Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: SEAOC $10 dues increase objection

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
With regards to Frank Lew's comments about all of the rambling, lack of
concensus, etc., first I believe that there may be a consensus on two
issues: The proposed $10 dues increase should have been put to a vote by
the membership at minimum or the state office should either be closed or
funds to replace the SAC money should be sought at maximum and that seaoc
committee work should be expanded to include cyberspace.

It is true that the topics discussed here on the listserv might at times
might appear to be just a lot of rambling. However, I believe this is due
to lack of structure if there is a desire to transform all of this energy
to something productive. We could easily add elements similar to:

1. Propose a topic/goal
2. Establish a defined discussion period
3. Vote on items
4. Take appropriate action depending on the vote and goal.

SEAOC could set up a separate listserv with a password for SEAOC members
only (I believe anyone can be a SEAOC member of one flavor or another) a la
Intranet so that there could be some accountabilility by those who monitor
and participate.

SEAOC could (and should) require elected officers, directors and committee
chairs to have a computer with at least a 28.8k (can you still buy a 28.8k
modem?) modem, have them participate and otherwise be available to relevant
topics on the listserv. This is not (or should not be) an "Old Dog/New
Trick" issue.

While I share (somewhat) Roger Turk's concerns about mandatory
participation in order to get discounts on services, maybe an approach
should be for SEAOC to assign members to committees or other activies as a
requisite for membership. Sure, some will participate more than others, but
that condition exists today. At this point I have to ask why do people join
SEAOC and not do anything? The items sent out to the mailing list has been
disappointing lately.

Finally, for those who participate via cyberspace instead of "in the
flesh", I might propose that a separate organization be formed to take
advantage of this energy in the manner the particpants prefer. We could
either solicit our energies to other organizations (ASCE, CASE, NCSEA, et.
al) who may be interested in our contributions or make it a stand alone
organization so that we are not subject to the whims of the "Old Dogs". I
believe if we took our energies (as well as our dues) to this goal we could
accomplish a great deal without the leg irons of an organization seemingly
unwilling to move forward or to be responsive to its membership.

Bill Allen