Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Rick, with all due respect - I believe that you and a few others (especially
some of those who participate on this list) are seriously concerned with the
opinions of the members. Unfortunately, from my experience, this is not the
case for the majority of board members representing each chapter and the
state. In this case, I believe the mindset is that if you don't actively
participate in the committee process you have no opinion worth listening to.
I also believe that constructive-criticism is ignored rather than given any
real consideration. Probably due to time constraints to resolve issues, but
publishing a bad code is worse than being late with a good one.  In very
rare cases do we receive responses to email or letters - publicly or private
acknowledging receipt of our comments or offering any information as to
whether the ideas we post provide any new thought to the various problems in
committees.  My opinion of the comments in the SEAOC Review was that it was
a politically correct response to the negative opinions raised on this list
and probably spreading through the professional community. Therefore, I am
not impressed with creating another committee to review the productivity of
other committee's or of the State's progress. Rather than creating a
committee, simply publish the advancements made by SEAOC on a monthly basis
and post them to the list - let the members decide if the State is
productive or not.
I am not a proponent of a State office because I feel that if the Chapters
were to voice a common opinion to the rest of the profession it would need
to be one filled with so many compromises that the solution would be
inadequate at best.  On various topics, I know that there were strong
differences of opinions between methodologies from Northern and Central
chapters. However, when time came to place a common vote on the floor of
ICBO one of two things occurred. The descending chapter lost their opinion
by the vote of the majority board member or a compromise was reached that is
too watered down to be effective.  I would rather have four strong opinions
than one ineffective one.
Personally, I am only sorry that I did not appreciate your more when you
held office in SEAOSC. I would have had more respect for the president of
SEAOSC had I read the same off-the-cuff concern for the engineering
community as a whole than one voiced as a politician. This is where the List
comes in very handy since most of us can compiles the complete postings of
any one individual and learn a lot about that individual's personality.
Granted this is not a perfect approach, but it is a much better gauge than
reading about the individuals accomplishments in a journal.  I do admire
James Lai (James don't read this) for his participation and show of support
for the List and the Web.
Please understand that I won't support a member running for board position
simply because he participate on the list. I want to know something about
the issues that concern me and if we are like mind. This takes precedent to
getting online. However, being online allows us to find this out - whether
by asking directly or by reviewing the historic responses of those running.
What it boils down to is that I feel the core of representation, that I have
some faith in, lies in Southern California Chapter. Even this is not near
perfect, since I am not satisfied with how information flows from
committee's to the general membership. However, there is a substantial
improvement over past years. I feel that a lot of our slow progress is due
to the over-caution of those outside Southern Chapter. My personal
experiences lead me to believe that I don't need to pay additional dues just
to have state unity.

Dennis S. Wish PE


-----Original Message-----
From:	raranous(--nospam--at)pacbell.net [mailto:raranous(--nospam--at)pacbell.net]
Sent:	Tuesday, June 02, 1998 4:28 PM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC

Bill,

You are being somewhat unfair in your response.  However, in the same sense
you
are right in your response.  To me, as a SEAOC delegate representing SEAOSC,
I
am interested in what the membership thinks.  I can also assure you that the
rest of the SEAOSC delegates and SEAOSC also care what the members think.
So
please present your views.

Bill Allen, S.E. wrote:

> Does it REALLY matter what the SEAOC membership thinks? Up to now, the
> organization has demonstrated that it is not interested in the opinions of
> its membership by discussing this (and other) issues within a small
circle,
> making a decision and then announcing the results of that decision with
very
> little input by the general membership.
>
> I understand the need and/or desire to create a stronger (state and
> national) voice but I am also concerned that we as members will become an
> even more distant entity.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williston Warren IV [mailto:billw4(--nospam--at)pbs1.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 4:19 PM
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
>
> As a member of the SEAOSC Board of DIrectors I read the May 1998 SEAOC
Plan
> Review article by the SEAOC President with some startle.  On page 3 of the
> May plan review our SEAOC President noted:
>
>      "The Board unanimously passed a motion ot establish a committee to
> explore options and study the governance and adminstration of SEAOC.
> .....    Included in their review will be the question of whether SEAOC
> should continue as a federation of autonomous member organizations."
>
> Is this a proposal to centralize the four existing operations of the FOUR
> members of SEAOC, which are SEAONC, SEAOSD, SEAOCC and SEAOSC. It is my
> reading of the SEAOSC Association By-Laws states that members are members
> of SEAOSC and that SEAOSC contributes a portion of each members dues fee
to
> SEAOC for state expense, resulting in that the SEAOSC does not pay SEAOC
> dues, just SEAOSC dues.
>
> I am interested in membership opinion.  The beginning of the month means
> the four member Board of Directors meeting and if you have an opinion,
> comment or experience, please post it to the list server.
>
> Does the centralization of the existing four associations in the State
> Office or the continuation of the four organizations as the members to
> SEAOC.
>
>         Bill Warren, S.E.
>         Newport Beach, CA.
>
>