[Lowfer] Future of LWCA (Long)

Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:34:57 -0500

Les and all,

I still do not believe this is the place to bring up all the issues before
non-members that you are bringing up.  Not to imply that the questions
should not be asked, and not to imply that non-members shouldn't have
feedback on the effectiveness of the LWCA.  But there is an appropriate
place for each of these to be done.

In the case of non-members/former members, and what they do or don't find
relevant about the LWCA, this is probably as good a place as any.

The remainder belongs in the pages of The LOWDOWN, where the _rest_ of the
paid membership who are not part of this list can see and participate in the
discussion.  It strikes me as exceedingly unfair to discuss the future of
what is also THEIR club without them!

Les, I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but there's a fair amount of dark
implication in some of what you wrote.  For instance:
>John mentions a survey where the vast majority of the LWCA membership
>wants the Lowdown to remain a print only publication. I don't recall seeing
the
>results of this survey published anywhere. Can they please be made
available?

First, please note that I did not say anything about a vast majority of the
membership, but a vast majority of those responding to the survey.  The
difference is highly relevant to the current nature of the organization; see
below.

The results were published in The LOWDOWN.  That was the 'Town Meeting'
survey to which you asked if you could vote by e-mail.  I'd have to rummage
back about a year and half to dig out the issue with the report, but the
total response was somewhere between 10% and 15% of the membership (still
holding steady at just under 500, BTW).

This may not sound very impressive, but it is the largest response to any
ballot, survey, plebiscite, or request for comments published in The LOWDOWN
in the last 15 years.  (Remember one other outcome of the survey?  There was
fairly broad support for your idea of an awards program, but with a
committee to establish criteria for awards.  There was, in the issue
containing the report, a call for volunteers for the committee.  Total
respondents to that call to this very day: zero.  This passivity also
illustrates the real reason for the status quo discussed below.)

You also ask for:
>a. A financial accounting of LWCA funds.
>b. Knowledge of who is paid by the LWCA and how much.

Even though LWCA is not a tax-exempt corporation or other entity that
requires such disclosure, I don't know that there's any big secrecy about
the matter.  Apart from the printer and Post Office, however, all I can tell
you from first-hand knowledge is that the other regular columnists and I are
compensated by receiving our copies at no charge.

But surely it is clear that this is not the place to ask.  With all due
respect, that comes across as grandstanding for the sake of effect.

Third, you seek:
>c. An explanation of how positions of leadership are filled, and who makes
>the decisions for the "club"...(snip)...

There are no positions of leadership any more, and the club makes no
decisions (except for whatever consensus can be reached through surveys when
some issue arises).  To continue...

>It seems to me that the LWCA is really
>just a magazine...

We make no bones about it.  For roughly 15 years, the LWCA has been what is
referred to as a "publication club."  For quite some time before that it had
officers and committees of sorts, but by the late Eighties the only
positions being filled were those for which someone would volunteer, and
even those nominal "chairmanships" faded away as volunteers became few and
far between.  All that remained were some of the writers and the publisher,
who effectively remains on permanent loan from NASWA, and who handles the
headquarters functions.

>...and that there is a vested interest in it's remaining so.

This is the remark that intrigues me.  There is certainly no financial
interest on anyone's part to keep the club in a perpetual holding pattern.
Ergo, if those who like the print publication as it is continue to pay for
it, it seems to me that they are indeed voting with their pocketbooks, and
they're the ones who have the vested interest.

Just a thought to bear in mind--the L in  LWCA stands for Longwave, not just
LowFER.

Despite its sometimes lack of organizational structure, its membership being
divided among several other LF interests, and the coming and going of other
newsletters (LWCA-affiliated and not) dealing with LowFER and Part 15
topics, the LWCA has nonetheless remained the central organization raising
awareness of our hobby and recruiting new enthusiasts for 28 years.

This has been possible because the LowFERs were among the most active
experimenters and writers within the club.  Within the context of an
all-volunteer organization, the fastest moving wheels set the direction.
For all this time--and I'm pleased to say, especially over the last nine
years--the LowFER faction has received page count in the publication out of
all proportion to its size.  (Even before we resumed having such versatile
NDB and Natural Radio columnists as Dick and Mark, who have taken over most
of the mailbag duties pertaining to their own specialties, the content of
the intentionally-all-purpose LF Notebook was still majority LowFER, which
is certainly not true of the membership at large.)

My point is, even if we were to restore formal political structure to the
LWCA, LowFERing wouldn't necessarily be the focus of the club.  On the other
hand, setting up a formal organization independent of the LWCA risks further
fragmentation of the hobby.

And ultimately, I have heard relatively little discussion about specifics of
what a formal LowFER organization could, should, or would do.  Maybe THAT is
what we should be discussing in this forum first.

Is there something _concrete_ that needs to be done that can't be handled
through an existing organization?  Does anyone believe a Part 15 activity
needs... or could effectively receive... fruitful representation before the
FCC, for instance?  If so, great.  But it seems to me that without defining
specific objectives up front, one ends up like the Six Hundred Meter
group...a lot of enthusiasm looking for a cause to justify the existence of
its license.

73,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Les Rayburn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:30 PM
Subject: [Lowfer] Future of LWCA (Long)

>
>After reading John Davis's comments in the February issue of the Lowdown,
>I'd like to clarify a few points, and ask for comments by other members of
>this list both LWCA members and non-members:
>
>DISCLAIMER+ None of this should be viewed as negative comments towards
>John Davis, Bill Oliver, or other tireless individuals who give so much to
>this
>hobby. Hopefully we can all agree or disagree without damage to personal
>relationships. Here goes:
>
>1. I disagree with John that this list is not the appropriate place to
discuss
>the future of the LWCA. As a member, I'm very interested in hearing from
>anyone with an interest in longwave who is not a member.
>
>Do they feel that the LWCA does not serve their interests? Is the content
in
>the Lowdown not meaningful to them? Why? If we want to see the club
>continue to grow and survive, these are key questions.
>
>2. John mentions a survey where the vast majority of the LWCA membership
>wants the Lowdown to remain a print only publication. I don't recall seeing
the
>results of this survey published anywhere. Can they please be made
available?
>
>The same survey is said to reveal that members do not wish the LWCA to
>become a more political organization representing the wishes of it's
membership
>to other bodies like the FCC, ARRL, etc. Again, I'd love to read these
>comments.
>
>How many members responded? How does that number compare with the total
>membership of the club?
>
>3. John mentions that Bill Olivers is "looking into" using a service like
>PayPal
>to accept membership dues. A Paypal account can be opened in minutes...
>so I don't understand what there is to "look into". Either we're moving
forward
>towards the 21st century model or we are not.
>
>If we make it easier to join and/or renew, we'll have more resources to
serve
>the needs of the membership. Lots of clubs are already using Paypal or
>similar services. Lots of shareware programmers too.
>
>4. John mentions the LWCA relationship with AMRAD. I've been very critical
of
>AMRAD's contributions to the longwave spectrum and point to them as
>the best example of what we can expect from amateur radio involvement
>in LF, unless the "lowfer" community is involved in those efforts.
>
>Basically, a lot of "reinventing the wheel". To me this is the best
>argument as to
>why the LWCA needs to become more active in it's relationship with other
>organizations. We have the experience at these frequencies to provide
useable
>guidance to newcomers.
>
>5. My main point. I still am looking for the following clarifications:
>
>a. A financial accounting of LWCA funds.
>b. Knowledge of who is paid by the LWCA and how much.
>c. An explanation of how positions of leadership are filled, and who makes
>the decisions for the "club". It seems to me that the LWCA is really
>just a magazine...and that there is a vested interest in it's remaining so.
>
>If that is the case, then fine. You either subscribe to the magazine, or
>you don't.
>A club implies a body, with members who have some say over how the club
>conducts business.
>
>Maybe other club members don't think these are issues at all...but when
>you speak to former H. John Clements Award winners who had allowed
>their membership to lapse, because they don't think the "club" is relevant
>to them anymore, I submit it's time to take a hard look at things.
>
>73,
>
>Les Rayburn, N1LF
>
>
>
>
>Les Rayburn, director
>High Noon Films
>100 Centerview Drive
>Suite 111
>Birmingham, AL 35216
>(205) 824-8930
>(205) 824-8960 FAX
>(205) 253-4867 CELL
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Lowfer mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer