being done at the eleventh hour? Have these proposed changes been floated to the membership with an opportunity for discussion? Surely there are members with sufficient grasp of the English language to address the typographical and grammatical errors had they had the time to do so before it was presented as a "done deal". > Again, I am a new member, and I mean no disrespect to anyone. But I > would respectfully suggest that accusations, strong terms, and incorrect > procedural assertions serves no one well. At the last meeting the > proposed by-law changes were explained in detail by the club President. > Spelling, grammatical, and procedural errors aside, I have read the > proposed by-laws and I fully understand the "pro" position. I don't, nor would it be likely that the rest of the majority of Club members who weren't at the meeting do. Of note, Key-Klix was published at about the same time and contained no mention of any change to the bylaws. No Prez Sez column at all or any notice in advance of the very last possible opportunity to disrupt the election. The first and only "pro" argument was apparently first presented only verbally at the last possible moment to a relatively small subset of the membership. > What I don't > understand is the "con" position. No one has bothered to explain it. An > anonymous email that goes into great detail about the supposed technical > deficiencies of the proposed by-law changes is simply insufficient and > frankly, far less than persuasive. Without seeing the "pro" position, I don't see any justification for such a radical change. The "con" position seems to me to address a number of specific concerns and conflicts about the content in addition to the technical ones. I am willing to keep an open mind and listen to arguments on both sides, anonymous or otherwise. So far I've seen an argument on the "con" side that raises valid concerns. The timing and artificial urgency of the proposal are of concern. The Bylaws were last modified over ten years ago. If these changes are so drastically needed, why haven't they seen the light of day until now? And, as the anonymous email states, is it true that this proposal has not been voted on by the Board? I frequently get proposals and proxy forms in conjunction with stock ownership. They're typically either a shareholder proposal or one made by the Board, and the position of the Board is stated thereon as well as arguments pro and con. > Maybe "anonymous" or another member > can explain the actual unemotional, non-political "con" position so that > I and other members can make a reasoned decision come voting day. As I read it, the "con" position raises a number of points about both the language and the effect of the proposed changes and identifies them section by section. I'm not against an open and healthy debate about potential changes to the bylaws. Some of the technical errors in the proposed version also exist in the current bylaws and cleaning them up would be a good idea. It's too bad that the proposed changes didn't do that and appear to have introduced further errors. What I am against is a false sense of urgency presented at a time and in a manner that will totally disrupt Club management. In other words, have the author of the proposed changes identify himself and publish the proposed changes as well as point-by-point justification in the next Key-Klix. Allow member comments. Have the Board review the comments, make revisions as needed, and possibly enlist an outside expert to review the proposal. Have the Board review the final document and vote to ratify it. Present the revision to the membership as something that is approved and recommended by the Board, not an anonymous author in an SBARC envelope. Then vote. -- 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] SBARC Bylaws proposal
by Bill Talanian 09 Nov '13

09 Nov '13

Rod, I second your opinion about anonymous statements or sources. Why would someone lose credibility by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A stronger consideration would be given to someone's opinion or rationale when they are up front with everyone. Instead the source just blew their argument. Bill Talanian Telecommunications Services At 12:02 PM 11/9/2013, rod(a)sbatv.org wrote: >Greetings from paradise, or is it? > >To be perfectly clear, I am making this >statement as Rod Fritz, a member of SBARC >(thatâs the hat Iâm wearing today), not as a >Director on the SBARC Board and not as a committee chair. > >Donât panic! > >This is an important time in the evolution of >SBARC. I hope all of the SBARC members can give >the events of the next few weeks fair >consideration so we can work together to make SBARC better. > >Offering the benefit of the doubt, Iâll >presume that it was an innocent oversight that >the Bylaws and Ballot Form and the attached >Listserver Response did not identify the name >and contact info of the sender. That would >allow me and others to respond directly to them >for clarification or to present supporting or >opposing views. I suggest that the senders may >want to identify themselves to resolve this. > >Iâd appreciate it if we could avoid anonymous communication in the future. > >I welcome constructive discussion so everyone >can make an informed decision about what they >can do in SBARCâs best interest. It is >generally more constructive to offer a >suggestion for improvement along with opposition or criticism. > >Yes, we do live in paradise. Enjoy the day. > >Rod Fritz, WB9KMO ><mailto:wb9kmo@sbarc.org>wb9kmo(a)sbarc.org > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >From: <mailto:sbarc.bylaws@gmail.com>SBARC Bylaws >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:54 PM >To: <mailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com>SBARC-list(a)lists.netlojix.com >Subject: [Sbarc-list] SBARC Bylaws proposal > >By now you may have received an unsigned and >un-dated proposal for a radical change to the >SBARC Bylaws, Board, and officers. > >Please note that while the proposal contains the >SBARC logo and return address, these changes >have NOT been voted on or approved by the SBARC >Board of Directors. In fact, many members of >the Board as well as active members of the Club oppose these changes. > >Please attend the meeting and vote NO, or return >your proxy with the name of a trusted SBARC >member who will attend the meeting as your proxy voter. > >This proposal is OPPOSED for the following reasons: > >The proposed bylaw changes are hastily and poorly written. > >Article IV section 1 holds the Board responsible >for protection of assets. However, the >Treasurer isn't a member of the >board. Protection of assets and disbursement >authority go hand-in-hand. Article X awards >disbursement authority to the Treasurer, >President, and Vice President. Presently all >with disbursement authority are Board >members. Under the proposal, none of them are. > >Article IV section 4 refers to the term of >officers, where in fact only one or possibly two >of the Board members are officers. It should be >rewritten to substitute "board member" for "officer". > >Article IV section 7 is horribly >written. Presently, action between Board >meetings includes the word "must" signifying >matters of urgency. This ensures that in the >absence of exceptional circumstances, board >action is taken in a scheduled, open meeting >pursuant to an agenda. The proposal allows for >between-meeting actions to be taken whenever >"required or permitted". This leads to routine >decisions being made hastily and behind closed doors. > >In addition, there is a bizarre addition which >essentially states that "No means yes". It >reads, verbatim, "The casting of a vote by Board >members, regardless of outcome, shall be >construed as consent as applied to these actions." > >Article V has multiple duplications and conflicts. > >President is responsible for providing the Board >with a current status of the Club's >finances. Yet, Treasurer is separately >responsible for a large list of financial duties >including informing the Board of expenditures in budget items. > >Education and Training is responsible for >fulfilling the corporate purpose. However, this >individual is unelected and has no voice in Club governance. > >There is a new position "Manager of >Telecommunications". Seeing as the reason for >the existence of the Club is telecommunications, >this position makes little sense. It would be >similar to a municipal water district appointing a "Manager of Water". > >Further, this individual's responsibilities >require that telecommunications support be >provided through mysterious organization >referred to as SBTAC. This is a separate entity >about which little is known. Why should it be >coded into the SBARC bylaws that >federally-licensed communicators must use an >unknown outside agency to provide communications support? > >Also within this job description is the >responsibility that this individual provide Club >resources, equipment, and personnel to this >SBTAC unit. It also refers to SBTAC as "Club >sponsored". Nowhere else is this sponsorship >defined. Could there be a conflict of interest >here? Who is behind SBTAC and are they behind this agenda of bylaws change? > >There are several conflicts and overlaps between >the Manager of Telecommunications and the >Education and Training position as well as Emergency Services. > > >In addition to the functional issues above, the >document is riddled with typographical and grammatical errors. > >Article II Section 3: Strike the comma after "more" in the second sentence. > >Article V - Vice President: Strike the comma >after "duties" in the second sentence. > >Article V - Treasurer: Strike the comma after >"President" in the second sentence. Change >"Treasure" to "Treasurer" in the fifth sentence. > >Article V - "Public Information Office" should >be "Public Information Officer" in the title. > >Article V - "Education and Training" should be >"Education and Training Coordinator" in the title. > >Article VI, section 3: Singular vs. >plural. Change "A newly elected Officer or >Directors" to "A newly elected Officer or >Director". Strike the commas after "office" and "elected". > >Article VII: Singular vs. plural. Change >title from "A Publications Committees" to "A Publications Committee". > >There are likely more errors. A thorough review >with adequate time for members to review and >provide feedback regarding these drastic changes >to SBARC governance before voting is strongly >recommended. Whoever is responsible for bringing >forth this proposal on election night is being highly irresponsible. > > > >---------- >_______________________________________________ >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 2

SBARC Bylaws proposal
by SBARC Bylaws 09 Nov '13

09 Nov '13

By now you may have received an unsigned and un-dated proposal for a radical change to the SBARC Bylaws, Board, and officers. Please note that while the proposal contains the SBARC logo and return address, these changes have NOT been voted on or approved by the SBARC Board of Directors. In fact, many members of the Board as well as active members of the Club oppose these changes. Please attend the meeting and vote NO, or return your proxy with the name of a trusted SBARC member who will attend the meeting as your proxy voter. This proposal is OPPOSED for the following reasons: The proposed bylaw changes are hastily and poorly written. Article IV section 1 holds the Board responsible for protection of assets. However, the Treasurer isn't a member of the board. Protection of assets and disbursement authority go hand-in-hand. Article X awards disbursement authority to the Treasurer, President, and Vice President. Presently all with disbursement authority are Board members. Under the proposal, none of them are. Article IV section 4 refers to the term of officers, where in fact only one or possibly two of the Board members are officers. It should be rewritten to substitute "board member" for "officer". Article IV section 7 is horribly written. Presently, action between Board meetings includes the word "must" signifying matters of urgency. This ensures that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, board action is taken in a scheduled, open meeting pursuant to an agenda. The proposal allows for between-meeting actions to be taken whenever "required or permitted". This leads to routine decisions being made hastily and behind closed doors. In addition, there is a bizarre addition which essentially states that "No means yes". It reads, verbatim, "The casting of a vote by Board members, regardless of outcome, shall be construed as consent as applied to these actions." Article V has multiple duplications and conflicts. President is responsible for providing the Board with a current status of the Club's finances. Yet, Treasurer is separately responsible for a large list of financial duties including informing the Board of expenditures in budget items. Education and Training is responsible for fulfilling the corporate purpose. However, this individual is unelected and has no voice in Club governance. There is a new position "Manager of Telecommunications". Seeing as the reason for the existence of the Club is telecommunications, this position makes little sense. It would be similar to a municipal water district appointing a "Manager of Water". Further, this individual's responsibilities require that telecommunications support be provided through mysterious organization referred to as SBTAC. This is a separate entity about which little is known. Why should it be coded into the SBARC bylaws that federally-licensed communicators must use an unknown outside agency to provide communications support? Also within this job description is the responsibility that this individual provide Club resources, equipment, and personnel to this SBTAC unit. It also refers to SBTAC as "Club sponsored". Nowhere else is this sponsorship defined. Could there be a conflict of interest here? Who is behind SBTAC and are they behind this agenda of bylaws change? There are several conflicts and overlaps between the Manager of Telecommunications and the Education and Training position as well as Emergency Services. In addition to the functional issues above, the document is riddled with typographical and grammatical errors. Article II Section 3: Strike the comma after "more" in the second sentence. Article V - Vice President: Strike the comma after "duties" in the second sentence. Article V - Treasurer: Strike the comma after "President" in the second sentence. Change "Treasure" to "Treasurer" in the fifth sentence. Article V - "Public Information Office" should be "Public Information Officer" in the title. Article V - "Education and Training" should be "Education and Training Coordinator" in the title. Article VI, section 3: Singular vs. plural. Change "A newly elected Officer or Directors" to "A newly elected Officer or Director". Strike the commas after "office" and "elected". Article VII: Singular vs. plural. Change title from "A Publications Committees" to "A Publications Committee". There are likely more errors. A thorough review with adequate time for members to review and provide feedback regarding these drastic changes to SBARC governance before voting is strongly recommended. Whoever is responsible for bringing forth this proposal on election night is being highly irresponsible.

2 1

[ardf-socal] Next ARDF at Bonelli Park November 9
by Marvin Johnston 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

Bonelli Regional Park will be the site of the next southern California on-foot transmitter hunting session on Saturday, November 9, 2013. If you are a beginner, there will be entry-level two-meter fox transmitters, set by Joe Moell K0OV. Once you're proficient at finding these nearby foxes, try the 5-fox two-meter international-rules course, set by Marvin Johnston KE6HTS. One or two optional 80-meter fox transmitters may also be on the air. A ham radio license and knowledge of radio equipment are not required. Experts will be on hand to teach you the basic techniques of on-foot radio direction-finding (RDF). Bring the kids and grandkids, then go out on the course with them. A limited amount of RDF gear will be available for loan. If you have receivers, scanners, directional antennas, attenuators, or other equipment suitable for on-foot RDF, be sure to bring it. Make sure all batteries are fresh. For those who want to build RDF gear for use with their own two-meter hand-held radios or scanners, Marvin will have kits for measuring-tape yagis and active attenuators. Also available is an assembled and tested assembly that includes the power switch, BNC connector, housing and battery, ready to install as the tape measure beam is built. There will be tools and soldering stations for building. If you're not an electronic technician, don't worry because there will be experts to help you. We want you to succeed! Send e-mail to Marvin (marvin(a)west.net) to pre-register and get more information about equipment. The building session will only take place if there are sufficient advance registrations. If you already have equipment and just want to hunt transmitters, you don't need to pre-register. If it takes place, the building session will start at 9:30 AM. Please be prompt. Beginner transmitters will be on the air at that time. The main 5-fox hunt will start about 10:30 AM. Hunters may start the courses at any time until 1 PM. Courses close at 3 PM. For the advanced 2-meter course, electronic scoring will be used. If you have an "e-stick," be sure to bring it. A $5 donation is requested for the advanced course to cover expenses related to the use of Los Angeles Orienteering Club's e-punch equipment and maps. The beginner course and the 80-meter transmitter hunt are free of charge and e-punch is not required for them. Trails are primitive in some areas of the park, so wear sturdy shoes. All ages are welcome, but young children must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Bonelli Regional Park is near Raging Waters, Brackett Field, and Puddingstone Reservoir. From the 57/210 freeways, take the Via Verde exit and go east through the entrance to the park. There is a per-vehicle entry fee. Go approximately 1/4 mile beyond the entrance and turn left into the parking lot for the Snack Shoppe (formerly the bike rental stand). Look for the orange-and-white orienteering flag directing you to the starting area. Talk-in is on 146.52 MHz simplex. A navigation map to Bonelli Park is at www.homingin.com. 73, Joe Moell K0OV

1 0

Specialized Modes Presentation at UCSB, Friday November 8 at 1pm...
by rod＠sbatv.org 31 Oct '13

31 Oct '13

Hello SBARC Members and Friends, SBARC ATVSIG promotes the use of specialized modes. Here’s an opportunity to learn about them... We support Steve Long and the UCSB Amateur Radio Club in their endeavors this school year. I’m sure they’d enjoy you stopping by for this interesting meeting. - Rod Fritz, WB9KMO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an announcement from Steve Long... We will have the first meeting of the ARC at UCSB on Nov 8, Friday, 1-2pm. Location: Harold Frank Hall, room 4164 (ECE conference room). Jon Suen is our presenter. Title: Ham Radio Digital Modes Digital communication has been a part of ham radio from the very beginning, with the use of Morse Code. However in the past few years, the power of computers and the Internet has led to an explosion of digital modes and activity. Simply by connecting a computer's sound card to a radio and downloading a program, one can experiment with a new digital mode, like PSK-31, or easily use an older mode like RTTY or SSTV. Modes exist that transmit text, digital voice, images and binary files. A novel mode is WSPR, which transmits at rates of seconds per bit, and enables milliwatt-level communication over HF. In this talk I discuss the many types of digital modes found in HF radio, what is necessary to get started, and will conduct a live demo at the [UCSB] club station.

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

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