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
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:
This club will cease to exist in the very near future unlesssome major changes are made.
Reducing the size of the BOD and having this "club" run in amore businesslike manner is one good start
Having been a board member for just a few years, I havedreaded 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.
The current board members want the club to continue tosucceed, 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.
IF we are serious about survival then we MUST change ourways-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.
Maybe the new bylaws are not perfect-to me they need a lot ofwork-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.
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?
How many of you really know that a non-profit with the worldsAmateur 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
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:
This club will cease to exist in the very near future unlesssome major changes are made.
Reducing the size of the BOD and having this "club" run in amore businesslike manner is one good start
Having been a board member for just a few years, I havedreaded 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.
The current board members want the club to continue tosucceed, 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.
IF we are serious about survival then we MUST change ourways-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.
Maybe the new bylaws are not perfect-to me they need a lot ofwork-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.
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?
How many of you really know that a non-profit with the worldsAmateur 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
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
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.
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.
So to quote an old saying: Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!!!
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, 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 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--
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?
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:21 AM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
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 _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
Hi Andy,
One quick comment, your response is major surprising to me in attacking people rather than the arguments. That is the same response I mentioned as being a problem with the board in my first message.
I have seen no prior evidence to support "we" are willing to listen. Your comments were the first.
After I left SBARC, I became a board member for two other non-profits, and have been a force in building ARDF in the US including competing at the World ARDF Championships and serving as an International Referee since 1998. Anyone who says I don't get involved has been misinformed.
Another point well worth mentioning about the smaller board size is what happens when whoever these people are leave for whatever reason. SBARC has never provided any real training for people to take over running the club. And the "training by example" has not been very admirable.
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-10 10:03, 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.
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.
So to quote an old saying: Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!!!
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, 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 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--
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?
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:21 AM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
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 _______________________________________________ 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
Marvin--if you think that I am attacking you that is your problem, I am merely asking questions of the two of you, if you are not members of the club then you have not say in what the club is doing, if you are a member of the club then you have the right to express your point of view. In either case if you want to have a vote show up at a meeting where a vote is being taken and cast your ballot like the rest of us.
No attacks here--just want to be clear for all reading these what your interest is in a club you may or may not belong to, and why you have decided to get involved in this matter--the bottom line is that no matter which way the vote goes, if there is a vote you will either disappear again or decide that it is time to help. I am going to be watching to see which one it is--and saying you will get involved IF a specific person is elected as President is just a waste of time. Sounds to me like you want to know the outcome of the election before it is held.
Andy
-----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 11:06 AM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
Hi Andy,
One quick comment, your response is major surprising to me in attacking people rather than the arguments. That is the same response I mentioned as being a problem with the board in my first message.
I have seen no prior evidence to support "we" are willing to listen. Your comments were the first.
After I left SBARC, I became a board member for two other non-profits, and have been a force in building ARDF in the US including competing at the World ARDF Championships and serving as an International Referee since 1998. Anyone who says I don't get involved has been misinformed.
Another point well worth mentioning about the smaller board size is what happens when whoever these people are leave for whatever reason. SBARC has never provided any real training for people to take over running the club. And the "training by example" has not been very admirable.
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-10 10:03, 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.
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.
So to quote an old saying: Lead, Follow, or get out of the way!!!
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, 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 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--
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?
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:21 AM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Andy,
Okay, forgive me if I misinterpreted what you wrote as it sounded very much like an attack.
I was a member (1995) when SBARC had the highest ever membership exceeding 500 people. Watching it shrink significantly over time due to people running the club ignoring the membership has been more than slightly disheartening and is a hot button with me.
Most of the people who supporting this bylaws change were also members and active during the almost 20 year decline in membership number and activity.
Is it not reasonable to assume that these same people supporting the bylaws change would have tried to make a difference in both membership and activity during this time?
And since that did not happen, is it not also reasonable to assume that membership number or activity is not one of their (your?) goals?
And as such, is it not reasonable to question why these proposed bylaw changes are promoted by these same people and were not give more exposure?
There is a long history of being very good at one aspect, and not good at others. The bylaws proposals are another shining example of the Peter Principal.
Others besides myself are judging the merit of these proposed changes based on experience with the people involved rather than the "I hope" justification currently being given. These are facts I've presented, not fiction, which you can choose to take into account... or not.
They are not attacks against these people... they are incredible at what they are good at. But there is a serious concern as to their competence in growing the club.
Are you really willing to bet your credibility based on the hope that the bylaws changes will make things better given the above points?
So you are right. My experience has been freely offered to help provide some (apparently unwanted) guidance, but it is not my problem.
When I was in charge of the 2012 US ARDF Championships, one of my most used phrases was "not my problem." My job was to run a successful event AS JUDGED BY THOSE PEOPLE INVOLVED, i.e. the competitors. All of the things that were not my problem were things that could be handled by others, or safely ignored.
There is a saying in Poker... know when to hold'em and when to fold'em.
I'm not sure that you are as open as you suggested in your first response to discussing the changes. When the way something is said becomes more important that what is said, it is time to fold'em.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
P.S. - Just checked email before sending and it looks like we both agree on the uselessness of this dialog.
On 2013-11-10 11:43, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Marvin--if you think that I am attacking you that is your problem, I am merely asking questions of the two of you, if you are not members of the club then you have not say in what the club is doing, if you are a member of the club then you have the right to express your point of view. In either case if you want to have a vote show up at a meeting where a vote is being taken and cast your ballot like the rest of us.
No attacks here--just want to be clear for all reading these what your interest is in a club you may or may not belong to, and why you have decided to get involved in this matter--the bottom line is that no matter which way the vote goes, if there is a vote you will either disappear again or decide that it is time to help. I am going to be watching to see which one it is--and saying you will get involved IF a specific person is elected as President is just a waste of time. Sounds to me like you want to know the outcome of the election before it is held.
Andy
Hi all,
Yesterday at the ARDF practice we held at Bonelli Park in San Dimas, I met a lady who is a newcomer to ARDF. She is interested in competing in Kazakhstan next year at the World ARDF Championships, and will need a lot more training to get to that level.
After she assured me she was very interested in learning more, I agreed to put on another training at Lake Los Carnaros to help get her ready to compete internationally.
She is open as to dates, but it will be one of the early Saturdays in December.
My current plan is to put on a short FoxOring course (maybe a mile, 5-6 transmitters) to give her some practice on 80M. ForOring is a combination of classic point-to-point orienteering coupled with 80m direction finding using very low power oscillators as transmitters with a short (10") antenna.
Additionally, I'll plan on putting on a regular 2M five transmitter hunt as she needs practice and training on direction finding strategies.
Before I finalize the date, is there anyone who would like to attend and has a date preference? It will start around 10AM or so and end when we get done (guessing 3PM or so.) We will end at Cody's after transmitter pickup for an early dinner and discussion about the event.
I hope to have the date finalized in the next couple of days, and then it will be publicized on the HomingIn.com website.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
P.S. - Not a pitch per se, but i wrote a very short guide on how to take 2M bearings. It is very basic and meant for newcomers and beginners to transmitter hunting. It is available on the Amazon Kindle store... just search on Amazon for my callsign or name to find it. The cost is $0.99, the lowest that can be charged on the kindle platform. If you don't have a Kindle, there is also a cloud reader as well as reader applications for both the PC and MAC available for free download on the Amazon site. If you are past the beginner stage, it will probably be a waste of your time.
On 11/10/13 1:44 PM, Marvin Johnston wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday at the ARDF practice we held at Bonelli Park in San Dimas, I met a lady who is a newcomer to ARDF. She is interested in competing in Kazakhstan next year at the World ARDF Championships, and will need a lot more training to get to that level.
Way cool! Is she local to Santa Barbara?
After she assured me she was very interested in learning more, I agreed to put on another training at Lake Los Carnaros to help get her ready to compete internationally.
She is open as to dates, but it will be one of the early Saturdays in December.
December 14 works for me.
-- 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 just got an email back from Jay, WB6RDV, and he would like December 14th. Since US ARDF Team members get priority in choosing the date :), it is now set for December 14th. More details will be on the homingin.com website in the next couple of days or so.
This will be strictly training, so I don't plan on doing an antenna building workshop.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
On 2013-11-10 13:44, Marvin Johnston wrote:
Hi all,
Yesterday at the ARDF practice we held at Bonelli Park in San Dimas, I met a lady who is a newcomer to ARDF. She is interested in competing in Kazakhstan next year at the World ARDF Championships, and will need a lot more training to get to that level.
After she assured me she was very interested in learning more, I agreed to put on another training at Lake Los Carnaros to help get her ready to compete internationally.
She is open as to dates, but it will be one of the early Saturdays in December.
My current plan is to put on a short FoxOring course (maybe a mile, 5-6 transmitters) to give her some practice on 80M. ForOring is a combination of classic point-to-point orienteering coupled with 80m direction finding using very low power oscillators as transmitters with a short (10") antenna.
Additionally, I'll plan on putting on a regular 2M five transmitter hunt as she needs practice and training on direction finding strategies.
Before I finalize the date, is there anyone who would like to attend and has a date preference? It will start around 10AM or so and end when we get done (guessing 3PM or so.) We will end at Cody's after transmitter pickup for an early dinner and discussion about the event.
I hope to have the date finalized in the next couple of days, and then it will be publicized on the HomingIn.com website.
Thanks!
Marvin, KE6HTS
P.S. - Not a pitch per se, but i wrote a very short guide on how to take 2M bearings. It is very basic and meant for newcomers and beginners to transmitter hunting. It is available on the Amazon Kindle store... just search on Amazon for my callsign or name to find it. The cost is $0.99, the lowest that can be charged on the kindle platform. If you don't have a Kindle, there is also a cloud reader as well as reader applications for both the PC and MAC available for free download on the Amazon site. If you are past the beginner stage, it will probably be a waste of your time. _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
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
Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine--up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what the membership wants.
Andy (end of dialogue)
-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:29 PM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
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 _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
On 11/10/13 12:33 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine
Actually, you haven't. You've called names, launched personal attacks, and spread FUD. You haven't justified the drastic changes at all. Even Mr. Anonymous went section-by-section with justifications.
You've made vague and scary predictions of doom and gloom without anything to back them up, and without demonstrating one single tie between the proposed changes and a solution to these supposed problems.
--up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what the membership wants.
I hope that they have both the time and facts to make an *informed* decision, both of which the "pro-change" side obviously seeks to prevent.
Andy (end of dialogue)
Goodbye.
-- 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
How about having the club acquire a consultant, either from the ARRL or a successful club that we would like to model ourselves after. The person would be objective and would have the necessary skills to take us in the direction we want to go in order to meet our ultimate goals. My 2¢.
Marina, KA6JWL
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jay Hennigan jay@west.net wrote:
On 11/10/13 12:33 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine
Actually, you haven't. You've called names, launched personal attacks, and spread FUD. You haven't justified the drastic changes at all. Even Mr. Anonymous went section-by-section with justifications.
You've made vague and scary predictions of doom and gloom without anything to back them up, and without demonstrating one single tie between the proposed changes and a solution to these supposed problems.
--up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what the membership wants.
I hope that they have both the time and facts to make an *informed* decision, both of which the "pro-change" side obviously seeks to prevent.
Andy (end of dialogue)
Goodbye.
-- 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
Ok Marina-and I will contribute to some of the cost of said consultant-who else will kick in?
Andy
From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Marina King Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:48 PM To: Jay Hennigan Cc: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
How about having the club acquire a consultant, either from the ARRL or a successful club that we would like to model ourselves after. The person would be objective and would have the necessary skills to take us in the direction we want to go in order to meet our ultimate goals. My 2¢.
Marina, KA6JWL
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.netmailto:jay@west.net> wrote: On 11/10/13 12:33 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine
Actually, you haven't. You've called names, launched personal attacks, and spread FUD. You haven't justified the drastic changes at all. Even Mr. Anonymous went section-by-section with justifications.
You've made vague and scary predictions of doom and gloom without anything to back them up, and without demonstrating one single tie between the proposed changes and a solution to these supposed problems.
--up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what the membership wants.
I hope that they have both the time and facts to make an *informed* decision, both of which the "pro-change" side obviously seeks to prevent.
Andy (end of dialogue)
Goodbye.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.netmailto:jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323tel:805%20884-6323 - WB6RDV _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.commailto:SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
-- Marina King President SB Area Council of PTAs (805) 696-3424 www.sbpta.orghttp://www.sbpta.org [http://www.bowdoin.edu/it/activity/2010/images/facebook-icon550.jpg]https://www.facebook.com/santabarbarapta
On 11/10/13 5:47 PM, Marina King wrote:
How about having the club acquire a consultant, either from the ARRL or a successful club that we would like to model ourselves after. The person would be objective and would have the necessary skills to take us in the direction we want to go in order to meet our ultimate goals. My 2¢.
Marina, that sounds like an excellent idea. There is less than a week to derail this hasty, error-ridden proposal, evaluate our situation, and get back on track.
For what it's worth, SBARC has, under its present structure, received several awards from ARRL for being just such a club.
-- 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
Jay--you don't engage in constructive dialog you engage in bashing and throwing things back--I have never said that I agree with the existing revision to the bylaws all I have said is that there need to be changes if we are to survive, I also challenged you and Marvin to PROVE that we could survive as we have been for years--you have no answer for that so have ignored that, I asked you to provide your ideas for making the club better you did not, I never said I had the answers, I only said that we had issues which need to be fixed--you and Marvin jumped on that and tore it out of context and engaged in finger pointing and comments about what you think without knowing for sure any of what you talk about.
I have given my time, my energy and my capabilities to this club. What have you done in the past 5 years to assist us?
Step up or step down
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:41 PM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
On 11/10/13 12:33 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--enough--you have made your points and I have made mine
Actually, you haven't. You've called names, launched personal attacks, and spread FUD. You haven't justified the drastic changes at all. Even Mr. Anonymous went section-by-section with justifications.
You've made vague and scary predictions of doom and gloom without anything to back them up, and without demonstrating one single tie between the proposed changes and a solution to these supposed problems.
--up to the members to decide how they want to move forward--I have my view, you have yours and others have their own view, let's see what the membership wants.
I hope that they have both the time and facts to make an *informed* decision, both of which the "pro-change" side obviously seeks to prevent.
Andy (end of dialogue)
Goodbye.
-- 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
Hi Andy,
First, does your not saying you agree with the existing bylaws changes (hopefully) mean you don't support them, and will vote against them?
What would you consider to be proof that SBARC could survive as it has done for the past 90 years?
There is no question both of us have dedicated a lot of time in an attempt to make SBARC a better club.
I dedicated some 17 years trying to help SBARC, most of that time as a board member, with the emphasis on benefits to the membership... mostly being the lone ranger in that attempt. That includes a number of stints as hamfest chair, 3 terms as (IMO a not so good) president, organized the beginners t-hunt at Lake Los Carnaros, started the free-to-good table, taking the 2009 hamfest to a section hamfest to a division convention before the board dumped it, and the list goes on.
So why is it you think I don't know what I am talking about?
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-10 17:48, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--you don't engage in constructive dialog you engage in bashing and throwing things back--I have never said that I agree with the existing revision to the bylaws all I have said is that there need to be changes if we are to survive, I also challenged you and Marvin to PROVE that we could survive as we have been for years--you have no answer for that so have ignored that, I asked you to provide your ideas for making the club better you did not, I never said I had the answers, I only said that we had issues which need to be fixed--you and Marvin jumped on that and tore it out of context and engaged in finger pointing and comments about what you think without knowing for sure any of what you talk about.
I have given my time, my energy and my capabilities to this club. What have you done in the past 5 years to assist us?
Step up or step down
Andy
Simple Marvin--you have not been involved recently--times have changed, things have changed what worked 10 years ago no longer work, the Internet, technology, and new issues with the FCC and education have changed, so where have you been? I don't know what will work best all I know is that what we have won't continue to work going forward, I am not afraid of change I embrace it IF it is done logically and for a purpose. I do consulting for a living and to many times those who hire me are set in their ways, not willing to investigate new ways of doing things, not willing to consider change--change is bad correct? WRONG, if change helps us regain what we used to be and what we can become then change is good. Change is scary--but it can work-- Andy
-----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 6:15 PM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] SBRC; Can it live on in this environment?
Hi Andy,
First, does your not saying you agree with the existing bylaws changes (hopefully) mean you don't support them, and will vote against them?
What would you consider to be proof that SBARC could survive as it has done for the past 90 years?
There is no question both of us have dedicated a lot of time in an attempt to make SBARC a better club.
I dedicated some 17 years trying to help SBARC, most of that time as a board member, with the emphasis on benefits to the membership... mostly being the lone ranger in that attempt. That includes a number of stints as hamfest chair, 3 terms as (IMO a not so good) president, organized the beginners t-hunt at Lake Los Carnaros, started the free-to-good table, taking the 2009 hamfest to a section hamfest to a division convention before the board dumped it, and the list goes on.
So why is it you think I don't know what I am talking about?
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-10 17:48, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--you don't engage in constructive dialog you engage in bashing and throwing things back--I have never said that I agree with the existing revision to the bylaws all I have said is that there need to be changes if we are to survive, I also challenged you and Marvin to PROVE that we could survive as we have been for years--you have no answer for that so have ignored that, I asked you to provide your ideas for making the club better you did not, I never said I had the answers, I only said that we had issues which need to be fixed--you and Marvin jumped on that and tore it out of context and engaged in finger pointing and comments about what you think without knowing for sure any of what you talk about.
I have given my time, my energy and my capabilities to this club. What have you done in the past 5 years to assist us?
Step up or step down
Andy
_______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
unsubscribe
On Nov 10, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Marvin Johnston marvin@west.net wrote:
Hi Andy,
First, does your not saying you agree with the existing bylaws changes (hopefully) mean you don't support them, and will vote against them?
What would you consider to be proof that SBARC could survive as it has done for the past 90 years?
There is no question both of us have dedicated a lot of time in an attempt to make SBARC a better club.
I dedicated some 17 years trying to help SBARC, most of that time as a board member, with the emphasis on benefits to the membership... mostly being the lone ranger in that attempt. That includes a number of stints as hamfest chair, 3 terms as (IMO a not so good) president, organized the beginners t-hunt at Lake Los Carnaros, started the free-to-good table, taking the 2009 hamfest to a section hamfest to a division convention before the board dumped it, and the list goes on.
So why is it you think I don't know what I am talking about?
Thanks!
Marvin
On 2013-11-10 17:48, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--you don't engage in constructive dialog you engage in bashing and throwing things back--I have never said that I agree with the existing revision to the bylaws all I have said is that there need to be changes if we are to survive, I also challenged you and Marvin to PROVE that we could survive as we have been for years--you have no answer for that so have ignored that, I asked you to provide your ideas for making the club better you did not, I never said I had the answers, I only said that we had issues which need to be fixed--you and Marvin jumped on that and tore it out of context and engaged in finger pointing and comments about what you think without knowing for sure any of what you talk about.
I have given my time, my energy and my capabilities to this club. What have you done in the past 5 years to assist us?
Step up or step down
Andy
SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list
On 11/10/13 5:48 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:
Jay--you don't engage in constructive dialog you engage in bashing and throwing things back-
OK, constructive dialog time:
You may have a valid point about the board size.
I am in favor of the current structure where the Board positions align with roles. Amateur radio is diverse, with a number of facets such as ATV, repeaters, DX, T-hunting, digital modes, emergency services, traffic handling, education and training, etc. As such, I'm in favor of role-based positions as we have now to keep a diversity of viewpoints. With only five Board positions, if we wind up with three gung-ho DXpedition folks on the Board we might find SBARC resources rusting on some remote island in the South Pacific to the detriment of other things.
A simple compromise would be to keep the current structure and eliminate four of the director-at-large positions. That would reduce the board size to nine. The remaining director-at-large would continue to be the past President or could be elected should that person choose not to remain or be elected to another position.
We have a standing Executive Committee as well as a Ways of Means committee that should be capable of handling grant writing and the like when we pursue outside funding.
If you are passionate about losing the word "Club" in the title of the organization and feel that this will be of value, I'm not opposed to it if it can truly be shown to help. That's how we've been known for 90 years so I don't think it should be taken lightly.
-I have never said that I agree with the existing revision to the bylaws all I have said is that there need to be changes if we are to survive,
Do you agree with the existing revision?
You have several times in this discussion cast the fear of losing all Club resources unless there were drastic changes, yet you haven't enumerated those changes. As the only drastic change under consideration is the bylaws change, the logical conclusion is that you are in favor of it.
I also challenged you and Marvin to PROVE that we could survive as we have been for years--you have no answer for that so have ignored that, I asked you to provide your ideas for making the club better you did not, I never said I had the answers, I only said that we had issues which need to be fixed--you and Marvin jumped on that and tore it out of context and engaged in finger pointing and comments about what you think without knowing for sure any of what you talk about.
Please stop the "You and Marvin" language. It is tiring and inaccurate and may lead others to draw false conclusions.
As you should know it is impossible to PROVE that we can survive as we have been for years. You yourself have pointed out several major accomplishments of which we can be proud, all undertaken with the current structure.
I can't PROVE that we will survive. The FCC could auction our spectrum to Google tomorrow. Absent a time machine, there is no way to PROVE any future event.
You are the one who states that we MUST make changes very quickly or perish. Can you PROVE that we will fail under the current structure? Can you enumerate the specific changes we must make and PROVE that they will avert the as yet unnamed disaster that will befall the Club unless made?
If you're that good at predicting the future with PROOF, then PROVE it to me by giving me copies of next month's Wall Street Journal. I would really appreciate that.
I have given my time, my energy and my capabilities to this club. What have you done in the past 5 years to assist us?
Absolutely everything that the Club has asked of me.
I filled out the information card on the application with most or all of the boxes checked. No one contacted me about weed abatement. No one asked me to join a single committee. No one asked me to teach a class. No one asked me to Elmer a new ham. No one asked me to help at the Club Station or fix any Club equipment.
I've done absolutely everything that the Club has asked of me. I may have given a talk at one of the meetings within the last five years and am scheduled to do so again.
-- 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
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.
- What are your reasons for saying this? I see nothing to support
the idea that SBARC will cease to exist without some major changes.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
This club will cease to exist in the very near futureunless some major changes are made.
Reducing the size of the BOD and having this "club" run ina more businesslike manner is one good start
Having been a board member for just a few years, I havedreaded 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.
The current board members want the club to continue tosucceed, 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.
IF we are serious about survival then we MUST change ourways-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.
Maybe the new bylaws are not perfect-to me they need a lotof 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.
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?
How many of you really know that a non-profit with theworlds 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
-
Andrew Seybold -
Jay Hennigan -
Levi C. Maaia -
Marina King -
Marvin Johnston