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]
Thanks Bill,
Possibly 'blasphemous' was a bit strong (and then again was my temper at the
time).  Your last question asks how contributions are currently made and I
can only answer not in keeping with current needs. We never restricted
committee work to members only, but then again, few non-members participated
who were not employee's of both local building departments and manufacturers
with special interests.
The IBC proposes to create an internationally accepted code - not one, which
is restricted to region or by acceptance of one publication over another.
What benefit is there to the development of international codes that do not,
at the start, consider the opinions and work of other organizations?
Bill Cain stated "We should be offering up our ideas and working toward
a synergistic solution. I will agree that this process is neither
comfortable or rapid.  But the fact is that it produces better decisions."
I feel that this is both well stated and appropriate at any level. However,
to accomplish this requires international input in the development process.
I believe it is best to do this at the onset than try to redesign an
existing complicated model.

Bill Cain also stated " I was disturbed when the SEAOC Executive Director
commented that he didn't feel putting the minutes of Board meetings on the
webpage was particularly timely or helpful to the
membership as that couldn't be done until they are official and that would
take THIRTY DAYS until the next meeting."
This discussion has been had over and over again, but the SEAOC Executive
Director Alan Goldstein has, despite the great publicity he received in the
last SEAOC Plan review, proven to be as shortsighted and unimaginative as he
has in the past. He is neither an engineer, nor computer literate, however,
he should understand that there is no need to waste time or money
distributing minutes by fax or conventional mail. We live in an age where
the speed of information retrieval is important to accomplish one goal and
immediately approach the next. Minutes approval should occur within days not
weeks.

Ron Hamburger's comments, as aptly pointed out by Bill Cain, represent an
individual out of touch with the current financial state of his professional
organization. I certainly would not be in favor of paying more fees' to
support Hamburgers jetting from one city or country to another.

Mel Slaysman stated; "I don't know if Bill Allen meant his comments to be,
but I took them to be very patronizing, as if comments or input from "non
members"  is somehow of less value than
comments by "members".  His comments of the membership being non restricted
and the "especially since the organization started letting CEs to vote", I
feel, is an example of this."
I agree with Mel, since Bill's Comment about CE members is as callus as they
come. It has been my understanding that Bill and I finally agreed upon a
possible solution to the CE & SE problem, but that the issue was not
actually with CE's who could prove competency in the field of structural
engineering. I sincerely doubt that those engineers, who Mr. Allen has a
problem with, are members of SEA. Therefore, his comments are meant to
incite rather than be constructive. The SEAOC membership is very closely
split between members SE and members CE. I don't think that there is any
greater percentage (within say 10%) of one or the other representing the
volunteers that sit on SEAOC committees and develop our methodologies and
codes.

My only strong opinion is that as SEAOC moves to form a strong state office
at the expense of the local representation, or the vote of the membership,
they risk the financial support that originate with member dues. I don't
think SEAOC is that financially strong to challenge it's membership.

Dennis S. Wish PE


-----Original Message-----
From:	Bill Allen, S.E. [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)allendesigns.com]
Sent:	Friday, June 05, 1998 10:14 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC

To clarify, I am not suggesting replacing or redesigning the content or
purpose of this listserv. I am merely suggesting a method by which SEAOC
business can be conducted more effectively (in addition to not in replace of
the existing listserv). Certainly I am not suggesting "closing any doors".
In fact, I would like to open them. As I have stated previously, committee
meetings are not being posted to the SEAOC website so only a few members are
aware of the committee developments. Rick Ranous stated that meeting minutes
are not reviewed and approved until the next meeting but, if they were kept
in electronic form, they would be available immediately. Certainly, issues
pertaining to the general structural engineering profession should remain
open and available to as many participants as possible. Further, how many
times have I been "flamed" for bringing up non-techno topics suggesting that
I should present these topics in another forum?

I believe 'blasphemous' (look it up) is a little strong when you state: "It
seems blasphemous to think that only regional or local SEA members should be
allowed to contribute to the creation of codes and methodologies that are
used by the entire profession.  Contribution need not have affiliations
attached to the to be considered." How are the contributions made now?

Regards,
Bill Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis S. Wish [mailto:wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 9:46 AM
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject: RE: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC


Bills opinions are his own. As one of the originators of this list (past
chairman and member of the SEAOSC Computer Applications Committee and a
member of SEAOC CAC) my opinions are not in agreement with Bill's.  Please
read the comments I made to Rick Raneous and Fred Turners posts entitled "
Re: SEAOSC Board Inquiry from Warren" and I think you will understand where
I, for one, anticipated the direction of the list and web to take.
I strongly believe that SEA overshadows this List and need only be given
merit for the creation of these tools - not as a proponent for any political
or regional platform. This is disturbing to me since the creation of this
list was intended to be a "gift" with no strings attached, to the entire
engineering community. It was further intended to promote and create a unity
among globally located engineers.
If SEA (any chapter, state or national level) wishes to use these tools for
their work, they may do so and private lists can be accommodated. However, I
personally feel that if the work is related to IBC issues, the opinions of
any list participant is equally important. It seems blasphemous to think
that only regional or local SEA members should be allowed to contribute to
the creation of codes and methodologies that are used by the entire
profession.  Contribution need not have affiliations attached to the to be
considered.
I also believe that it is detrimental to the future of this list if any one
participant believes that he or she is simply a guest. This may be the
reason why we have so few new discussions or comments from outside the
California area. The list is a virtual device, not a physical asset. There
are no guests or residents, only those who use it to communicate. There are
no restrictions to it's use (other than the normal moral and ethical
issues).
At the very least, if the issue of affiliation is important, this list
should be used by individuals with other affiliations to help unite a very
fragmented professional community.
Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From:	MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:MJSLAYSMAN(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent:	Friday, June 05, 1998 8:11 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
Subject:	Re: Changes to SEAOC and SEAOSC, SEAONC, SEAOSD and SEAOCC

I would like to thank Pat Nickel for his support on non members'
contributions
to the server.  I welcome this forum for its exchange of ideas technical,
political and ethical.  I would  respectfully ask if there is private
bussiness within SEAoC to be conducted by board members and not to be
public.
Why don't the board members conduct it privately.  I for one generally do
not
comment on internal politics or policies, these sould be set by the
administration under the guidelines set by the membership.  I don't know if
Bill Allen meant his comments to be, but I took them to be very patronizing,
as if comments or input from "non members"  is somehow of less value than
comments by "members".  His comments of the membership being non resitricted
and the "espicially since the organization started letting CEs to vote", I
feel, is an example of this.  I realize that as non members of SEAoC we are
invited guests, however, invited guests should be treated with respect and
they may even have something of value to contribute.    Roger Turk, I know
has
been very active in SEAoA at Chapter, State and Committee levels.  I have
served on the Board of Directors of SEAoA, been a past president of SEAoA ,
and served on several committes.   Judging from what I have seen of some of
the people that visit and comment on this server Roger and I are far from
unique.  With this all said maybe the best thing is to take Bill up on his
invitation to join SEAoC.  Bill, as a registered SE in Ca. what would my
status be?

Respectfully and thank you for letting me vent.

Mel Slaysman