Hi Andy,
Okay, forgive me if I misinterpreted what you wrote as it sounded very much like an attack.
I was a member (1995) when SBARC had the highest ever membership exceeding 500 people. Watching it shrink significantly over time due to people running the club ignoring the membership has been more than slightly disheartening and is a hot button with me.
Most of the people who supporting this bylaws change were also members and active during the almost 20 year decline in membership number and activity.
Is it not reasonable to assume that these same people supporting the bylaws change would have tried to make a difference in both membership and activity during this time?
And since that did not happen, is it not also reasonable to assume that membership number or activity is not one of their (your?) goals?
And as such, is it not reasonable to question why these proposed bylaw changes are promoted by these same people and were not give more exposure?
There is a long history of being very good at one aspect, and not good at others. The bylaws proposals are another shining example of the Peter Principal.
Others besides myself are judging the merit of these proposed changes based on experience with the people involved rather than the "I hope" justification currently being given. These are facts I've presented, not fiction, which you can choose to take into account... or not.
They are not attacks against these people... they are incredible at what they are good at. But there is a serious concern as to their competence in growing the club.
Are you really willing to bet your credibility based on the hope that the bylaws changes will make things better given the above points?
So you are right. My experience has been freely offered to help provide some (apparently unwanted) guidance, but it is not my problem.
When I was in charge of the 2012 US ARDF Championships, one of my most used phrases was "not my problem." My job was to run a successful event AS JUDGED BY THOSE PEOPLE INVOLVED, i.e. the competitors. All of the things that were not my problem were things that could be handled by others, or safely ignored.
There is a saying in Poker... know when to hold'em and when to fold'em.
I'm not sure that you are as open as you suggested in your first response to discussing the changes. When the way something is said becomes more important that what is said, it is time to fold'em.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
P.S. - Just checked email before sending and it looks like we both agree on the uselessness of this dialog.
On 2013-11-10 11:43, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Marvin--if you think that I am attacking you that is your problem, I am merely asking questions of the two of you, if you are not members of the club then you have not say in what the club is doing, if you are a member of the club then you have the right to express your point of view. In either case if you want to have a vote show up at a meeting where a vote is being taken and cast your ballot like the rest of us.
No attacks here--just want to be clear for all reading these what your interest is in a club you may or may not belong to, and why you have decided to get involved in this matter--the bottom line is that no matter which way the vote goes, if there is a vote you will either disappear again or decide that it is time to help. I am going to be watching to see which one it is--and saying you will get involved IF a specific person is elected as President is just a waste of time. Sounds to me like you want to know the outcome of the election before it is held.
Andy