On 11/10/13 8:35 AM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Marvin--you have made some interesting points BUT you missed some things too, I will focus on funding in this reply and perhaps later today will tackle your other comments.
Raising money for the club $100 at a time is good, no doubt about it, but it won't keep the doors open. If Shackmaster Dave had not taken on the task of asking for and receiving donations for the rent when the Red Cross was charging us rent we would have lost the Red Cross station--the club did not have the money to pay the rent every month.
But he did, and he did so under the current Board structure, and it worked.
When the technical committee needed to upgrade the Vic Trace master site for SBARC/ARES we raised over $100K from foundations, we appealed to the membership, I printed a flyer about the need but zip from the members who use the repeaters and zip form the rest of the club. We took it upon ourselves to raise the money from SB based organizations who funded us because we are providing an important service for the community.
[snip]
And this was done under the current Board structure, and it worked.
Recently we had to pay $200 to have the brush and weeds removed from the site because that is part of our agreement with the City--the club paid the money ONLY after repeated attempts to get members to volunteer to meet at the site on work on the issue.
And we paid it under the current Board structure and we aren't broke.
You stated in your response to me that we need to have people who can grow an organization based around a hobby--this is NOT what needs to be done. We need a board who knows how to run the "business of the business" as W1UUQ would say--the board is NOT about running a hobby club, the board is about running the non-profit, business and financial side of an organization which happens to support a hobby. Without business management, fund raising capabilities and sound business judgment the "club" will continue to lose members and fad away on its own accord.
Based on your examples above, it looks like we're doing that now.
I would like to see a smaller board, a board of people with business expertise who know how to manage a business, and let the members run what they like and want to do. One final point here--this is not about change for the sake of change, it is change because times have changed and if we really want to succeed we need the support of the community and in order to EARN their support we have to be ready to make the changes required.
There may be merit to that. Perhaps not. The idea has JUST NOW been presented to the membership and is producing healthy debate. This proves that the basic concept warrants consideration. It has also been pointed out that the document has some serious flaws. Haste makes waste, and a hasty decision to drastically change the structure of SBARC management by adopting a flawed set of Bylaws isn't in my opinions a good thing.
Al Soenke's email states that this has been in discussion for over 30 years and that the overall vision was presented to the Board in February. Yet the majority of the membership heard about it for the first time via an un-signed document with no explanation less than a week before they are supposed to vote on it.
On the one hand, this proposal is presented as a deliberative process that has been in the works for a long time. On the other it's a dire emergency that requires immediate action.
Based on the reading of the document and the errors within, it seems from my viewpoint to be hastily prepared and in need of serious rework.
One more thing that everyone is missing here--the CLUB and ARES are different organizations, today both are in flux--and both need an infusion of assistance from those who know what they are doing. IF we lose ARES we will lose access to ALL of the radio sites we now have use of--the reason we are on these sites is because of ARES--and just add to that, if we did not have the technical leadership of Bill, W1UUQ who works with the site management people every month, we would not have access to the sites. Many clubs are paying rent as high at $500 per month for a repeater site--we have access BECAUSE we help maintain them, because we help their management understand what works and what does not and because when they call us we respond.
The relationship with ARES doesn't seem to change under the proposed bylaws, other than the liaison to ARES becoming an appointed position with no vote on the Board. This would result in greater separation between ARES and SBARC management than exists today.
Insulting the intelligence of your readership isn't generally a good way to gain favors. Words like "You just do not HAVE a CLUE" and "...needing an infusion of assistance from those who know what they are doing" don't help your position.
You say that if you were elected President you would come back into the club--that might be something I could support --HOWEVER--since you are also focused on the bylaws you must know that you would have to come back as a member prior to an effort to elect you as president--and since you are outside looking in I doubt that you fully understand what is going on to benefit SBARC that you and others do not see.
Nobody would be elected President if this structure were adopted. They would be appointed President and could be "fired" at the whim of as few as two people.
-- 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