[KCDXC] Rough times at KCDX Club... but impeachment???

[Alex, KU1CW]

 Thanks to all for the comments. 


 Commissions were created to look at ALL matters in questions discussed below. Not a single decision was made by the president without commission recommendation and this is new for some club members.

-Constitutional committee (Constitution, bylaws)
-Financial (finances, insurance)
-Dayton (Pileup and suite organization)
-W0DXCC

 I think technology and youth working groups need to be created as well to promote changes within club in these areas.


 Constitution was observed every time decisions were made. All of the decisions are proved to be right for the club. Attendance at the meetings is twice higher than before-which is good for the club and prove it to be healthier than before. If club is seems to be fractured to someone-it is mostly along 'old' club lines and few members will be unhappy, no matter what is done... unless it's is "like it was in 80's" . That can not be reality in 2009 and not desired by the majority of the club members.

Alex 
 



--- On Tue, 7/7/09, Jeff Blaine <Jeff.Blaine at epak.com> wrote:

> From: Jeff Blaine <Jeff.Blaine at epak.com>
> Subject: Re: [KCDXC] Rough times at KCDX Club... but impeachment???
> To: "Tom Hammond" <n0ss at embarqmail.com>, "kcdxc for fun" <KCDXC-for-fun at crcltd.com>, "KC DX Club Reflector" <kcdxc at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 1:29 AM
> Tom,
> 
>  
> 
> Your first paragraph hits on the fundamental issue at
> hand.  And thanks for pointing it out as I also feel
> there is some confusion on the issue.
> 
>  
> 
> To my thinking, discussion between two individuals are
> mutually productive when there exists a mutual respect for
> the other person.  You respect the other person, and
> may disagree to his point.  It’s the tendency of the
> President to draw a generalization that transcends the
> question and demeans the individual that is the
> problem.  If you agree with him, you are smart and
> wise.  But if you disagree, then you are
> misrepresenting the truth, intellectually unable to grasp
> the point, or taking a contrary position in an attempt to
> gain the upper hand.
> 
>  
> 
> And that is what has brought us to this point.  Our
> president just has a very difficult time conducting himself
> in a manner that maintains respect for the person – while
> at the same time disagreeing with the point of the other
> person.  And that’s why the communications have this
> “talking down to” feeling that comes through so
> heavily.  
> 
>  
> 
> To your point on the language issue…  That’s a
> realistic possibility.  And due to the nature of my
> professional life, I am very sensitive to the possible issue
> of culture and language differences.  The consideration
> of “face” is a significant part of every exchange I have
> in a professional context.  But within my experience, I
> simply cannot accept language or culture differences as
> being the basis to excuse the conduct of the
> President.  
> 
>  
> 
> The club represents a mostly western culture; and a native
> English-speaking language basis.  I am certain that the
> President’s command of English in the social setting is
> completely adequate to the task.  His time in the US is
> lengthy, and the cultural nuances should be well
> understood.  I simply cannot believable that the
> controversial exchanges are happening because the President
> has an inadequate command of English and is expressing
> himself in the only manner he has at hand.
> 
>  
> 
> A far simpler and more believable explanation is that the
> ego of the President leads him to take positions without
> public support, and to make statements in the heat of battle
> because he is unable to restrain his emotions.  And
> it’s for these reasons the motions have been made and the
> question put on the table.
> 
>  
> 
> Is the guy a great contester?  Absolutely.  Is
> the guy aggressive by nature?  Yes, it’s one of the
> reasons the guy has such a great competitive nature and is
> probably part of the reason for his success.  Is the
> guy technically accomplished?  Yes.  Does he think
> big and dream big dreams?  Yes and yes.  Does he
> have a great following and clearly has the respect of hams
> in the contesting community?  Yes.  Has he helped
> to push the club in a direction that, for the most part is
> positive?  Yes again.  Do I dislike the
> individual?  Absolutely not.  Who’s my #1 pick
> if I were putting together a world-class contest team? 
> Alex.  Has the guy welcomed me to the community and
> encouraged my activities in the hobby?  Yes.
> 
>  
> 
> But the draw of the dark side is heavy…  Does he
> also have the tendency to piss off a person who disagrees
> with him?  Yes.  Does he revert to personal
> attacks when he is unable to prevail on the point of
> contention?  Yes.  Is he unable to contain his
> emotion in these discussions and that may contribute to
> making inappropriate comments?  Yes.  Does this
> behavior damage his ability to gain the club’s support for
> his proposals?  Yes.  Does this aggressive nature
> dampen the enthusiasm of members and create an environment
> where contrary views are under pressure to remain
> silent?  Yes.  Is the result of this behavior a
> fracturing of the unity of the club?  Yes.  Is he
> willing to make decisions on behalf of the club membership
> based on what his opinion of the correct path is – without
> consulting the club membership even if the implications
> suggest this would be the prudent move?  Yes.  Is
> the President placing his personal aspirations in primacy to
> the stewardship of the club?  Yes.
> 
>  
> 
> Do the later set of detractions provide such a negative so
> as to trump the positive attributes as a whole? 
> Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
> 
>  
> 
> What we have here is the club suffering from an ancient but
> quite common management mistake – the conclusion that a
> great salesman necessarily makes a great sales
> manager.  You pick the job function; the analogy is the
> same.  Success in the individual contributor role and
> as a team leader are completely different skill sets. 
> And now that the club has a greater focus, these
> shortcomings take on a greater weight.  Our President
> is an unwitting victim of his own success.  
> 
>  
> 
> Did we make a mistake in electing the guy?  No, I
> don’t think so.  He was the right guy for the job at
> the time.  Much the same way that Gorbachev was the
> right guy at the time.  Mao is famed for saying “you
> can’t make omelets without breaking a few eggs.” 
> We would probably not be where we are now, without having
> taken the step to shake things up.  But the revolution
> has been achieved, the glide path of the club is on a
> favorable trajectory - and now it makes sense to step back,
> having the knowledge that he was the right guy at the time,
> and the club would not be here today without those actions.
> 
>  
> 
> So Tom, I agree with the comments on the
> wording…   Impeachment?  That’s the
> wrong term.  Recall?  Probably not right
> either.  Done what was needed at the time, and now
> it’s time to make a change?  Yea, that’s about the
> right flavor to my thinking.
> 
>  
> 
> Wow, I’m a real yes-man today!  And maybe I’m
> complexly off my rocker in this interpretation. 
> Probably so, now that I consider it.  Hea, I’m a
> Yaesu owner so that certainly characterizes my lack of
> brains in some circles.  Hi hi.  But that’s the
> way I see it here…  I apologize to the club for
> making this such a lengthy message but the nature of email
> communication invites misunderstanding which I hope I have
> been able to avoid here.
> 
>  
> 
> With all this discussion on the issue of respect for the
> individual…  It’s ironic that in traditional
> business writing, an appropriate closing to this kind of
> message would be:
> 
>  
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
>  
> 
> 73/Jeff/ac0c
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
> From: Tom Hammond [mailto:n0ss at embarqmail.com]
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:33 AM
> To: Tom Hammond N0SS
> Subject: Rough times at KCDX Club... but impeachment???
> 
>  
> 
> Greetings to my friends in the KCDX Club. Friends are
> supposed to be able to talk 'straight' with each other...
> discussing things 'right' and 'wrong' WITHOUT it materially
> effecting they friendship... I've been a member of the KCDX
> Club for about 25 years... mostly as a result of the the
> fact that I've made the Dayton CW Pileup Contests for that
> length of time, and my dues have been 'paid' by my efforts
> in making the pileups. However, I've known MANY member of
> the Club for much longer than that, and I consider many
> members to be good friends. Please see my the second
> statement in this e-mail, regarding 'friends'...
> 
> First, though I've certainly not discussed this problem
> with everyone in the Club, I have had discussions with a
> number of those directly involved in it, so I feel that I
> have most, if not all, of the facts down right... if not,
> I'm certain that someone will 'correct' me...
> 
> I just received a private e-mail from a friend, urging me
> to vote for impeachment of the current KCDX Club President.
> 
> IMPEACHMENT is generally sought for an official who has
> been derelict in his official duties, or who has done
> something illegal while in office... NOT just because he's
> managed to piss off a few of his constituents with some
> possibly mis-chosen (but not necessarily libelous) words or
> phrases.
> 
> When the current KCDX Club president was first nominated
> for the position, we must assume that this nomination was
> made because the person MAKING that nomination felt that the
> person he was nominating WOULD DO A GOOD JOB IN THAT
> POSITION. If the nomination was made for ANY other reason,
> then shame on the nominator!!!  Furthermore, it should
> be assumed that those voting in favor of the nominee's
> election also felt that he would be a good person for that
> position... or they should NOT have voted for him as well.
> 
> From everything I've read and heard during my discussions
> of the problem, I have not heard ONE WORD to indicate that
> the current President has been derelict in his duties, or
> that he has done anything illegal with regard to his
> management of the Club.  In fact, everything I've been
> told, even from his detractors, seems to indicate that his
> efforts have been to further 'formalize' Club operations and
> to bring it more up to date with regard to record keeping,
> etc.  Though this may not be 'the way it's always been
> done before', it is certainly NOT an impeachable offense...
> and it'd probably benefit the Club in the long run.  
> 
> Granted, it is regrettable that there may have been some
> 'language barrier' points which may have resulted in ruffled
> feathers and some members having taken comments a bit more
> 'personally' than necessary, causing them to become less
> than 'thrilled' with the new President and his way of doing
> things. But, again, this is NOT an impeachable offense... 
> 
> From my discussions of the problem with a few of those
> involved, it appears that this problem has degenerated to a
> war of personalities, rather than a problem of Club
> management. Some members, and some of their close friends,
> are upset that the new President isn't allowing them to
> continue to do things (with regard to management of the
> Club) just as they've been done in the past. Again, not an
> impeachable offense. Other members feel that change (in the
> proper direction) is a good thing.  This has created
> two opposing 'camps' of membership within the Club. 
> Change, just for the sake of change, is often NOT a good
> thing. However, change for the sake of making the Club
> better, stronger, or more easily run/managed in the future
> can generally be considered to be a good thing... and moving
> the Club in the right direction. This appears to be the
> direction in which the current President has been attempting
> to move the Club.
> 
> At the same time, the President should remember that he was
> elected BY THE CLUB MEMBERSHIP and that he does answer to
> them... he does not wield uncontested power in the Club and
> is supposed to represent those who elected him. As a result,
> there should be meaningful, AND PRODUCTIVE, discussion
> between the President and the Club members... it cannot be
> totally one-way without problems evolving. If the President
> cannot 'work with' the Club members (from BOTH SIDES OF THE
> AISLE), then something needs to be done... he either should
> consider resigning (because he no longer has the support of
> the Club), or the Club may consider a RECALL ELECTION... but
> NOT IMPEACHMENT!
> 
> Personally, and this is probably the hardest thing for ANY
> group to do, I think EACH NEEDS TO 'GIVE IN' A BIT, and to
> work through its differences TO MAKE THE CLUB STRONGER
> rather than letting differences tear the Club apart.
> 
> When the time comes, if it does, I will be voting FOR
> retention of the current President, however, with the hope
> that he will be able to 'soften' his stance and with the
> hope that ALL other parties who feel they are directly
> involved will be able to bury the hatchet and move on to
> much more productive pursuits within the Club.
> 
> If you don't know the details behind the current
> impeachment effort, I urge you to find out before you cast
> your vote.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Tom Hammond   N0SS
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> KCDXC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/kcdxc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:KCDXC at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html