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. 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. The proposed changes were also presented to the club verbally at the beginning of the meeting. 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. Any cover letter or other identifying information may have incorrectly conveyed the impression that SBARC or the Board of Directors endorsed the changes. That would have been inappropriate. The SBARC mail was entirely correct and contained exactly what was necessary, nothing more and nothing less.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Brian Milburn
K6BPM


On 11/9/2013 2:20 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/9/13 12:55 PM, Bill Talanian wrote:

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.

I am writing this as an individual member or SBARC, expressing my opinion.

I personally have received two anonymous communications regarding this
proposal.  The first was a printout of the proposed changes and a ballot
form.  The outer envelope had the SBARC logo and return address, but
there was no cover letter identifying the sender, no statement that the
proposal was ratified by th Board, and no argument in favor or against.

The second was in my opinion a reasonable argument against accepting the
proposed changes as written, also anonymous, sent by email to this
listserver.

If in fact the proposed Bylaws changes have not been voted on and
approved by the SBARC Board, then the mailed proposed revision is far
more egregious than someone anonymously stating his or her opinion.

Because the anonymous mailed document was sent in an envelope bearing
the SBARC logo and return address it implies that these changes are
approved and sanctioned by the SBARC Board.  If in fact, as the second
anonymous document states, the Board has not ratified these changes then
the source of the postal mailing also blew their argument to a greater
degree due to the fraudulent and unauthorized use of the SBARC logo.

A reading of the Bylaws doesn't require that revisions be sourced from
the SBARC board.  Presumably any voting member can propose a revision.

As a mild example, I as a voting member could propose a bylaws change
requiring a dress code of pink tutus to be worn at all Board meetings.

I could mail that document out under my own name with a signature and a
reason why I felt the change was justified.

I could mail it out anonymously with no return address or a drop-box
address.

Or I could mail it out in an envelope with the SBARC logo and return
address in an attempt to mislead the membership into thinking that the
proposal was official Board policy.

In my opinion the first would be the responsible thing to do, the second
somewhat crude and the third example could be considered fraudulent.

Seeing as both the change proposal and the argument against it are
anonymous and the proposal contained no rationale, argument, or
justification for the change, I'm a lot less willing to blindly accept
it than what appears to be a well thought out rebuttal from someone who
may fear repercussions for identifying himself/herself.

And, the last point is well taken.  Presenting this on election night is
indeed irresponsible in my opinion.

P. S.  I do NOT in any case recommend such a dress code requirement.  It
is just an example.


--
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
_______________________________________________
SBARC-list mailing list
SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com
http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list