On 2013-11-12 05:22, Marvin Johnston wrote:
I'd like to apologize to Al for the harshness of my response.
On reading it again, the points I made are accurate, but there was no reason for it to come across as it did.
I do respect Al's opinions and experience, and appreciate the time and effort he has put into running SBARC.
Again, my apologies for the way it sounds.
Marvin, KE6HTS
Hi Al,
First, those people who put dogma ahead of facts should ignore this post... it is unlikely the facts presented will change your mind.
You make some good points about the role of doer organizations and support organizations. And I do not disagree.
And before I start pointing out the obvious, these points do not reflect on my appreciation of what some of these people, including you, Bill, and some others have done for the club... that type of dedication is needed.
Like many other situations, there is agreement (mostly) on the problem. The proposed solutions are where the disagreement comes from.
The fact of the matter is we are talking about apples and oranges:
*** Benefits to the membership vs benefits to the people proposing these changes.
Many people are basing their support on idealism vs realism with a blind faith these leaders know best.
Facts:
- the timing of these proposed bylaw changes creates implementation
problems
- the membership has not been informed in a timely manner, thus leaving
them in the dark as to what the changes are all about when voting
- this same board supporting the proposed bylaws changes is the same one
responsible for the loss of somewhere between $6K to $10K at the last SW division convention.
- the same people responsible for past failures to plan are saying this
will magically disappear with the new bylaws
- there are no really new changes except to change the board
size/composition (in order to squelch discussion according to one description)
- the same people supporting the changes have been unable or unwilling
to work at increasing the membership numbers
- if these same people who have a current interest in the club
disappear, the club is STUCK with a structure that just won't work without specialized knowledge.
- The current bylaws have been working. I doubt previous high level
executives (Bob Dyruff, et al) would have tolerated them if they did not.
Al, you know as well as I do the above points (and many more) are valid.
The changes appear to be more to deal with the limitations of the supporters than to benefit the club.
And you also know the concerns that were raised in the prior listserver posts have not been address publicly (with the single exception of Bruce's suggestion.) WHY NOT?????
I doubt anyone with a knowledge of club history would deny I have a strong sense of membership "customer service." The people supporting these changes have an equal but opposite lack of appreciation for the membership.
And judging by the above points, they also have a lack of knowledge about running this organization.
So why is it you, Andy, Bill, and other supporters feel you can sell to other organizations for money, but ignore any selling to the membership?
There are WAY too many questions raised by the approach supporters have chosen. And WAY too few answers to support the changes.
And yes, I realize the above are stated pretty bluntly and succinctly.
Please show the same concern and respect for the membership that you show for fundraising in the future.
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-11 22:30, Alan Soenke wrote:
Be careful Marvin, there is a very fine line between being a non-profit corporation and violating the rules we are obligated to serve. I also consider it very bad taste to call a Non-Profit Charitable education institution a beggar organization with a dependancy. Organizations all over Santa Barbara are in the business of distributing funds to worthy causes - it is there only business. There are two types of Non-Profits the ones who do the legwork providing the services and support to the community - That's our Role. The other kind is the Non-Profits that raise the funding from donors who want to contribute some they have (wealth) to the community in the best way they can. The two work together to build the community.
This is a principle the new leaders of our club (Non-Profit Corporation) need to live and breath in order to survive. Telecommunications is not a bake-sale industry, those of us who help build communicators through education and hands-on training cannot function while being distracted by selling gadgets.
The new structure proposed won't happen over night but it does provide for the development of a separate branch that can do these things without taking away from the rest of the hobby and the Club in their programs, no matter how recreational it may be.
The benefits you cite may be limited to only those who are interested in getting an education in marketing and retail sales, etc. One thing for sure is they will really get an education in dealing with the State and Federal government in non-profits and taxation.
I'm in favor of a board focused on learning how to run a non-profit and having fun with ham radio in the process. I believe in a highly efficient and well trained Board concentrating on communicators and networks they use by getting readily available funding from eager donors based on a thorough business model and conviction to succeed.
One thing is certain, our club does not need a benevolent dictator. As Darryl has delicately made a point, the main flaw in our proposed by-laws revision could, under the worst case scenario, result in a board request being granted by just 2 board members out of three passing the order.
So let me understand clearly that we should elect Jay President of the Club, so you can feel comfortable as a member and seek the office of benevolent dictator of e-bay commerce.
I will gladly join the board as the (recent past president) director-at-large because I think this will be a really fun year.
Best regards, Alan J. Soenke, WA6VNN President, Santa Barbara Amateur Radio Club, Inc.
-----Original Message----- From: Marvin Johnston marvin@west.net To: sbarc-list sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Sent: Mon, Nov 11, 2013 7:53 pm Subject: [Sbarc-list] Jay for President
Since NOBODY has stepped up to talk about the candidate for president (or any other candidate except for Andy), I do support Jay and will rejoin the club if he is elected.
Jay has served multiple terms as SBARC President and is very well acquainted with the club history.
The club does need money to continue operations. Personally, I am very much against SBARC becoming a beggar organization *dependent* on funds from outside sources.
So as an alternative, if Jay is elected, I am willing to head up a committee to sell "stuff" online. A business plan would be required, and presented to the board for approval.
My qualifications for doing so include 15 years of successful selling online, primarily on eBay, as well as some 20+ years selling at electronic swapmeets.
For anyone who (ignorantly) might think the amount of money that could be obtained that way would be insignificant, it would be relatively easy to make up a business plan to sell at least $100K a year. Doing only $1K a month would most likely take about up to a couple of hours per week.
The only condition is that I would be the benevolent dictator of the committee, a phrase I first heard from Art Harris when he was in charge of the (now defunct unfortunately) bazaar some 10 years or so ago. I can't imagine the board disagreeing since that is the basis of their proposed bylaw changes.
The benefits to the club should be obvious.
The benefits to committee members is they will get a first class education on market research, pricing research, listing copywriting, proper packaging techniques, and knowledge of the when to use the various services for maximum ROI.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
_______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list