[Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal

Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:35:27 -0400

Hi Bob, Raymond and everyone else.  Bob's comments about W3BE are
correct. However, we are not dealing in personalities here. for my "two
cents worth", I saw no "attack" on W3BE. Raymond has every right as a
QCWA member to question whether if any Director acting for QCWA "at
large" has the privilege or right to file a petition on behalf of QCWA
without the membership "at large" having advance knowledge.  Are you
implying that once our leadership has been elected, they have the right
to file or make any public position on behalf of the organization "at
large" without first at least asking for a consensus beforehand? In a
democracy, I think not.  I don't know how you took Raymond's comments
Bob. But I certainly did not see any animosity in it all. Looks to me
like all Raymond did is exercise his right as a dues paying, voting
member to ask what was going on...73  Al W3AWU

On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:37:01 -0700 "Bob Plamondon" <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> Hi, Raymond.
> 
> If you bothered to check the website for Officers/Directors
> http://www.qcwa.org/off_dir.htm   you would have discovered that 
> W3BE is
> a Director.
> 
> The reason organizations have leaders is to act for us - which John 
> did extremely well in this instance.   Were this a controversial issue
> (which it clearly is not), I'm sure our leadership would have played 
> it
> quite differently.
> 
> Gratitude should have been your response - not an attack on one of 
> our hardest working and competent leaders.  Think about it.
> 
> 73,  w6BOB
> Southern California
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
> 
> 
> John:
>        I read as you suggested, and first said I thought it was very
> well
> said.
>        However on reflection of a couple of days, I am a little
> disturbed by
> the implications of your wordings. You may not at all appreciate my
> observations, but indeed, I am not a mindless twit. I have thoughts 
> and
> values and I chose this venue to make them known. I may be one 
> single,
> lonely
> challenger, but then again, I think there are at least scores of 
> QCWA
> members
> who think as I do but don't know what to do about it. If I am alone, 
> I
> know I
> shall be told so on this reflector. Further, I have no personal 
> agenda;
> I
> only want QCWA to become something which today I find seriously 
> lacking
> in
> the organization -- a sense of mission, purpose, and means to 
> fulfill
> that
> mission and purpose.
>        I have absolutely no quarrel with the content of the filing. 
> I
> support
> its content in almost 100% and know I could not have thought or said 
> it
> more
> clearly.
>        However, how this document came about and what it implies 
> that it
> is
> in relationship to the total membership of QCWA is that what I 
> question.
> That
> and that alone. So if any other "reflector" wants to comment, please
> comment
> at that point.
>        You said it was filed under your name. You said in the 
> document
> that
> QCWA as an organization supported everything you wrote in your 
> filing.
> You
> said there are, I think, 10,000 members; implying that all 10,000
> members
> supported 100% of what you had filed.
>        In my opinion, I think that there are some explanations you 
> owe
> to
> those of us who are simply the rank and file card-carrying members 
> of
> QCWA.
> Perhaps I am the only one of the 10,000 who does not know who you 
> are,
> but I
> rather think there might be two or three more out there who might 
> join
> me in
> asking for further explanation. If you are a "leader" in our
> organization,
> then help me to know who you are and where you are planning to lead
> QCWA. I
> might be with you 100%; but until I know who you are, what you stand
> for,
> where you want to lead us, and how you plan to get us to get there 
> with
> you,
> I have reservations about joining 100% in your methodology. Indeed, 
> I
> find
> that if I have no part in something, no one can say that he speaks 
> for
> me at
> all.
>        You may be a person who is used to having your way because of
> past
> positions outside or inside QCWA. As far as I am concerned, the past 
> is
> past.
> You will note I have not listed my CV either. Now is now and we are
> totally
> in an organization of equals. Please tell me more about how this
> document and
> filing came about.
>        (1)  Since it was filed in your name, is this your assumption
> that you
> can speak for all of QCWA just because you are you?
>        (2)  If this was a group who had filed this, who were all 
> those
> in the
> group and on what authority do they presume they can speak for all
> 10,000 of
> us? How come you did not indicate that to us on the reflector?
>        (3)  If this was a consensus of the entire membership, did 
> every
> member receive a copy to which they affirmed their support of your
> position
> (or whatever special, elitist group decided to do this)?
>        (4)  I noted that K5DLE raised the question as to why you did 
> not
> simply place the document on this reflector so that every member of 
> the
> reflector could read it directly -- indeed, I ask the same question?
>        (5)  I do not know the "Board of Directors," so am I correct 
> in
> assuming this was a vote taken by the "Board of Directors?" The 
> document
> stated, as I recall, that "QCWA supports . . . " If so, on what
> authority
> have they done this?
>        As I read the "Constitution and By-laws" of QCWA such filings
> with FCC
> are not included in the mission of QCWA nor in the authority given 
> the
> Board
> of Directors to oversee. Thus, in my opinion, person or group this 
> was,
> has
> gone far, far beyond the boundary of its authority and mission.
> Statements
> which imply a small group, no matter who they are, can speak for 
> 10,000
> members are well beyond the views of some current members and former
> members.
> There has been a flood of persons who have left QCWA precisely 
> because
> the
> Board of Directors presumed it could speak for the entire membership 
> in
> another recent FCC filing. Most likely those people will never be 
> back.
> Some
> request to be members of the local chapters without having to be a 
> part
> of
> the national organization. Ever wondered why that is so?
>        With patience I await your response
>        God Bless America!
> 
> 73  Raymond   w5vpu
> 
> 
> 
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment. Attachments are not allowed.
> Please post in Plain-Text only.---
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa

  ALFRED CAMMARATA
           W3AWU