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@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV