[K3CAL] Open letter to the board

[David Olenjack]

Eric,

I found the issue.  Apparently (months ago) google decided you personally
were spam. Don't know why but I fixed it.  I see all your emails now.

Yes you are right about the source of confusion:










*Perhaps this is part of the misunderstanding.  The digipeater part of the
Prince Frederick Project has always been a part of the project and was
approved along with the voice repeater.  I believe Jim's concern was a
focus on the digipeater and not on linking the repeaters. My response
(although perhaps it wasn't clear?) was that I planned on working on both
simultaneously and was not favoring either part of the project ahead of the
other.*
This is the issue that I believe Dave Weaver is raising.  You can not just
shelve the work on installing the digipeater in favor of working on that
along with other things that have not been approved yet.  Although your
intentions seem to be good in this instance, it doesn't change the fact
that you are not authorized to "work on all of it at the same time" as you
have stated.  You have to finish the work that has already been approved.
Any other work as part of other proposed plans has not bearing on the
current tasks at hand.

In fact, let me put this another way.  There's a point that keeps being
raised that is not (in my opinion) getting enough attention paid to it, and
that is thus:  The Calvert Amateur Radio Association exists because of, and
is run by, its members.  The Board of Directors (maybe a misnomer in this
instance) serves only to facilitate the wishes of the membership and
administrate the proper and legal keeping of club financials.  The Board
has no authority to dictate how this or that thing will happen.  The voting
members of the organization dictate (by way of vote) what will happen and
when it will happen.

So what is happening here is that the club has a legal directive (by way of
vote) from its controlling authority (the members) to complete work on the
PF repeater, including installing the aforementioned digipeater.  This
directive is not being followed.  You stated above that your response to
Jim was that you planned on working on both simultaneously.  You don't have
the authority to make that choice.  What Dave is saying is that you have a
standing directive to finish the repeater installation as initially laid
out.  Any further additions or changes to repeater configurations must be
presented to the membership and voted on for approval and appropriations.

Again, I heard in your voice last night, and read today in your words a
spirit of "the best intentions".  You think these other things would be
good ideas for the repeaters and I don't think you're wrong.  I'm saying
that when you tried to lump old, already approved work in with new, not yet
approved work, and Ed then "tabled" for a future meeting until you can
present a full proposal, was wrong.  I'm not assigning any malice or
negativity here.  I'm stating the facts as witnessed.

This is, I believe, the source of Dave Weaver's (among others')
frustration.  You have some pretty decent ideas and intentions (as far as
I've seen in the short time that I've interacted with you), but you don't
seem to know how an organization like this works.  You're overstepping your
authority and making decisions that you don't have the legal right to
make.

What Dave is saying (amidst the anger and obvious frustration that fills
his emails) is that you (as the board) have a legally binding obligation to
follow the instructions given by your governing authority (the
membership).  And from my view, it looks like you keep giving reasons why
you shouldn't have to do that because you have better ideas.

Again, not trying to be negative or anything of the sort here.  I'm just
trying to point out things that I think you're missing.

OJ

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Eric Christensen <eric at christensenplace.us>
wrote:

> On 03/04/2016 03:47 PM, David Olenjack wrote:
> > So I just read the email above  from Charlie and I am confused
> > about something.  I saw an email response from Eric beneath it.
> > Either my email is messing up, or Eric chose to reply to a limited
> > number of people and not post his response on the reflector for all
> > to see.  I am a bit disheartened by this as such an action could
> > easily be seen as purposely trying to hide information from the
> > members.  I'm not implying in any way that this was the intent, I'm
> > just saying that this lack of transparency can have very negative
> > consequences on your reputation.
>
> No, the response went by way of the email reflector (see
> http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/k3cal/2016-March/003354.html).  Not
> sure why you didn't receive it but it was sent that way.
>
> > Also I have a bit of an issue with Eric's message, which I'll quote
> > here:
> >
> > *Dave Weaver's Initial Statement:*
> >> It was brought to my attention that the installation of new
> >> equipment for the repeater for Prince Frederick project was to be
> >> halted at March Meeting until a new written plan was in place. As
> >> per the new president Ed Noell.
> >
> > *Eric's Response:* No, this is neither what happened nor what was
> > intended to happen.  We were specifically talking about *future*
> > projects and trying to actually create a plan going forward for
> > what we want to do 1, 3, and 5 years out as well as completing the
> > Prince Frederick Project.  Work is continuing on the Prince
> > Frederick Project (see below).
> >
> > Now the issue I have is that this is just not correct.  Eric
> > reported from the Repeater Committee about the 1, 3, and 5 year
> > plan that was being constructed as to what the plans were for the
> > repeaters in the future, in which he discussed ideas about linking
> > the two repeaters (.950 and .985) and possibly adding a digipeater
> > to the .950 machine. Jim (K3UGA) asked why we weren't going to just
> > finish the project with the PF machine that had already been
> > approved and which had funds already allocated.  Eric responded
> > that we were going to do that, as well as these other things too,
> > as outlined in the new 1, 3, and 5 year plan.
>
> Perhaps this is part of the misunderstanding.  The digipeater part of
> the Prince Frederick Project has always been a part of the project and
> was approved along with the voice repeater.  I believe Jim's concern
> was a focus on the digipeater and not on linking the repeaters.
>
> My response (although perhaps it wasn't clear?) was that I planned on
> working on both simultaneously and was not favoring either part of the
> project ahead of the other.
>
> > So if I'm right, Eric said that this work was going to happen,
> > along with other work that was part of the proposed 1, 3, and 5
> > year plan.
>
> I had placed both the linking of the voice repeaters and the
> installation of the packet digipeater in the 1 year plan (stuff to
> happen this year) as a recommendation to the club from the repeater
> committee as we want to go ahead and get this stuff done.
>
> > If this is the case, then Dave is 100% correct.  You cannot just
> > halt work that has already been approved, with money allocated from
> > the treasury, because you want to additional work and you haven't
> > even come up with the full plan of the additional work you want to
> > do.
>
> No additional work, see above.
>
> > If we had a plan that was approved by the membership and which had
> > funds allocated, then we need to finish that plan.
>
> Which is what we're doing.
>
> > Any future plans (1, 3, and 5 year or otherwise) are separate
> > orders of business, and until voted on and approved (with
> > allocation of new funds) do not count for anything as far as the
> > organization is concerned.
>
> Correct, see above.
>
> > And yes, Ed did "table" the discussion until the Repeater Committee
> > came back with a finalized plan to submit to membership.  Now, it
> > is my belief that he wasn't intentionally trying to stop a project
> > that was already approved.  However, because the Repeater Committee
> > was trying to lump that already approved work in with new work (if
> > I'm understanding this correctly), that is effectively what
> > happened.
>
> Correct, this was not to stop work on the Prince Frederick Project but
> rather to get input from the membership on what else they'd like in
> the 1, 3, and 5 year plans before presenting the plans (of which I was
> trying to get input at the meeting).
>
> > Eric also states that "And from what I've seen participation is
> > up, attendance is up".  I think this might have a bit to do with
> > people coming to the meetings to try to figure out what is going
> > on.  Because let's be honest, there's one side of the issue that is
> > speaking out loud and often, and the other side that is sending
> > emails only to specific people, and when asked say things like
> > "it's a long story" and "I don't want to get into it right now".
>
> I'm not sure which side I'm supposed to be on in this.  Personally,
> I've been trying to avoid the negativity that drove four members away
> from the club (all of whom are back, now, thankfully).  I don't react
> to screaming so if I'm on the side of "I don't want to get into it
> right now" understand that it's because I wish all the negativity had
> never happened and that dwelling on it only hurts the community overall.
>
> > I've said this before and I will say it again.  CARA is the only
> > link some of us have to Amateur Radio and whatever happens needs to
> > happen for the betterment of the organization. This nonsense needs
> > to be resolved and we need to move forward.
>
> Completely agree.  I'm doing my best to get presenters scheduled for
> upcoming meetings and am trying to get folks to come in and talk about
> their adventures in ham radio (what they've been doing/experimenting
> with/researching recently).  Getting more folks on the air is
> important for the community and diversifying our interests is great.
>
> To go off on a tangent for a moment I'd like to give some examples of
> what I've heard other people are doing or are interested in that I
> think would be great presentations or show-and-tells for the meetings:
>
> Don KR3A just finished a CW class where he's now up to 25 WPM and is
> starting another class that will take him up to 30 WPM.  Karl, KG1L,
> is building 2.4 GHz antennas from cans and other assorted items.  Jim,
> K3UGA, is interested in most everything but has been working on his
> go-boxes that have everything needed for emergency operating.  Bob,
> N3PPH, chases DX constantly and would likely have some interesting
> stories to share.  Dave, KB3RAN, does a lot of portable HF digital
> operations with a solar panel.  And Ron, WA4PRR, is interested in
> microwave work and has a lot to share.
>
> These are just some of the examples of stuff that we should be sharing
> as a community.  Instead we seem to be focused on negativity.  We
> should be coming together to share information.  Instead, we can't
> seem to move forward because a couple of people are trying to stir up
> trouble.  So you'll have to excuse me for trying to keep the
> negativity to a minimum, in spite of being targeted by it, as I'd much
> prefer to focus on the positives and move into the sharing of
> information and getting more people on the air than dealing with
> threats and disparaging comments.
>
> 73,
> Eric WG3K
> ______________________________________________________________
> K3CAL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/k3cal
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:K3CAL at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/k3cal/attachments/20160304/968c6f0f/attachment-0001.html>