On 11/10/13 10:03 AM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--because it has worked in the past is not indication it will work in the future, as far as I can tell you are not active in the club in anyway, have not attended any board meetings, and just came out of the wood work to throw stones--if you don't like the proposal on the table then come up with your own and present it here.
An ad-hominem attack on me doesn't prove your point. I didn't come here to throw stones, but to ask questions and offer suggestions.
One point I failed to make is that when we raised the funding for the radio site we were turned down by several organizations because they don't donate money to a club--and in one case we were turned down because of our board structure, another turn down was the fact that when they looked at the finances of the club they asked us how we could survive long term and what plans we had in place.
Are you suggesting that we change the name of the organization to eliminate the word "Club"? I notice that you have several times used the term derisively in quotes, lower case. If you so strenuously object to the fact that we are a club, why is that not in the proposed bylaws change?
If you or Marvin want to put forth your own ideas for a way to grow the club we are all more than ready to listen,
To the best of my knowledge Marvin isn't an SBARC member, and he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself as he has demonstrated on occasions far too numerous to count.
if you are just here on this reflector to throw stones at others and not participate then your words will be discounted by the many intelligent people in the club.
I am not the one throwing stones. I'm not the one claiming that anyone who disagrees with me is "WITHOUT a CLUE" and then talking out the other side of my mouth about having words discounted by the intelligent people here. I'm claiming that anyone who disagrees with my position is by definition clueless and anyone who agrees is therefore intelligent.
I was always taught that if you don't like something, get involved and change it, if you offer up criticism then offer up a way to fix what you believe is wrong--you seem to be saying that business as usual is ok--we can and will survive--I challenge you to prove that in some way--I challenge you to look at the past two years of club financials and tell me how we will survive the way we are currently doing business and I challenge you to go out and find a source of funding for projects which the club (as a whole) decide are important--do any of these things--bring a proposal forward, but don't just sit back on your high-horse and poke at others who are trying in their own way to make things better--
You are correct that I haven't been actively involved in the Club recently. I have been a member since the 1970s, have served on the Board several times, and been President twice.
Far from being on a high-horse, I have stated that there are some ideas in the proposal that may have merit. I would like to see more discussion about it.
We are supposedly a group of communicators. Al said in a previous email that the idea of restructuring the Board has been in the works for thirty years and that he made a proposal for reorganization to the Board in February (which the minutes don't reflect).
Yet, the first I and the majority of the membership heard about it was in an un-signed document with no explanation delivered less than a week before we are to vote on it. This is a horrible lack of communication on behalf of those proposing it.
This reflector has seen much discussion on this in the last 24 hours only after being presented as a do-or-die situation. The proponents of this sudden drastic change have thrown up a lot of FUD (look it up) about the Club's viability. Yet Al claims that this has been in the works for 30 years. You also claim that the Club is in dire straits followed by several examples of recent successes.
Nothing here or in any other form of communication about this except for at the October meeting. Nothing here about organizing the weed cleanup at the repeater site but you bemoan that we had to pay for it.
Why, if this is SO important and MUST be done now, (more FUD...) hasn't it been the number one issue before the Board and discussed at the general meetings?
Report back on the reflector and PROVE that business as usual will work going forward--and tell me why you think that business as usual is the right way to go--if the Board decides and the members decide to keep the board the way it is, will you and Marvin become active in helping to revitalize the club or will you just, once again, fade away not to be heard from again until the next time? Action--Jay, NOT words--let's see what you are Marvin are really worth and why, since the two of you are not involved in the club to you even care?
I speak for myself and to the best of my knowledge Marvin does as well. Our political views are in fact quite different. Please don't continue to lump us together without justification just because we happen to both be smart guys who object to this sudden, surprise, drastic change to Club governance.
I am not in a position to PROVE that "business as usual" is the right way to go despite the fact that the Club has survived and per your examples thrived under its current structure for decades. Nor am I necessarily in favor of business as usual. Leaders need to lead regardless of number.
"I don't like what Congress is doing, let's have a dictatorship instead" really isn't of benefit unless you happen to be the dictator.
Those who wish for the Club to radically change its structure with less than a week's notice to the majority of the membership should be the ones to PROVE that their untested proposal has merit.
The present structure may not be perfect, but it has worked for a very long time and the only argument brought forth against it seems to be that we would be more effective at begging for money with a smaller Board. And that was a sidebar to the suggestion that we need to change the name of the organization from "Club" to something else. Nothing mentioned about benefits to the membership, growing the Club, giving those responsible for the operations more input in its governance (the opposite is true).
You've just thrown more FUD about how we will lose all of the Club facilities and repeaters unless we make THIS SPECIFIC change RIGHT NOW. Yet no offer of proof that a smaller Board would accomplish this.
You've perhaps identified a problem and suggested a solution, but made no effort to prove that the solution fits the problem. If the Club needs effective leadership, then elect effective leaders, those who will engage the membership in these discussions before the eleventh hour.
If your station has somewhat high SWR, changing the mike cord won't fix it even if changing the mike cord fixed the problem at some other location or the last time something broke.
And if your rig has somewhat high SWR but is still functional and communicating well, you certainly don't insist on changing the mike cord RIGHT NOW. You take time to make measurements and possibly get advice before making a hasty decision.
I am willing to listen. You've identified some dots but have failed miserably to connect them. Is this change solely about becoming more effective beggars? If so, and the word "Club" is the main impediment, why isn't changing it in the proposal? Are we changing the mike cord RIGHT NOW to solve a minor SWR problem?
-- 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