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]
Bill,

Thanks for the input.  It is listened to and it is seriously considered.  When
issues such as this question posed by Bill Warren come up, Don Gilbert provides
the board members with hard copies of the responses.

Tonight we did discuss this issue for quite some time.  It is difficult to take
a pro or con position until such a time as we know what is actually being
proposed.  Some of the concerns which have been expressed relate to how it is
preceived we are viewed by the national assoications and the ICC.  There is
concern that because SEAOC is composed of four, strong, local sections that we
may be viewed as fragmented.  Personally I don't believe that is the case.

SEAOC is centralized in that we speak with one voice within the State and
nationally.  Yet locally we can also speak with a strong voice because we have
active committees who work closely with our building departments on a variety of
code issues.  SEAOC and its four member organizations are strong because of our
members and the volunteer hours they put it to improve conditions (codes,
construction, practice, ethics, etc.) in the profession.  Again, personally, I
am afraid that if the emphasis on the local sections is diminished we will also
loose a part of that volunteerism which makes us strong and great.  I am also
afraid that regional issues might get lost in our effort to improve things
nationally.

Ron Hamburger's message certainly outlined all the things that SEAOC stands for.
But again, those items begin at home and need to be generated up to the State
level then presented nationally, not the other way around.

As I see it SEAOC has three priorities within which there are sub-priorities.
These priorities are addressed within the SEAOC strategic plan.  To repeat, our
main priorities are:  1) Our membership; 2) the State of California; and 3)
National.  All three of these priorities must be worked on simultaneously, not
one at a time.  Our membership is best served with a strong local section.  Our
duties to the State of California encompass regional as well as statewide
issues.  These are best served by a strong local section.

Over the coming months it will be interesting to see what recommendations this
ad hoc committee comes up with.  I would sincerely hope that any interim reports
will be placed on the web page for us all to review and comment on.  We all have
a responsibility to express our views on this topic as SEAOC and the local
sections belong to us.  The leadership also has the responsibility to listen to
the membership and seriously consider their views.

Shaffat will see your message and will bring to the board the possibility of an
additional server.  I would like to hear from those individuals outside
California as to their perceptions of SEAOC.  Has it been your experience that
we come across fragmented, or do we truly speak with a single voice?

Again, thank you Bill for your comments.  I certainly hope other members respond
in a similar manner pro or con.  We need to hear how you feel.

Rick Ranous
SEAOSC Past-President

Bill Allen, S.E. wrote:

> My "plan"/proposal is to setup a separate listserv to conduct SEAOC
> business. If you are a member of SEAOC, then you would be elgible to
> participate. I do not envision deleting the current listserv. As a matter of
> fact, I would assume there are a lot of participants who would welcome (and
> have suggested) taking non-technical issues off of this forum.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Dombrowski [mailto:peterd(--nospam--at)tgaa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 8:03 AM
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
> Subject: Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC
>
> Bill,I'm a young engineer, working in chicago.
> I have a good 4 yrs. before I'm even eligible to
> take an exam.  This list serve is great for me for
> several reasons.
>
> 1. It costs nothing
> 2. Exposes me to topics I don't find in textbook examples
> 3. Allows me to interact from several states away
> 4. Doesn't force me as an SEAOI member to also be a SEAOC member.
>     (Although SEAOI could do the same.)
> 5. Promotes communication amoung Engineers
>
> If you put into action a plan that would restrict any of the above
> I would have no interest in the list serve what-so-ever...
>
> I imagine many others would agree
>
> -Pete D. E.I.T.
>
>