Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SEAOSC Board Inquiry from Warren

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Fred made one comment that I felt was very important:
"The Internet will help immensely- if we learn how to use it wisely."
I also agree that the Internet does not eliminate the need to over-the-table
discussions, however, it is a great tool for preparation and intermediate
work between meetings.
The big question:
Fred, how about starting the ball rolling with some constructive idea's that
can be accumulated for the CAC (computer Applications Committee) to help
with? We have discussed this many time, but what we lack are constructive
rhetoric and examples to integrate the Internet tools into productive
national committee work.
Second, how can we get it to work if some of those talented national figures
are not computer literate?
Third, how do we provide sufficient incentive to assure that all information
regarding the work of the committee's is available to every engineer that
wishes to participate?
Fourth, considering the goal of the national committee is intended to
benefit the global engineering community, should those wishing to
participate be required to be members of a professional organization? I do
not feel that membership in SEA or NCSEA (or ASCE, CELSOC and others) need
be required of those wishing to shape the development of code. Although I'm
sure it was for different reasons, I do not remember representatives of
local building departments being members of SEAOSC to work on the URM codes.
I think that this is detrimental since it eliminates created minds who are
not affiliated from participating.

How about starting the ball rolling - I might just reconsider my SEAOC
renewal if we start becoming productive!
Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From:	FredT5(--nospam--at) [mailto:FredT5(--nospam--at)]
Sent:	Wednesday, June 03, 1998 11:04 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)
Subject:	SEAOSC Board Inquiry from Warren

Bill Warren asked: "Is this a proposal to centralize the four existing
operations of the FOUR members of SEAOC, which are SEAONC, SEAOSD, SEAOCC
SEAOSC. I am interested in membership opinion. "

We can have more effective organizations in several ways if you all want
Issues at the state level demand a stronger, more coordinated level of
activity than SEAOC currently supports.

As SEAOSC repeatedly demonstrates, much is accomplished working with local
governments and engineers at the regional level. But we shouldn't have to
compromise our regional capabilities by the demands at the state and

In a similar vein, while SEAOC accomplishes remarkable feats at the national
levels, our clout has clearly been diminished recently. SEAOC needs to
with the times. To be effective in the national arena, engineers should
more organized and increase participation under different umbrellas such as
BSSC, NMMC, ASCE/SEI, NCSEA, ICC, and the narrower venues ACI, AISC, MSJC,
NDS.  (I'm not sure I've got all the alphabets in the soup.) It takes
resources - time and money - to participate in a coordinated fashion in
groups. There are currently many outspoken, influential California engineers
participating at the national level. One key thing we need is better
coordination and communication between these individuals and local and state
concerns. The internet will help immensely- if we learn how to use it

With the July SEWC world conference in San Francisco, we may find it
increasingly relevant to have delegates participate at the worldwide level
structural engineering issues.

In all these arenas, there's no equal substitute for direct personal contact
in meetings and by phone.

So it comes down to two choices for future direction: We can isolate
or expand our spheres of influence. Expansion is our only practical choice
we want to have a say in most future policies. That'll probably mean higher

I don't understand the isolationist rumblings in the South. What gives? Fred