Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thank you for your comments.  I find that I can't disagree with you in relation
to the responsiveness of the organization.  The only thing that keeps us from
posting committee minutes of meetings on the web is the committees themselves.
They need to submit those minutes to Don Gilbert so they can be posted.

As for Board Meeting minutes I would like to see those posted as well.  One of
the difficulties is that the minutes are not official until they have been
approved by the board.  Typically, this happens at the next board meeting.  To
post them at that point makes them 30 days old.  However, we are now reviewing
minutes by e-mail.  As soon as Don can complete them, they are e-mailed to the
board for review and comment.  If we can develop a way in which to approve the
minutes by e-mail, it would be more likely that they could be posted to the web
in a more timely fashion.

I think you can look forward to good things happening in the next year.  Jim Lai
is a strong supporter of the membership and wants to continue the improvments
made in the last year.  Manuel Morden has done a tremendous job under some
trying conditions to keep SEAOSC moving forward.  I believe he has succeeded!
Responsiveness will improve.  As Ron Hamburger said in his message, technology
and business interests march on.  It is because of these advances that the
leadership will be able to be more responsive.

Please, keep letting your leadership know how you feel.  We may not always
respond, but we do listen and consider.

Rick Ranous

Dennis S. Wish wrote:

> 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) [mailto:raranous(--nospam--at)]
> Sent:   Tuesday, June 02, 1998 4:28 PM
> To:     seaoc(--nospam--at)
> 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)]
> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 4:19 PM
> > To: seaoc(--nospam--at)
> > 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.
> >
> >