SBARC-list

sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com

1 participants
2724 discussions

2003/2004 Membership Numbers
by Marvin Johnston 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Hi all, I've heard some rumors going around talking about the membership when Jay was last president in 2003/2004 dropping to about 60 people. That is false at worst and misleading at best. The actual numbers taken directly from the 2003 and 2004 membership database show the membership at the end of the year as: 2003 - 224 2004 - 236 Additionally, SBARC was still mailing out printed copies of KeyKlix via bulk non-profit rate, and that requires a minimum of 200 pieces. That count of 60 could have been gotten from the very early months as that would have been typical before everyone had joined/rejoined. Hope this clears up any confusion. Thanks! Marvin, KE6HTS

1 0

Cody's Dinner Last Night
by Marvin Johnston 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Hi everyone, We had 10 people come to dinner last night including a couple of board members where we discussed the upcoming bylaws changes (among other things.) First, I think Jordan will make an excellent member of the board, and I really hope club members will support his desire to be on the board. And I think Theo will also be a good addition to the board as he is on the slate of candidates. Both are regulars at the meeting and have shown a real interest and dedication to ham radio The proposed board seems to be a pretty well balanced mix of newer members with ideas that can help build SBARC with older members who can give perspective on why things are/have been done (my opinion.) Second, some really good discussion took place about the desire to reduce the board count. Total agreement that 5 just does not give enough accountability to the membership. And accountability seems to be the top concern. The number nine got tossed around a lot, and is probably a reasonable number. Third, and this should be obvious to all, there is a lack of respect by some SBARC people for opinions other than their own. This is not a way to encourage others to want to get involved, and will drive people away. There was also agreement that the bylaws changes should not be voted on at the November meeting. There are just too many problems with content and timing for it to be appropriate. But there was also mostly agreement that changing/updating the bylaws needs to be looked at. Finally, Dennis (WB6OBB), Chuck (N6CPN), and myself were talking on the ride home about the days with a much higher membership count. Both were involved with SBARC long before I became a member in 1993 or 1994. The comment was that SBARC was a much more social club back then. Something to think about. Thanks! Marvin, KE6HTS P.S. - Dennis makes regular announcements that people are welcome to join us for dinner. It is a sociable group of mostly hams where the conversation goes all over the place. We welcome new people, but just let us know so we have enough table space for all. The normal attendance is 6 - 8 people.

1 0

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

13 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 12 Nov '13

12 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 12 Nov '13

12 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 11 Nov '13

11 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

Jump to page:

2026

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