Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?

Hi Andy,

Several things first, thanks for taking the time to respond, and thanks for top posting as that makes everything a LOT easier to follow and understand!!!

One other thing, I'm seeing and hearing about others who think I wrote than anonymous posting... I did not as I don't work that way. But the points made are valid, and so far have not been addressed.

Also to make it clear, all of the proposed bylaw changes are not bad. But reducing the board size appears to be just a way for some members to take excessive control of SBARC without accountability. And that has more than a few people concerned, both members and former-members.

Finally to clarify, I am not running for the President of SBARC. I will rejoin (as will others) if Jay Hennigan is elected president. Running the club is not something I am good at... been there, done that. I'm sure you are familiar with the Peter Principle... people rise to their level of incompetence.

Now for your comments.

I agree that raising $100.00 at a time on a relatively infrequent basis won't directly support the club. But is that really the point?

In my experience, very few people will get involved with anything without a compelling reason TO THEM.

SBARC has a relatively few people who are actually doing something. And they are the few who are involved. Is this REALLY what is desired? To date, I have not heard any serious discussion about WHY this is the case. That would be a better place to start than the hope and a prayer that a bylaws change will magically change things. IMNSHO, the purpose of the board is to motivate and support people to get involved... that is just not happening. The people who are good at raising funds are, again to put it bluntly, a zero with respect to motivating or growing SBARC membership.

BTW, if you haven't read it already, take a look at the Prez Sez in the December 1996 issue of KeyKlix. I think it will be obvious to you the difference in membership involvement back then vs now.

One shining example is the small number of people currently attending the club meeting.

As you are probably well aware, getting good speakers requires a larger attendance. We used to have a situation where speakers would be happy to speak at our club as they knew they would have a good audience. The highest attendance I can remember was about 130 people when Gordon West was a speaker. Average attendance was somewhere around 75 people during the 1995/1996 time frame.

Again putting it bluntly, the small number of people currently attending club meetings is a disgrace.

One good point (I think) Bill Talanian brought up at board meeting a long time ago was that a larger membership gives the organization more credibility to a community. And that also makes it easier to raise funds.

If that is true, and I think it is, why has no effort been put into building the membership roster? And giving people a reason to WANT to belong and be active in SBARC?

With a paid position (and this seems to be the viewpoint everyone who supports the bylaws changes is coming from), having or not having a job is used as leverage to get things done. That leverage does not exist in a hobby organization such as SBARC. Instead, motivation and a WELL PUBLICIZED vision is what gets people involved. SBARC has failed miserably of late in that regard.

And that failure includes not publicizing the bylaws changes. That alone makes it appear to be a scheme by a few individuals to take over SBARC. Is that really the way supporters want this to be perceived?

And not having the proposed bylaws changes on the website is very telling about the feelings the supporters have for the membership.

Long story short, the supporters are again proving the truthfulness of the Peter Principle. And that raises a lot of red flags as to their credibility in pushing the bylaws changes.

To make another thing clear, we have a lot of good people on the board. And there is no doubt the people supporting these bylaws have the best of intentions.

But also remember, the way to Hell is pave with good intentions.

I am not missing or dismissing the importance of ARES for either the services they provide or their importance in fund raising. Emergency communications is one of those hot buttons that make it easier to obtain funds. So that importance is taken for granted, at least by me.

It has not been shown though how that fund raising benefits the members. The fund raising plans should be PART of an overall plan to build up SBARC.

There is no reason those people supporting the proposed reduction in board membership can't do what they SAY they want to do with the current bylaws.

Those are just a few of the problems I see with the current SBARC leadership. And their proposed board reduction scheme.

Something I think is intuitive with you (judging by your background) is the difference between tactical and strategic planning. The arguments for the smaller board are all tactical. And I'd be major surprised if you don't agree that strategic planning is something the board has needed for a long time.

Why is there not a bare minimum of a one year business and goals plan in place? And preferably three to five years?

Why are there no plans in place to support a raise in membership numbers and involvement?

Again, I see no evidence to support the idea that the people who want a smaller board size have a business mindset.

Why was there not a plan in place to deal with what should have been the obvious opposition to the reduction in board size?

And the list goes on, and I'm sure you can add to it.

These questions all by themselves are an indication of good people again practicing the Peter Principle.

I see a lot of possibilities for SBARC again becoming one of the nations top clubs, but not with the way things are currently being handled.

Finally in the words of Blaise Pascal, I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.

Thanks again for your response!

Marvin, KE6HTS

On 2013-11-10 08:35, 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.

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. As part of that we added a GMRS repeater which is available for home owner associations to use during emergencies. We host the Mission Canyon Association camera at the site. We built a world class communications shelter, beefed up the radio capabilities, added fast internet access, tied the site to Santa Ynez Peak and upgraded the Computer and interface systems. All this was done without taking money from the club treasury. In fact, when the club was in deep financial trouble in 2012 the Technical committee voted to reduce the self-insurance fund we maintain for emergency repairs and we transferred $15K of those funds to the club for general fund distribution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I welcome good dialogue, that is constructive and helpful, I welcome other points of view because it will make this club stronger and great again, what I don't welcome are anonymous comments and snide remarks from people who have not been active, in the club, even if they are members and who have not taken to the time to find out what they can do to help. What is the correct way to help the club regain stature and success? Perhaps it is with a smaller more focused board, perhaps it is with something else but the fact that we are looking at options is important. My goal is to move forward and NOT go back to business as it has been because we know that is not working.

Andy W6AMS

-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Marvin Johnston Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 2:56 AM To: sbarc Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?

Hi Andy,

The following is not meant to be offensive, but rather add some honest perspective to the bylaws change issues.

Being REALLY blunt, these bylaws changes are being made by people who are clueless about how to grow an organization based around a hobby. I'm not aware that any of them have ever provided significant membership growth (although they have provided significant help in other areas.) So to think they will solve the many problems SBARC has created for themselves is naive. It also shows a major lack of understanding of the problems facing SBARC as well as possible solutions.

And yes, I was part of creating, or at least not solving or understanding, some of those problems.

Bruce Gordon, N6OLT, taught me a valuable concept at one of the board meetings years ago... Form over Substance. That describes the proposed bylaws changes perfectly!

As a non-member who left the club in 2009 after have been on the board for most of the approximately 17 years I was a member, I can honestly say it was one of the very best things I have ever done.

Part of the reason was the mostly dysfunctional board who would vote for or against something due to someone else saying it was a good thing. Something along the lines of our elected officials voting for the Obamacare bill without having read or understanding it or the ramifications thus needlessly creating a LOT of controversy in the process. Reducing board size does nothing to address this.

With all due respect, your comments are along the lines of the votes for Obamacare... trust us and vote for it as it is a good thing... without any data or testing to back up your statements. OR more importantly, without seriously looking at any other solutions to these "problems" that are still undefined.

So while I appreciate your involvement with SBARC, I very much take issue with a number of your points.

From my perspective, the people who want to change the bylaws to reduce the board size from 13 to 5 are admitting they are incapable of selling their ideas, and need to reduce it to the point where 2 people could dictate the direction of SBARC. I have never understood why some people think a dictatorship will work.

With great power comes great responsibility... I see nothing in these proposed bylaws that puts any responsibility to balance the great power being given.

In a discussion I had with Fried Heyn, WA6WZO, SW Division Director back around 1995 or so, we were talking about the contentiousness of the SBARC board. His comment was that contentiousness that helped make for a strong BOD.

1. What are your reasons for saying this? I see nothing to support

the idea that SBARC will cease to exist without some major changes.

2. The SBARC board consists of very few, if any, business people.

Talking about a more businesslike manner is like talking in Greek to English speaking people. So I just do not understand why you are saying this, can you give more clarification? And what is really meant by "businesslike manner." Not being contentious here, but talking about concepts that mean different things to different people can create major misunderstandings.

3. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the SBARC board

meetings. BUT, the same people responsible for wanting the bylaws changed (as I understand it) are the same people running these meetings now, and without some significant changes, would be running the neutered board. So I am at a total loss to understand your comment of the board being made up of too many people. Or how reducing the number of board members will solve this proposed problem

4. Again, the proposed reduction of board members is equivalent to a

dictatorship running SBARC. Selling ideas and solutions... AND UNDERSTANDING THEM as well as the ramifications should be an integral part of a board members responsibilities.

The California initiative a few years ago to make a simple majority enough to pass a budget is a good analogy. Like the proposed board size, accountability/meaningful discussion was replaced with dogma.

5. Since you are somewhat new to SBARC and might not be aware, SBARC

had around $70K or so of CDs when I was last president in 2006. That was reduced by about $10K when the Rover was purchased (club membership was also about 180+ members or so.) CD interest rates were high enough in earlier years to support SBARC without raising the dues. It became more of a problem with the major fall in interest rates on the CDs (early 2000?)

Is what you are really saying that SBARC is not bringing in enough money with donations/grants to survive long term?

Most (not all) of the current board members are incapable of thinking outside the realm of donations and grants to bring in money. I'd be more than happy to support that statement with a lot of examples of past actions if needed.

6. I absolutely agree with this statement... well put!

My only comment are the bylaws changes are basically flawed in that they leave a very small group of as little as two people (who are not necessarily representative of the SBARC members) making the decisions as to the direction of SBARC.

7. As to not having a clue, that is most probably very true. But

whose fault (and I hate the word "fault" here... responsibility might be a better word) is it that more people don't know what is going on behind the scenes? I would guess the same people supporting the bylaws changes.

8. This is one of the more important things you have said. And some

of the reasons for the lack of money is financial irresponsibility (or just not understanding) about how money is spent coupled with a dependance on grant money.

A great deal of money was spent on the Hamfest/Conventions of the past couple of years without the commitment to making it a profitable event. The LA section has done the SW Division Convention for many years as a profit making event.

You might find it interesting to see a mindmap of what I had planned (very poorly implemented though) for the 2009 SW Division Convention when I was still chair (I resigned as chair when Al made a motion to kill the convention in May, and I resigned from the board when Al made the motion in June to reinstate the convention after both motions hadccarried.)

http://www.mindmeister.com/15469736/2009-sw-division-convention-emergency-pr...

I mention this in case you think I have no idea what I am talking about as far as putting on a hamfest/convention.

It is also worth noting that the 2009 approximate expenses were $16K, and about $12K in direct revenue. The only reason some people considered it breakeven was only by including the approximately $4K of club equipment sold at the convention swapmeet by Bill Gross. Finding that out made my decision to leave SBARC easy.

Not being a club or board member since then, I have only heard rumors of the amount of money lost since then. But as a club member, you have the right to find out... and should do so.

As far as making money is concerned, the club quit the yearly bazaar normally held in July for some totally unknown and mind boggling reasons. That left SBARC with no activities in July. The last SBARC July bazaar was put on by me IIRC in 2008, and that brought in about $1000 pure profit.

There are numerous ways to make money instead of begging for it.

Bill Gross (I think) is still handling estate sales and the sales of more expensive equipment.

CARA (Cataline Amateur Repeater Association) was a regular with me at the TRW swap meet, and that brought in a couple hundred dollars a month or more (depending on donations.) I've sold stuff for SBARC at swapmeets as well as Dave Jacobs. The last batch of stuff brought in about $300 (don't remember exactly) that went to the club station.

Selling on eBay is pretty trivial except for the knowledge NEEDED on how to price and describe equipment (I've been doing this since 1997.)

Selling on Craigslist is a viable way of making money.

Consistently ASKING is a major deficiency in SBARC operations. That includes donations of unneeded equipment as well as volunteers to lead activities.

The main limitation of SBARC is some people are imposing THEIR limitations on the club rather than allow it to grow and flourish. SBARC is acting very much like the Republican party in being totally clueless about the importance of social media, and being unwilling to even look at it (at least it appears that way from my vantage point.)

Back in 1995, The UHF/VHF conference needed someone to sponsor it. I talked to Fried Hyne and the organizers of the previous conference to find out what was required. It was turned down after presenting the proposal for SBARC to put it on. The comment by Fried (that proved prophetic) was that was one of the first signs of a club going downhill.

A saying that comes to mind that fits SBARC to a T is:

"Never push a loyal person to the point where they no longer give a damn."

I spent a great deal of time as Exec VP in 1995/96 talking to ex-club members trying to find out why they left. And I passed along some of the comments to the board. Most of the board members were more concerned with trying to find out who said them rather than addressing the substance of what was said.

I also did an amusing (to me now, not at the time) exercise where I did pass along a few individual comments about SBARC problems. The first brought forth "oh, that's what we would expect from him from the entire board. The second brought a similar reaction. It wasn't until bringing up the same comments from the third and fourth respected members of SBARC that the derision went away.

I still don't view how the board took those comments from the first two people as responsible.

As an aside, I told Jay that if he was elected president again, I would rejoin the club. And several other people I've talked to have said the same. My joining would probably cause grief to some people :), but also cause a number of others to join or rejoin.

If you really want to understand my reasons in more detail for feeling these bylaws changes are a disaster in the making... and by themselves could result in the demise of SBARC, I'd be happy to talk to you about them. And I do listen as well.

As a final thought in this "dissertation":

Albert Einstein - 'Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.'

Thanks!

Marvin, KE6HTS

P.S. - I hear a number of comments about Darryl being an obstacle to the board proceedings. In the time with my involvement with SBARC, he is the ONLY president to have led a significant growth of the club. So that is one of the few areas where I go on the attack. Maybe his ideas should be met with listening instead of resistance.

On 2013-11-09 18:23, Andrew Seybold wrote:

...

I write articles for a living, most are posted on the internet and people can post comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with me. I have learned over the years that those who post comments anonymously are not well informed, are just trying to create problems, or are just plain ignorant.

As far as the new bylaws are concerned here is my perspective:

1.  This club will cease to exist in the very near future
   

unless some major changes are made.

2.  Reducing the size of the BOD and having this "club" run in
   

a more businesslike manner is one good start

3.  Having been a board member for just a few years, I have
   

dreaded going to the BOD meetings, they drone on and on, each committee has to give a report, which we have already received in writing, and then there is always a debate about anything the club might want to do. The current board is made up of way too many people, I serve on a number of broads for non-profits and for-profit organizations and NONE of them has a Board that is more than 7 members total.

4.  The current board members want the club to continue to
   

succeed, but there are a few "no matter what is proposed they will find a problem with it", there are few "this is the way we have always done it so why change", and then there are those who are willing to listen to everything and anything and discuss it.

5.  IF we are serious about survival then we MUST change our
   

ways-if we just want to continue on to be a "club of hams" and a hobby organization then you need to be prepared to lose your repeaters, your club station, you meeting place, and everything else that we currently do because we cannot support that on our dues. Most repeater organizations in the State charge $100 to $150 per year for membership, they don't have meetings, they don't get together more than once a year but they do run first class repeater systems. Get real folks, the dues for this club don't even pay to keep the lights on.

6.  Maybe the new bylaws are not perfect-to me they need a lot
   

of work-BUT I believe that the real issue that should be voted on is this: Are we going to continue as we are and fail, or are we going to investigate, and change what we do and continue to serve our community? Ham Radio is a privilege given to us by the Federal Government because we SERVE others, not because we are a club.

7.  I will not serve as a board member of this club again,
   

however, I will support this club as I have done for a few years, and I will serve under the leadership of the club and the Director of Telecommunications. You just do not HAVE a CLUE of what we do that benefits the club in so many ways. How many of you really know what we do beyond keeping your repeaters up and running so you can run your nets, and provide communications to the community and chat with each other? How many of you know about the weather stations, the ELT sensing devices, the AIS (look it up) sensors? How many of you know how much work we do within the community with UCSB, SARS, local volunteer organizations, other non-profits? How many of you even know that we rebuilt the Regan Ranch Secret Service command post with equipment we found that was original and so good that when the agents recently visited the Ranch they felt they were back in the command center just as it had been?

8.  How many of you really know that a non-profit with the
   

worlds Amateur and Club in the name has a VERY hard time raising funds? How many of you know how much funding we have raised in the last 3 years some of which has kept the club alive-if we had not raised the money this club would have been OUT OF BUSINESS 3 years ago.

So-I have a lot more, but I am really upset that some of the BOD's seem to take so much pride in being able to say they are a board member that they are not looking at the bigger picture. A board member of what? I club with declining membership ? A club that might not exist next year? If you are one of these people, get over it. Ham Radio is MUCH more than a hobby, it is the gateway to opportunity, to serving our community and if we are not around we cannot do any of that. I ask all of you to put aside your egos and focus on what is, for now, the most important decision that we can make for the future of our club. Is it business as usual until we fail or is it time for some REAL changes to reinvigorate who we are and what we do. The choice is up to you.

Ham Radio lead me to my profession, it has provided bridges into other worlds for me. I don't want to see SBARC just disappear-I want it to be reborn, with renewed energy and a renewed commitment from all of us to make the changes that need to be made to keep it alive.

Andy W6AMS

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