[NCARC] N0AOL's comments

Fri Mar 23 10:41:33 EDT 2012

Hmm. . . this isn't encouraging me to catch up on my dues.

I'll be endeavoring to unsubscribe after this, so no need to reply. . .
or keep reading.

0.  This is what I get for not volunteering and being active in the
club.  You too.

1.  If someone really felt threatened *in any way, shape or form* why
did they not immediately leave (Fulfilling your legal 'duty to retreat')
and call 911?  There is a hoplophobic tone in the reply.  Since LE was
*not* involved, the only purpose of such comments can be to attempt to
intimidate.  Which it probably was, since it was written as a personal
attack rather than issue based. 

2.  I'm not a lawyer. .  but I'm not sure the club or individuals even
*can* infringe on Federal amendments. . . And you play right into the
game.  Don't be decoyed by statements that were solely intended to
disparage you or the credibility of your position.  Your race, religion
and the clothes you were wearing are not relevant to your issue.  Keep
moving forward on the issue(s).

3.  I've never seen any project well ran by committee.  Individuals in
organizational bureaucracies take particular items and personally drive
them to completion.  Imagine if you will, an electrician standing in
front of an energized panel trying to troubleshoot issues that could not
be determined with the panel de-energized. 
   Now imagine seven people in suits and ties standing behind him,
asking every 45 seconds "Is it fixed yet?",  "How about that wire over
there", "I think all those little cubes in the row that don't have
lights on need to be replaced".  (Don't laugh too hard. . . I have seen
something very much like this in the real world)
   The purpose of bureaucracies is to *slow things down* to a safe level
of progress (resisting haphazard and ill-thought out projects) and. . .
to grow themselves.  They are also helpful for avoiding personal
responsibility/accountability. 

Lemma:  Any project that was completed safely, meets economic goals and
works reliably afterward, by definition can not be 'hap-hazard'.

***
It comes down to 'what is the purpose of the club' and 'how can we best
accomplish that purpose'.  
The members don't have a single purpose.  Some really enjoy
volunteering.  Others are in it for EMComm.  The elderly can keep up
social networks and mental activity during retirement, when those things
tend to be more difficult; giving them a web of safety in their
community.  Youth may take interest for the scholarship opportunities
and develop an interest for life.  Many of us are more interested in the
technical aspects of radio construction / Some in radio wave propagation.

I'm not sure how the club *currently* defines it's purpose.  Allowing
personalities to dominate or trying to be a dominating personality does
not best accomplish the purpose of ham radio.  Anyone who has spent any
time volunteering anywhere knows that there is NO shortage of dominating
personalities at any volunteer opportunity.  It seems to come with the
territory.  Which is why a lot of people volunteer once and then rarely
or never.
  Once you have worked on a team where everyone is mission driven and
strives to enable every member of the team to succeed on mission and in
life. . . the drama laden sort of teams associated with volunteer groups
loses all appeal.   Life is too short to waste valuable time.

The short summary:  If the gun wasn't important enough for the Sheriff's
department. . . it wasn't important enough to mention in a personal
correspondence.  Doing so was in extreme poor taste.  As was the mention
about 'being able to carry concealed'.  It serves no purpose.  The board
member(s) communications should not require defense nor persuasion.  The
bare facts and addressing the concerns of the original email are
merited.  They tell the board and members that at least two club members
have some issues that need to be addressed and resolved.

On 3/23/2012 7:28 AM, Randy Long wrote:
>  
>
> First off, slow down till you have more of the facts...  First of all there
> was no "ILLEGAL Board meeting". There was a special meeting called of the
> remaining board to consider Tom, K1TJ's attempt to resend his resignation.
> He has resigned before, and been allowed to resend it. Tom having resigned,
> was not on the board at the time of the called meeting and all remaining
> board members were present. 
>
>  
>
> In terms of the legality of the meeting, Bylaws section 3.3.a clearly PERMIT
> the executive committee or club board to hold closed meetings. Here's how it
> reads " The Executive Committee or Club Board is permitted to hold closed
> sessions as they deem necessary. The minutes from any closed sessions will
> not be made public. However, all votes and decisions resulting from any
> closed session will be posted on the Corporation's website."(this is a
> snipped section from Justin's email)
>
>  
>
> In terms of posting the results of the meeting, come on folks, give the web
> team a reasonable amount of time to get it posted.
>
>  
>
> In terms of placing the club's license at risk, Tom resigned on Sunday.
> Leaving the club with no trustee. So did he do the club a service by leaving
> them with no current trustee? Then it all becomes okay because he decides if
> they will take me back I'll keep them on the air? It was not until Tuesday,
> that he offered to resend his resignation if the board would allow it. 
>
>  
>
> Much different than the situation with Bill,WB0ZVE, where Chris, KD0EGE was
> the president, refused to accept his resignation. His resignation was
> offered as a result of discovery that he had not been a member in NCARC for
> one year prior to his election, a then recent change in the bylaws. The
> entire club was approached at the next meeting and made a onetime exception
> to that requirement for his situation.
>
>  
>
> In terms of the clubs license. In making a query with the board, I found
> that matter already being addressed. It would appear until we have a new
> trustee, that there will probably be a different call sign on the repeater.
> That would be until the new registration with the FCC can be made, once a
> new trustee is elected or appointed. Not a "hostile takeover", but a
> necessary measure to keep our club within Part 97.
>
>  
>
> I find the choice of words interesting that this is a "hostile takeover"
> when people left of their own volition. I think that when a majority of the
> board looked at the history involved in Tom's resignation. I suspect they
> felt it better to put the trusteeship in the hands of someone who would
> hopefully not be on a revolving door of resignation and resending them.
> There is a history of that with Tom. 
>
>  
>
> In addition, if one wants to describe a "hostile takeover" pushing ahead the
> election to next month, not only violates the bylaws the entire club
> ratified, but sounds more like a knee jerk reaction which would definitely
> be a hostile takeover. There is no evidence that the current board has acted
> improperly, unless that's what you call following the bylaws in how its
> conducted business. This is by the way a business, whether anyone wants to
> admit to it. We are a 501.(c)(3) corporation. Registered with the State of
> Colorado and the IRS as such. As such, constrained by a different set of
> laws than "just a fun club".
>
>  
>
> As for the turnovers in board members... There are as we all know in life,
> people who have irreconcilable differences. People prone to conflict if
> things do not go their way, with a lack of willingness to compromise. So
> much so to the extent that when others try to hold to the rules or even the
> standard of care required under the law, that those differences become too
> great to continue business relationships. Hence a parting of the ways. It's
> regrettable, but certainly understood that not everyone will be willing to
> make compromises or accept them, in an effort for things to move forward.
> Perhaps when that happens it is better for one or the other to agree to
> disagree and either work with the situation or move on. We've had some who
> have said they are unwilling to work under those conditions. We have
> sufficient number of board members to be able to make the assumption that
> the actions of the board are reasonable and within the scope of their
> mandate and the bylaws of this corporation.
>
>  
>
> Under this boards watch, we have seen new bylaws written, ratified and
> implemented. We have see a new web site that has enhanced the clubs
> appearance to not only the membership, but in the community at large. There
> has been an increase in membership. We have had better exposure to the press
> and a public radio presence. We've seen the implementation of new accounting
> software practices. We have seen an inventory control nightmare, which has
> allowed resources we had to go who knows where, and now begun to bring into
> perspective the clubs ability to track, value and control responsibly those
> assets. We have over $60,000 in assets and cash, this is not the typical
> back yard club anymore. We have responsibilities to have insurance for our
> membership during events or even repeater maintenance, insurance against
> loss, agreements for the housing of our equipment, all of which the members
> of this board have striven to insure come to realization. All in all, I'd
> say pretty productive.
>
>  
>
> Its long since time for this club to fulfill its business responsibilities
> in the real world. Gone is the day that we functioned just as a club, but
> now appreciate the benefits of having the 501 (c)(3) status, which permits
> donations, tax exempt status on the part of the club, the ability to issue
> receipts for donations for tax credit and a host of other benefits that
> other organizations and businesses who make donations of space, cash or
> equipment for us to benefit from. If we choose to be the Willy-Nilly club we
> have been in the past, then we must be willing to give up the 501(c)(3)
> status and all the benefits there of. Be ready to pay taxes on our income
> and donations we receive. Be ready to start paying for all of our repeater
> sites (which is not cheap) and be denied access to some locations as without
> the 501(c)(3) status, we would never get in the door to receive.  
>
>  
>
> As to the allegations of infringement or encroaching of 1st and 2nd
> amendment... Willie's statement was " I felt threatened by the man carrying
> a weapon and his words and tone of his voice." Last time I checked he was
> entitled to share his opinion. If he felt threatened by the tone of voice
> and the fact that he was in possession "open carry" firearm, there is no
> reason to deny him that right. No one advocated changing the law, merely
> that he felt threatened by the presence of the open cary and the words and
> tone of voice. He made the statement in an email directed to Tom. He
> expressed what others may have felt, under the circumstances. Chris's
> direction of the comments certainly lent itself to being interpreted as
> slanted, and he too is a regular open carry person as well. Some may have
> perceived him as threatening, even though his personal comments may have
> said otherwise. As for the differences between open carry and concealed
> carry, at least there is a screening process (county sheriff licensing) for
> conceal carry and the firearms are concealed and not generally viewed as
> threatening. I too have the right carry concealed, but no one would ever
> know, which is a huge difference in open carry and coming to address the
> club with a significantly emotional appeal.
>
>  
>
> I would consider communicating formally displeasure with the board, to the
> board before ever having come to the general membership. There are
> procedures, which the entire voting membership ratified and approved last
> year. Procedures that allow for things to be brought to the board, approved
> and then sent to the membership for approval. Those were not followed, even
> though they are clearly on the website. Why? 
>
>  
>
> Sounds to me like there are a few who dare speak out of school for the
> majority. When people are not presented all of the facts, they may be
> persuaded to vote for anything. Board members who attempted to speak were
> called out of order by our now ex president, while others not following club
> procedures were allowed to speak. How does that equate to a hostile takeover
> or board members not attempting to do what we elected them to do?
>
>  
>
> The complaints as I see them come right back to individuals not doing what
> they committed to doing, even when they initiated the proposals. Who is
> dragging their feet? Let's take a breath, take some time to look at the
> facts and then make rational decisions. Perhaps we as a club, if we have no
> more volunteers who are qualified and willing to do things, should work a
> project thru, do it right and then move to the next project. If any of these
> were emergencies, it might be different. None of the current proposals are
> of emergency in nature. We still have our infrastructure in place and the
> ability to communicate. Will we ever arrive? Sure we will, but until we
> either have more people step up who have skills and the willingness to
> participate, let's take it a step at a time and follow the rules we all
> agreed too and follow through on our commitments as a club.
>
>  
>
> Thanks for looking at my comments and your calm consideration.
>
>  
>
> Randy,K7AVV
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> NCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ncarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

-- 
-kh
__________________________________________________________
Cows are more afraid of a barking dog than a booming gun, which explains their position on the food chain.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4887 - Release Date: 03/22/12