[QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted

[Val Erwin]

Howdy Jeff:
 
"I beg to differ, we ALL get the QCWA Journal. That is where ALL the stuff we should know about is published. The Reflector is an accessory if you will, and should NEVER be thought of as a "primary" source of QCWA information."
 
Jeff, point taken; however, the Reflector is here and now for all practical purposes. Don't forget, much of the info contained within the QCWA Journal is on the order of 3 months old before it is received due to the  quarter cycle printing delay of the pub.
 
Best regards,
 
Val a.k.a. W5PUT


--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Jeffrey Angus <jangus at socal.rr.com> wrote:

From: Jeffrey Angus <jangus at socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted
To: val.erwin at sbcglobal.net, "Discussion of QCWA or Ham Radio" <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 10:37 PM


----- Original Message -----
From: Val Erwin <val.erwin at sbcglobal.net>
To: QCWA at mailman.qth.net
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [QCWA] QCWA - 2008 Election Results - reformatted

> Hi Dave:
>  
> TNX for your detailed analysis on the recent vote. That is good info.
>  
> The mere appx. 30% return of ballots gives rise to other concerns:

According to this:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2006

On average it's in the mid 30's percentage during non-presidential
elections and mid 50's percentage wise during presidfential elections.

That we as a "nitche" group got 30% return on the ballots is fairly
consistent with the rest of the country on average.

> 1. The obvious...the expense of paper, printing, postage to deliver
>     unreturned ballots to the Members is truly QCWA money wasted.

It is not money wasted, it is the "overhead" cost of doing things
the way they should be done. (i.e not trying to decide who not to
mail a ballot to.)

> 2. Were the ballots not returned because:
>  
> a) Lost in the mail?
> b) Loss of  interest in the QCWA and/or ham radio?
> c) Reluctance to purchase return postage?
> d) Etc.?

As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good
intentions."
I would suspect that ballots just got put in the "I'll do this
later" pile and
forgotten about. 

> This failure to be proactive by many of our Members is also evident right
here!
> ........That's right, Prez-elect Bob and Webmaster only has on the
order of 300
> Members that are signed up on the QCWA Reflector. As a result, those non-
> Reflector Members don't have a clue as to what is going on! 

I beg to differ, we ALL get the QCWA Journal. That is where ALL the stuff we
should know about is published. The Reflector is an accessory if you will, and

should NEVER be thought of as a "primary" source of QCWA
information.

> It gets worse!.......Since I set up so many QCWA tables at area hamfests,
one 
>f the frequent questions that I ask are: "How did you like that recent
article in
> the QCWA Journal about XYZ, etc.?"............The reply is frequently
a blank
> stare and a  "huh?", which means to me:
>  
> 1. They are not a current Member of natl' and do not get the Journal.
>  
> or
>  
> 2. They are one of those Members that do not even crack the cover on
>     the Journal! 

See above about ballots. "I suspect that pepole receive thier copy of
the Journal, may flip through it breifly then seet it aside to read later.
Except later gets put off and never happens. 

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi