[Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
William Mcgrannahan
[email protected]
Sat, 27 Jul 2002 16:30:42 -0500
Very well said..............73 Bill McGrannahan, N0ZL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Plamondon" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:26 AM
Subject: RE: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
>
> Hi, Al.
>
> Oh, I think that was surely an "attack" - albeit very nicely
> articulated.
>
> As for the filing protocol ... we have leaders in democracies (which
> really means "republics") to ACT for us - not to take polls on every
> issue to determine what they should do. However, (as I alluded to
> earlier) if this were a controversial issue, they surely should have
> (and I believe would have) encouraged a debate and perhaps called for a
> vote of the membership. This one was a "slam dunk" and it would have
> been an expensive and time-wasting process to find out that the vast
> majority of us were in favor.
>
> I infer from your words that you suspect John might have acted
> unilaterally - I would doubt that very much - but it is something that
> perhaps should be made clearer for such formal statements. I certainly
> expect our officers to participate.
>
> 73, w6BOB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 5:35 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Qcwa] QCWA filing on the 60 meter band proposal
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>
> _______________________________________________
> QCWA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
>