[QCWA Hotlist] Changes taking place in QCWA

[Ken Simpson, W8EK]

Hi Dale,

Thanks for your comments.

Apparently neither Ken Oelke nor myself have been able to get the 
important point across.  That is that the paper Journal would cease to 
exist regardless of what we did.  It would either stop because the the 
organization went bankrupt and had to be shut down, or it would stop 
but we would continue with 12 digital issues as we have.  Again, I ask 
you -- which would you prefer?

Others have the same opinion of the CQ publications special format as 
you do.  We plan to use pdf, which should be much better.

I am getting dozens of private e-mails from people offering to help. 
Most chapters will make certain their members will get the Journal. 
Many have 100% of their members with e-mail, so there is no problem. 
Others have volunteered to print copies and mail to members who do not 
belong to a chapter.  The QCWA members have stepped up to help, as we 
knew they would.

To sum up, yes, we did think about things, and basically, all of this 
is happening just as we expected it would.

Thanks for your concerns.

73,

Ken, W8EK

Ken Simpson, W8EK
QCWA Director and Executive Administrator
E-Mail to ExecAdmin at qcwa.org
QCWA Phone (352) 425-1097



Dale Svetanoff wrote, On 11/17/2012 1:13 PM:
> Ken,
>
> My thanks to you, and the many others, for the replies.  It appears that
> President Oelke has pretty much summed up the situation with his recent
> posting.
>
> I just want to briefly address two issues: the "requirement" for computer
> access and e-mail, and my use of digital publications.
>
> Yes, only the IEEE, of which I have been a member since 1987, pretty much
> requires all members to have computer and e-mail access in order to fully
> participate in all aspects of membership.  Believe it or not, some
> publications can still be had in hard copy print versions, but most are
> digital.  If you think about it, the dynamic of IEEE is such that the
> membership is comprised of electrical/electronic industry professionals
> and/or students.  Use of computers and e-mail has been a way of life for
> these folks for  upwards of 20 years or so.  I have been on-line since
> 1996, a somewhat "late bloomer".
>
> I also belong to ARRL and several specialty antique radio clubs, the
> Central States VHF Society, as well as the Board of Trustees at the church
> I attend, and  NONE require computer use and e-mail, but all do make use of
> e-mail for news and information distribution.  Note that ARRL does provide
> printed copies of its BoD meetings upon request to ARRL HQ.  I will be
> watching closely to see what happens when/if the League tries to go "all
> digital" with "QST" distribution.  For now, I take the hard copy, but I am
> subscribed to several ARRL e-mail services.
>
> Finally, I actually do have several all-digital magazine subscriptions.
> Some of those are electronic trade journals, but I do get "Monitoring Times
> Express" and "Worldradio On-Line".  A word of caution as regards
> publications from CQ: they use a commercial digital subscription vendor,
> Zinio, to distribute the digital version of "CQ Magazine" and "Worldradio
> On-Line", and its a PITA  Zinio uses Adobe AIR and a proprietary reader,
> making the situation enough of a hassle that I will not be renewing my
> "WRO" sub, nor will I change my print version of "CQ" to digital.  All
> other digital subs use .PDF files with no problems.
>
> I have previously stated my thoughts about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of
> forcing members of QCWA to go digital, so I won't repeat those here.  I did
> want you to know that QCWA is now only the second organization of which I
> am a member to essentially require computer access and e-mail.  I agree
> that eventually, most (or even all) national and international
> organizations will go into the all-digital age, but my disappointment is
> that QCWA has essentially (and abruptly) thrown several members "under the
> bus" and into the pile of "collateral" damage because no uniform
> alternative has been provided.  I am sure that many chapters, including
> 123, will make some arrangements to help these folks with local hard copy,
> but I strongly suspect that such efforts will vary widely across the
> organization.
>
> 73,
>
> Dale Svetanoff, WA9ENA
> VP, Ch 123, and former Director Ch 2
> Member #23,985
>
>>  [Original Message]
>>  From: Ken Simpson, W8EK<W8EK at flham.net>
>>  To:<svetanoff at earthlink.net>
>>  Cc: Dick Newsome<w0hxl at cox.net>;<qcwahotlist at mailman.qth.net>
>>  Date: 11/11/2012 9:02:59
>>  Subject: Re: [QCWA Hotlist] Changes taking place in QCWA
>>
>>
>>  Hello Dale, and others,
>>
>>  I am going to specifically answer Dale's questions, but I think the
>>  answers apply to others as well.
>>
>>  Jim LaPorta already has provided concrete answers as to numbers.  I
>>  will use our local chapter as an example to answer as well.  We have
>>  only one member on our roster who does not have e-mail access.  We
>>  think that she is a silent key, but we have not been able to find an
>>  obit notice anyplace.  She is a life member, and since we can not
>>  prove she is a SK, we keep her on the list, even though we have used
>>  all reasonable means to determine her status.  She is the ONLY one who
>>  we do not have an e-mail address for.
>>
>>  Looking at another chapter of which I am also a member, I find that it
>>  also has only one member without an e-mail address.  This is one out
>>  of 98 -- close to the 1% that I quoted earlier.  So the actual numbers
>>  correspond to what I am seeing by attending the various chapter
>>  meetings and hamfests.
>>
>>  You asked if the board of directors considered the people without
>>  e-mail.  YES, we did.  But it appears as if I have not been able to
>>  explain the choices that the board had.  Any choice that we made would
>>  mean that the paper Journal would go away.  Very simply, we either
>>  made these tough decisions, or we go bankrupt.  Either way there would
>>  be no more paper Journal.  So I ask you an important question -- would
>>  you rather have no Journal at all (and no QCWA organization at all),
>>  or would you rather have 12 digital issues of the Journal per year.  I
>>  think the choice is very obvious.  At least I hope it is!
>>
>>  Since I have presented this information on the reflector, I have
>>  received dozens of private replies.  ALL are very positive, with most
>>  offering to help in various ways.  Some have even offered to call
>>  members on the phone in order to obtain e-mail addresses.  People are
>>  willing to step up and help.  And we really appreciate that.
>>
>>  I hesitate to make the following comment, but I think it needs to be
>>  done.  At the present time, we finally have a board of directors and
>>  officers who are willing do actually do some work.  The Directors are
>>  very active, working many hours per week to help QCWA.  Personally, I
>>  wish that it was only a 40 hour work week, but it is much more than
>>  that.  Others are doing the same. And remember that these are all
>>  volunteers. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in the
>>  past.  Basically, the Directors viewed it as an honorary position, and
>>  did little other than "rubber stamp".  Fortunately that has changed.
>>
>>  As an example of this, when I was first elected to the board, I
>>  started asking about the finances.  I was politely told that it was
>>  none of my business, and that the General Manger would take care of
>>  that, and basically to let things along.  I was not willing to accept
>>  that, but it took years before I could get a concrete answer.
>>
>>  BTW, you state that you only belong to one other organization that is
>>  "going digital" with their publication.  I am assuming that you do not
>>  belong to too many organizations that have a publication.  Again, in
>>  attending the various chapter meetings and hamfests, I am being told
>>  that QCWA is doing the same things as ALL of the other organizations
>>  to which our members belong.
>>
>>  Again, let me remind you that the paper Journal would cease to exist
>>  regardless of what the board did.  The board made decisions to keep
>>  the organization alive.
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>  73,
>>
>>  Ken, W8EK
>>
>>
>>  Dale Svetanoff wrote, On 11/11/2012 12:14 AM:
>>  >  Dick,
>>  >
>>  >  Good to hear from you.  It's been awhile since the last time we had an
>>  >  eyeball QSO, back in one of the Sioux City Hamborees, as I recall.
>>  >
>>  >  I have certainly received some detailed and thoughtful replies to my
>>  >  original message, attached by you, Dick, below.  In particular, I want
> to
>>  >  thank you, WA9JMO, W4VIC, W8EK, and K1ER for their comments.  Since all
> are
>>  >  on the hot list reflector, I am actually addressing the following
> comments
>>  >  to all of you.  I apologize for the late reply today, but this was a
> nice
>>  >  warm (nearly 70 degree day) here in eastern Iowa, and I put in a fair
>>  >  amount of late fall yard work time today, following the Ch 123 weekly
> net
>>  >  this morning, of course!
>>  >
>>  >  First, as an outsider looking in at the BoD's actions, I perceive a lot
> of
>>  >  hand wringing and head scratching thought evolving into a short-sighted,
>>  >  knee-jerk reaction that just happened to be right for most of the QCWA
>>  >  membership.  The fact that it effectively eliminated some percentage of
> the
>>  >  membership from following the activities of the organization seems to
> not
>>  >  have been given a second thought.  My questions: A) Did the BoD actually
>>  >  evaluate the membership roster so as to KNOW what percentage (or what
>>  >  actual numbers) of current paid-up and Lifetime Members do not have
> e-mail
>>  >  capability prior to making the final "Journal" decision?  B) If not, why
>>  >  not?
>>  >
>>  >  Someone has mentioned shifting the responsibility for printed "Journal"
>>  >  copies to the chapters.  Well, let it be known that at least 2 offers
> to do
>>  >  that have come forth in recent weeks within Ch 123.  But ... then
> again: On
>>  >  this morning's net, one of our long-time members, who is without
> computer
>>  >  or e-mail, knew about the offers to send out printed copies to those
>>  >  without e-mail access.  He made the on-air comment, TODAY, that he
> regards
>>  >  the HQ situation as "garbage" (his word, not mine) and that he wants no
>>  >  part of copies made within the chapter.  His dues expire sometime in
> 2013,
>>  >  and he intends to not renew.  I have no idea how many other of our
>>  >  chapter's members feel in a similar manner, but I think the BoD should
> know
>>  >  that not all is warm milk and cookies with the membership.
>>  >
>>  >  I belong to several professional and hobby-related organizations.  Only
> one
>>  >  (1) organization to which I belong has made the insistence that all
> members
>>  >  have computer access and e-mail capability; that organization is the
> IEEE,
>>  >  the world's largest engineering society.  Now, QCWA becomes the second
> such
>>  >  organization, and I think it would behoove the organization to make it
>>  >  clear on the web site and on the membership application that computer
>>  >  access and e-mail are required for active membership participation.
>>  >
>>  >  One reply to me mentioned those who "take away" but do not contribute
> to an
>>  >  organization.  Yep, I belong to a few of those.  In business, it's
> called
>>  >  the 20/80 rule: Twenty percent of the people in an organization do 80%
> of
>>  >  the work.  That situation is very prevalent in many radio clubs, for
>>  >  example, in which the geezers (like me) have done too much for too long
> and
>>  >  now want the "young blood" to start doing their part.  Great idea, good
>>  >  luck getting anywhere.  The doers (whether they are geezers or not) will
>>  >  still be the doers.  In the case of QCWA, I think it is legit for
> members
>>  >  who are 75+ in age to "take a break" and let the other guys do something
>>  >  (I'm 65).  That same situation should also apply to the physically
> and/or
>>  >  mentally handicapped, those who are shut-ins due to health issues, and
>>  >  those who just don't want to mess with newfangled gadgets.  Why do you
> bug
>>  >  them?  Trust me when I say that you are doing them no favors, and they
>>  >  won't be thinking kindly of the BoD, either.
>>  >
>>  >  There is little time to waste before many members end up closed out from
>>  >  QCWA news and happenings.  I'd like to suggest the following actions:
>>  >
>>  >  1.  Take an actual count, using the existing records, of just how many
>>  >  members do not have e-mail.  Let's not guess - let's go on facts.  Maybe
>>  >  the situation in Ch 123, with 33% having no e-mail, is extreme.  I don't
>>  >  know.  Please, somebody run real numbers.
>>  >
>>  >  2.  If the actual numbers are small, as in maybe 100 to 200 or so, then
> I
>>  >  would be fine with working out some arrangement with the local chapters
>>  >  providing hard copy to the disenfranchised.  However, that will get
> pricey
>>  >  for those chapters over time.  If personal ink jet printers are used,
> the
>>  >  cost per document copy will easily exceed $2.50 per each, if color is
> used.
>>  >  If some volunteers have laser jet printers, the cost is a lot less, but
> the
>>  >  copies will be monochrome.
>>  >
>>  >  3.  If the actual numbers are large, say 500 or more, then I think it
> falls
>>  >  upon the BoD to come up with an equitable solution.  I, for one, do not
>>  >  accept "no other way" as a reason.  It's an excuse, but not a reason.
> To
>>  >  take the mainline means of member communication and throw it out the
> window
>>  >  for people who are otherwise members in good standing is inexcusable
>>  >  -period!
>>  >
>>  >  To recap, I believe that the BoD owes the membership a review as to the
>>  >  actual extent, in numbers, of the "Journal" problem.  I then believe
> that
>>  >  some sort of solution can (and should) be reached that precludes cutting
>>  >  off members without "modern" upgrades.  (Please, think about those with
>>  >  disabilities and/or living on fixed income and/or living in an
> institution
>>  >  of one sort or another.)  You can employ all kinds of "must have the
> right
>>  >  gadgets" thinking on new members and those renewing on an annual basis,
> but
>>  >  the life members and those who paid for multiple years had no such
>>  >  requirements set before them when they joined and/or paid.
>>  >
>>  >  I do not mean to be a source of pain and/or indigestion to the QCWA
>>  >  leadership and BoD.  However, if this morning's comments from one of our
>>  >  members is any indication of how some people feel, you could be in for
> much
>>  >  worse indigestion down the road.  In any event, it is, IMHO, imperative
>>  >  that some solution be reached by the end of December so that the good
> folks
>>  >  without electronic access can have some confidence that they will, in
> fact,
>>  >  have regular access to QCWA news and happenings, as they have had for
> all
>>  >  these years.  If the BoD fails to do that, then they have failed to be
> true
>>  >  leaders and innovators for ALL of the membership.
>>  >
>>  >  All 3 of the Ch 123 officers participated in this morning's net, and I
>>  >  might add that all 3 of us rotate as NCS.  As before, my comments are
> mine
>>  >  alone and do not necessarily represent the comments of other officers or
>>  >  members.  I do assure you that the "garbage" quote is actual and
> correct,
>>  >  however.
>>  >
>>  >  73,
>>  >  Dale Svetanoff, WA9ENA
>>  >  VP Ch 123&   Former Director Ch 2
>>  >  Member #23,985
>>  >  iNARTE Certified EMC Engineer
>>  >  E-N-A Systems, LLC
>>  >  Specializing in shielding applications, system grounding, and lightning
>>  >  protection
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>   [Original Message]
>>  >>   From: Dick Newsome<w0hxl at cox.net>
>>  >>   To:<svetanoff at earthlink.net>
>>  >>   Cc:<W8EK at flham.net>;<qcwahotlist at mailman.qth.net>
>>  >>   Date: 11/10/2012 3:37:32
>>  >>   Subject: Re: [QCWA Hotlist] Changes taking place in QCWA
>>  >>
>>  >>   Hi Dale,
>>  >>       Omaha Chapter 210 had a QCWA Director at our September meeting
> and he
>>  >>   gave us the bad news, "QCWA is Broke" .  They are running day to day
> to
>>  >  pay
>>  >>   the bills.  They cannot afford a manager or to print and mail the
>>  >  Journal.
>>  >>   These are the hard facts of the organization.  No one was minding the
>>  >  store
>>  >>   and managing the financials.   The Board of Directors have taken over
> the
>>  >>   task of running the organization and its business. Lets all help
> support
>>  >>   them to assure that QCWA survives as an organization.
>>  >>
>>  >>      Chapters with members who do not have computers or the skill's to
> use
>>  >  one
>>  >>   could print out the Journal for those members.  These are tough times
> and
>>  >>   will require some sacrifice on  everyone's part.   If everyone
> pitches in
>>  >  we
>>  >>   can get through these tough times and persevere. Please have patience
> and
>>  >>   lets support are Directors to make QCWA a strong and viable
> organization.
>>  >>
>>  >>             Dick Newsome  W0HXL
>>  >>              Secretary/Treasurer Omaha Chapter 210
>>  >>               w0hxl at cox.net
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>   ----- Original Message -----
>>  >>   From: "Dale Svetanoff"<svetanoff at earthlink.net>
>>  >>   To: "Ken Simpson, W8EK"<W8EK at flham.net>; "Qcwahotlist at Mailman.Qth.Net"
>>  >>   <qcwahotlist at mailman.qth.net>
>>  >>   Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:26 PM
>>  >>   Subject: Re: [QCWA Hotlist] Changes taking place in QCWA
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>   >   Ken,
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   Thank you for putting out this informative message.  Chapter 123,
> here
>>  >  in
>>  >>   >   Iowa, will have its weekly net tomorrow (Saturday) morning on 75m
> and
>>  >  this
>>  >>   >   provides a good update on what's happening.
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   I have a major concern over the "new" QCWA and its operating
> practices.
>>  >>   >   As
>>  >>   >   of now, it appears that about 33% of our Chapter 123 members will
> become
>>  >>   >   disenfranchised with the move to all-digital distribution of the
>>  >>   >   "Journal".
>>  >>   >   These are members who either do not have a computer (and don't want
>>  >  one)
>>  >>   >   or
>>  >>   >   who do not have access to a computer due to their physical
> situation or
>>  >>   >   other circumstances.  There was no stated requirement in the past
> that a
>>  >>   >   computer (or access to one) was necessary for QCWA membership.
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   Although I am VP of Chapter 123, I speak only my own opinion, not
> that
>>  >  of
>>  >>   >   the other officers or members.  Some of them may wish to post
> similar
>>  >>   >   comments, but with time running short between now and the end of
> the
>>  >  year,
>>  >>   >   I felt it necessary to bring this situation to your, and the BoD's
>>  >>   >   attention.  Was consideration given to loss of members due to
> inability
>>  >  to
>>  >>   >   receive the "Journal"?  If not, why not?  I suspect that 33%
> membership
>>  >>   >   loss is higher than many other chapters, but there might be
> chapters
>>  >  with
>>  >>   >   even worse potential losses.
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   I say this because here is the story as I see it:  The "Journal"
> is what
>>  >>   >   binds this group of senior hams together.  We do not have an
>>  >  all-inclusive
>>  >>   >   net, although many chapters, such as ours, do have local area or
>>  >  regional
>>  >>   >   nets.  Yes, there are certificates, QSL cards, and other goodies
> for the
>>  >>   >   members, but it is the "Journal" that brings the news to all.
> Given
>>  >  that
>>  >>   >   the "Journal" represents a major "medium" within the organization,
>>  >  what's
>>  >>   >   the plan for these folks without computers or access?  Are they to
> just
>>  >  be
>>  >>   >   dropped as victims of "tough times"?  Is there any intent to
> refund any
>>  >>   >   dues to these folks?  Again, if not, why not?
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   If these members represent "collateral damage" due to QCWA's
> financial
>>  >>   >   woes, then why was this situation not brought before the
> membership long
>>  >>   >   before the past few months?  Wiping out one-third of a chapter's
>>  >>   >   membership
>>  >>   >   by cutting them off from the organizational communication is not,
> IMHO,
>>  >  a
>>  >>   >   very smart thing to do.  Again, maybe we are the exception, but
> even if
>>  >  we
>>  >>   >   are, these members deserve better from an organization that, I am
> sure,
>>  >>   >   they felt as proudly about as I have over the years.  I think it's
> time
>>  >  to
>>  >>   >   put some consideration back on the table and work out an equitable
>>  >>   >   solution
>>  >>   >   so that non-digital members have some way to stay connected.  Lest
> you
>>  >>   >   think that well, it's just too bad, think about this: we have a
> very
>>  >>   >   valued, long-time member who is battling Alzheimer's.  He has no
>>  >  computer
>>  >>   >   and certainly can not "learn" to use one now, but he can read a
> hard
>>  >  copy.
>>  >>   >   I doubt that he is the only QCWAer with that problem.  How about
> doing
>>  >>   >   something for people like him?
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   My perspective is that the BoD has taken a young person's view of
> the
>>  >>   >   situation by going all-digital.  Well, that would be fine if our
>>  >>   >   membership
>>  >>   >   was primarily 50 or under.  While many "oldsters" and "seniors"
> have
>>  >>   >   embraced and use digital technology, not all have and I don't
> think it
>>  >  is
>>  >>   >   fair or reasonable to expect that members who are in their 60s and
>>  >  beyond
>>  >>   >   will necessarily hop to it and go with the new flow.  Many might,
> but
>>  >>   >   there
>>  >>   >   are likely to be many who can't, for whatever reason.
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >   73,
>>  >>   >   Dale Svetanoff, WA9ENA
>>  >>   >   VP Chapter 123&   former Director Chapter 2
>>  >>   >   Member #23,985
>>  >>   >
>>  >>   >>   [Original Message]
>>  >>   >>   From: Ken Simpson, W8EK<W8EK at flham.net>
>>  >>   >>   To: Qcwahotlist at Mailman.Qth.Net<qcwahotlist at mailman.qth.net>
>>  >>   >>   Date: 11/9/2012 12:41:38
>>  >>   >>   Subject: [QCWA Hotlist] Changes taking place in QCWA
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>   Many of you are aware of some of the changes that are taking
> place in
>>  >>   >>   QCWA, but some are not.  The following will appear on the QCWA web
>>  >>   >>   site in the next couple days, but I wanted to give the chapter
>>  >>   >>   officers a "heads up" on what is going on.  The same information
> will
>>  >>   >>   appear on the next issue of the Journal.
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>   Changes in QCWA
>>  >>   >>   By Ken Simpson, W8EK
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>   Remember that song from years ago, "The Times, They are a
> Changing"?
>>  >>   >>   For QCWA the times really are changing.  Many changes took place
> at
>>  >>   >>   the Board of Directors meeting in Reno on September 24.  The
> changes
>>  >>   >>   introduced then have now reached fruition, but more subtle
> changes are
>>  >>   >>   yet to come.
>>  >>   >>
>>  >>   >>   At the board meeting, your directors made some "Tough Decisions".
> We
>>  >>   >>   had no choice.  We either made these tough decisions, or we went
>>  >>   >>   bankrupt.  It was that simple.  Your board made the decision to
> make
>>  >>   >>   QCWA a viable entity going forward, and to financially move QCWA
> into
>>  >>   >>   the black in 2013.
>>  >>   >>