Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I was present at the Board Meeting as well, as part of the SEAONC 
delegation.  What Shafat reports below is basically correct (although 
he did not note that I also did not support the Straw Vote and in 
fact spoke against it even being taken - though not strongly enough 
in the view of the SEAOSC delegates).

I would like to take this opportunity to provide the subscribers of 
the list server, my own perspective on the issues.  So here goes-

A number of the SEAOC Directors believe that for the past year, the 
Board has essentially been dysfunctional, and unable to come to 
consensus on substantive issues.  This is largely a result of the 
voting rules, that apply at the Board level, and the fact that the
Directors from SEAOSC have as a block, frequently taken a position 
that is contrary to that of a majority of the directors from the 
other regional associations. The voting rules are such that when any 
delegataion, as a block, takes a contrary position, this blocks 
action.  In recent years it is SEAOSC that has been blocking certain 
actions, but in past times, other delegations have done this as well. 
I have been a board member, off and on for many years now, and I can 
tell you it is always frustrating.  When the vote to block actions 
follows on a number of issues, from the same delegation, it becomes 
extremely frustrating.

SEAOSC's delegates do not vote as a block on every issue.  They only 
do this, where the SEAOSC Board has taken a previous position.  In 
this case, the SEAOSC delegates vote as a block because they believe 
this is what they are requried by their ByLaws to do.  Unfortunately, 
this has happened a number of times over the past few years, and with 
increasing regulartiy, causing increasing discord on the Board.  It 
has occurred on a wide range of issues - from how the Convention 
Proceedings should be printed and distributed, to the annual budget, 
to the respnsibilities of the executive office.

Because all of the SEAOC Board members take their resonsibiltiy very 
seriously and dilligently try to do what they individually believe is 
best for the association, this has created extreme frustration as 
well as hard feelings on both sides.  It has also lead to extreme 
distrust on the part of various Board members.  None of this healthy.

The "Special Committee" was set up to try to find some way to resolve 
this issue, so that SEAOC could move forward.  What was not said, in 
Shafat's report below is that the Board meeting on Saturday was 
extremely productive, that there was reasoned and carefully 
considered conversation and a free interchange of ideas throughout 
the day.  Given this, it was unfortunate that John Price elected to 
use such a heavy handed and extreme strategy, especially given the 
cooperative nature of the meeting up until that time.

Please believe me that there is no real intent on anyone's part to 
remove SEAOSC from SEAOC, any more than there is an intent to remove 
either of the other member associations.  However, there is a clear 
need to allow the SEAOC Board to work more effectively and to move 
forward, with consensus, as appropriate.

Hopefully, we as an Association can move forward at this point, 
consider the real issues, and go about doing our business in a 
resonsible manner, representing the interests of Structural Engineers 
in all of California.

> Date:          Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:31:13 -0700
> To:            seaint(--nospam--at)
> From:          Shafat Qazi <seaint-ad(--nospam--at)>
> Subject:       Re: SEAOSC v. SEAOC
> Reply-to:      seaint(--nospam--at)

> Lynn:
> The rumor is true. Here is the story that I got from my sources.
> On the July 18 SEAOC board meeting, John Price (SEAOSD) stated that if
> SEAOSC does not approve the proposed bylaws change within 2-3 weeks; then
> he will have a Special Meeting of the Board called to meet in Sept. and
> will begin EXPULSION proceedings against SEAOSC! After the bylaws change is
> approved, then Price said that SEAOSC will be asked to rejoin SEAOC to
> continue from there.
> SEAOSC was threatened that this WILL occur if we don't do it Price's way.
> SEAOSC delegates to SEAOC board were outraged. Price then proceeded to take
> a straw vote poll as to who was for us and who was against us because he
> said he is going to canvas for our expulsion (I think he means lobby for).
> Anyway, ALL of SEAOSD was against us (Price, Libby & Stedman by proxy) and
> 2 of the 3 Central delegates were against us (Nickelson and LUTTRELL).
> SEAONC I believe found Price's actions/comments as a surprise. Buscovich
> had already left the meeting. Parquette stated he was against expulsion and
> Middlebrook seemed to have a open (balanced) mind.
> Mel Green (SEAOSC) was mad and said his "How dare you" speech to Price and
> that Price hasn't listened to anything that SEAOSC said all day. Which he
> hadn't.
> Manny Morden (SEAOSC) requested that his vote on the bylaws change be
> reversed but nobody was paying any attention to the details by this time.
> John Shipp (SEAOSC and President Elect for SEAOC) lamentingly asked Price
> why he said what he said. Answer was that Price is tired after Stedman's &
> Luttrell's terms of SEAOSC blocking all the advancement of the association.
> When asked as to HOW his comments going to make thing better, the answer:
> they just were!. 
> James Lai (SEAOSC) requested an apology (it fell on deaf ears) and argued
> with Price & Luttrell by stating that we only received the packet 2 days
> before our Board meeting and that James didn't feel compelled to call a
> special meeting because the request came from a cmte. chair and not the
> President. Price didn't like that at all. We mentioned that since this is
> such an important change, SEAOSC might want to put the issue out for a vote.
> I think the membership needs to jump on this one. Personally I think we
> have a few State Board members that are living in a closet. They need to
> come out and speak to the world. They just don't realize that SEAOSC is
> after all 42% of the total membership.
> That is my $0.10 worth.
> Shafat
> BTW, the funny thing is that SEAOSC does not have anything against the
> bylaw changes. We just need time to consider as to why we are being asked
> to amend the bylaw.
> At 7/20/98 02:15 PM, you wrote:
> >I find this impossible to believe. What is your source?  Someone is pulling
> >your chain here Bill.
> >
> >Lynn
> >
> >
> >
> >Bill Allen, S.E. wrote:
> >
> >> I've heard a rumor that there is a pending motion (threat?) to expel SEAOSC
> >> from the Structural Engineers Association of California.  As incredible as
> >> this may sound, I for one would like to hear an explanation of this and to
> >> confirm/deny if this rumor is true.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bill Allen
> >
> >
> >
> > 
Ronald O. Hamburger, SE
Regional Manager
EQE International, Inc.
San Francisco, California