Rod,
I second your opinion about anonymous statements or sources. Why would someone lose credibility by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A stronger consideration would be given to someone's opinion or rationale when they are up front with everyone. Instead the source just blew their argument.
Bill Talanian Telecommunications Services
At 12:02 PM 11/9/2013, rod@sbatv.org wrote:
Greetings from paradise, or is it?
To be perfectly clear, I am making this statement as Rod Fritz, a member of SBARC (thatâs the hat Iâm wearing today), not as a Director on the SBARC Board and not as a committee chair.
Donât panic!
This is an important time in the evolution of SBARC. I hope all of the SBARC members can give the events of the next few weeks fair consideration so we can work together to make SBARC better.
Offering the benefit of the doubt, Iâll presume that it was an innocent oversight that the Bylaws and Ballot Form and the attached Listserver Response did not identify the name and contact info of the sender. That would allow me and others to respond directly to them for clarification or to present supporting or opposing views. I suggest that the senders may want to identify themselves to resolve this.
Iâd appreciate it if we could avoid anonymous communication in the future.
I welcome constructive discussion so everyone can make an informed decision about what they can do in SBARCâs best interest. It is generally more constructive to offer a suggestion for improvement along with opposition or criticism.
Yes, we do live in paradise. Enjoy the day.
Rod Fritz, WB9KMO mailto:wb9kmo@sbarc.orgwb9kmo@sbarc.org
From: mailto:sbarc.bylaws@gmail.comSBARC Bylaws Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:54 PM To: mailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.comSBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: [Sbarc-list] SBARC Bylaws proposal
By now you may have received an unsigned and un-dated proposal for a radical change to the SBARC Bylaws, Board, and officers.
Please note that while the proposal contains the SBARC logo and return address, these changes have NOT been voted on or approved by the SBARC Board of Directors. In fact, many members of the Board as well as active members of the Club oppose these changes.
Please attend the meeting and vote NO, or return your proxy with the name of a trusted SBARC member who will attend the meeting as your proxy voter.
This proposal is OPPOSED for the following reasons:
The proposed bylaw changes are hastily and poorly written.
Article IV section 1 holds the Board responsible for protection of assets. However, the Treasurer isn't a member of the board. Protection of assets and disbursement authority go hand-in-hand. Article X awards disbursement authority to the Treasurer, President, and Vice President. Presently all with disbursement authority are Board members. Under the proposal, none of them are.
Article IV section 4 refers to the term of officers, where in fact only one or possibly two of the Board members are officers. It should be rewritten to substitute "board member" for "officer".
Article IV section 7 is horribly written. Presently, action between Board meetings includes the word "must" signifying matters of urgency. This ensures that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, board action is taken in a scheduled, open meeting pursuant to an agenda. The proposal allows for between-meeting actions to be taken whenever "required or permitted". This leads to routine decisions being made hastily and behind closed doors.
In addition, there is a bizarre addition which essentially states that "No means yes". It reads, verbatim, "The casting of a vote by Board members, regardless of outcome, shall be construed as consent as applied to these actions."
Article V has multiple duplications and conflicts.
President is responsible for providing the Board with a current status of the Club's finances. Yet, Treasurer is separately responsible for a large list of financial duties including informing the Board of expenditures in budget items.
Education and Training is responsible for fulfilling the corporate purpose. However, this individual is unelected and has no voice in Club governance.
There is a new position "Manager of Telecommunications". Seeing as the reason for the existence of the Club is telecommunications, this position makes little sense. It would be similar to a municipal water district appointing a "Manager of Water".
Further, this individual's responsibilities require that telecommunications support be provided through mysterious organization referred to as SBTAC. This is a separate entity about which little is known. Why should it be coded into the SBARC bylaws that federally-licensed communicators must use an unknown outside agency to provide communications support?
Also within this job description is the responsibility that this individual provide Club resources, equipment, and personnel to this SBTAC unit. It also refers to SBTAC as "Club sponsored". Nowhere else is this sponsorship defined. Could there be a conflict of interest here? Who is behind SBTAC and are they behind this agenda of bylaws change?
There are several conflicts and overlaps between the Manager of Telecommunications and the Education and Training position as well as Emergency Services.
In addition to the functional issues above, the document is riddled with typographical and grammatical errors.
Article II Section 3: Strike the comma after "more" in the second sentence.
Article V - Vice President: Strike the comma after "duties" in the second sentence.
Article V - Treasurer: Strike the comma after "President" in the second sentence. Change "Treasure" to "Treasurer" in the fifth sentence.
Article V - "Public Information Office" should be "Public Information Officer" in the title.
Article V - "Education and Training" should be "Education and Training Coordinator" in the title.
Article VI, section 3: Singular vs. plural. Change "A newly elected Officer or Directors" to "A newly elected Officer or Director". Strike the commas after "office" and "elected".
Article VII: Singular vs. plural. Change title from "A Publications Committees" to "A Publications Committee".
There are likely more errors. A thorough review with adequate time for members to review and provide feedback regarding these drastic changes to SBARC governance before voting is strongly recommended. Whoever is responsible for bringing forth this proposal on election night is being highly irresponsible.
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
On 11/9/13 12:55 PM, Bill Talanian wrote:
Rod,
I second your opinion about anonymous statements or sources. Why would someone lose credibility by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A stronger consideration would be given to someone's opinion or rationale when they are up front with everyone. Instead the source just blew their argument.
I am writing this as an individual member or SBARC, expressing my opinion.
I personally have received two anonymous communications regarding this proposal. The first was a printout of the proposed changes and a ballot form. The outer envelope had the SBARC logo and return address, but there was no cover letter identifying the sender, no statement that the proposal was ratified by th Board, and no argument in favor or against.
The second was in my opinion a reasonable argument against accepting the proposed changes as written, also anonymous, sent by email to this listserver.
If in fact the proposed Bylaws changes have not been voted on and approved by the SBARC Board, then the mailed proposed revision is far more egregious than someone anonymously stating his or her opinion.
Because the anonymous mailed document was sent in an envelope bearing the SBARC logo and return address it implies that these changes are approved and sanctioned by the SBARC Board. If in fact, as the second anonymous document states, the Board has not ratified these changes then the source of the postal mailing also blew their argument to a greater degree due to the fraudulent and unauthorized use of the SBARC logo.
A reading of the Bylaws doesn't require that revisions be sourced from the SBARC board. Presumably any voting member can propose a revision.
As a mild example, I as a voting member could propose a bylaws change requiring a dress code of pink tutus to be worn at all Board meetings.
I could mail that document out under my own name with a signature and a reason why I felt the change was justified.
I could mail it out anonymously with no return address or a drop-box address.
Or I could mail it out in an envelope with the SBARC logo and return address in an attempt to mislead the membership into thinking that the proposal was official Board policy.
In my opinion the first would be the responsible thing to do, the second somewhat crude and the third example could be considered fraudulent.
Seeing as both the change proposal and the argument against it are anonymous and the proposal contained no rationale, argument, or justification for the change, I'm a lot less willing to blindly accept it than what appears to be a well thought out rebuttal from someone who may fear repercussions for identifying himself/herself.
And, the last point is well taken. Presenting this on election night is indeed irresponsible in my opinion.
P. S. I do NOT in any case recommend such a dress code requirement. It is just an example.
-- 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
I too received a communication yesterday by mail. However, I certainly would not consider it anonymous or by any means fraudulent. The mail I received came from SBARC, and contained an enclosures consisting of proposed by-law changes, and a proxy voting form. The amended by-laws were exactly what was handed out at the last meeting. The meeting handout did include a cover letter and a marked up version of the by-laws showing the changes. The proposed changes were also presented to the club verbally at the beginning of the meeting. It doesn't matter who stuffed the envelopes and licked the stamps. SBARC's obligation is to provide a copy of the proposed by-laws to members and include voting information, and that obligation was met. Any cover letter or other identifying information may have incorrectly conveyed the impression that SBARC or the Board of Directors endorsed the changes. That would have been inappropriate. The SBARC mail was entirely correct and contained exactly what was necessary, nothing more and nothing less.
I also received the anonymous email message this morning. Now I may be a little more cynical than most, but I see no purpose in sending anything one intends to promote productive discourse - anonymously. I am admittedly a new member, and I don't have a clue about the "politics" of the club, nor do I really care. I have met many friendly and knowledgeable people in the club and in the ham community, and have found no one whose opinion I would discard out of hand. However, an obviously obfuscated anonymous opinion, from a newly created or forged Gmail account, seems like nothing more than messages I see from "trolls" in other forums every day.
Again, I am a new member, and I mean no disrespect to anyone. But I would respectfully suggest that accusations, strong terms, and incorrect procedural assertions serves no one well. At the last meeting the proposed by-law changes were explained in detail by the club President. Spelling, grammatical, and procedural errors aside, I have read the proposed by-laws and I fully understand the "pro" position. What I don't understand is the "con" position. No one has bothered to explain it. An anonymous email that goes into great detail about the supposed technical deficiencies of the proposed by-law changes is simply insufficient and frankly, far less than persuasive. Maybe "anonymous" or another member can explain the actual unemotional, non-political "con" position so that I and other members can make a reasoned decision come voting day.
Brian Milburn K6BPM
On 11/9/2013 2:20 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 11/9/13 12:55 PM, Bill Talanian wrote:
Rod,
I second your opinion about anonymous statements or sources. Why would someone lose credibility by hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A stronger consideration would be given to someone's opinion or rationale when they are up front with everyone. Instead the source just blew their argument.
I am writing this as an individual member or SBARC, expressing my opinion.
I personally have received two anonymous communications regarding this proposal. The first was a printout of the proposed changes and a ballot form. The outer envelope had the SBARC logo and return address, but there was no cover letter identifying the sender, no statement that the proposal was ratified by th Board, and no argument in favor or against.
The second was in my opinion a reasonable argument against accepting the proposed changes as written, also anonymous, sent by email to this listserver.
If in fact the proposed Bylaws changes have not been voted on and approved by the SBARC Board, then the mailed proposed revision is far more egregious than someone anonymously stating his or her opinion.
Because the anonymous mailed document was sent in an envelope bearing the SBARC logo and return address it implies that these changes are approved and sanctioned by the SBARC Board. If in fact, as the second anonymous document states, the Board has not ratified these changes then the source of the postal mailing also blew their argument to a greater degree due to the fraudulent and unauthorized use of the SBARC logo.
A reading of the Bylaws doesn't require that revisions be sourced from the SBARC board. Presumably any voting member can propose a revision.
As a mild example, I as a voting member could propose a bylaws change requiring a dress code of pink tutus to be worn at all Board meetings.
I could mail that document out under my own name with a signature and a reason why I felt the change was justified.
I could mail it out anonymously with no return address or a drop-box address.
Or I could mail it out in an envelope with the SBARC logo and return address in an attempt to mislead the membership into thinking that the proposal was official Board policy.
In my opinion the first would be the responsible thing to do, the second somewhat crude and the third example could be considered fraudulent.
Seeing as both the change proposal and the argument against it are anonymous and the proposal contained no rationale, argument, or justification for the change, I'm a lot less willing to blindly accept it than what appears to be a well thought out rebuttal from someone who may fear repercussions for identifying himself/herself.
And, the last point is well taken. Presenting this on election night is indeed irresponsible in my opinion.
P. S. I do NOT in any case recommend such a dress code requirement. It is just an example.
-- 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 _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
-
Bill Talanian -
Brian Milburn - K6BPM -
Jay Hennigan