Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: SEAOSC v. SEAOC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Ron:

I am looking forward to your presidency in year 2000. Thank you for the
clarification. 

Correct me if I am wrong, the reason why SEAOSC has been exercising the
block vote during the past year is because the motions being voted on had
significant impact on SEAOSC. A good example is this Internet server where
SEAOC demanded that SEAOSC hand over the entire server to the state. SEAOSC
CAC which I chair has worked very hard in developing this Internet server.
Besides, SEAOSC has invested thousands of dollars in this technology.
SEAOSC board, CAC and the members do not believe that the State has proper
resources to keep the server alive. As a matter of fact, if the server
would have been transferred to State, it would have been dead by now. We
learned our lesson from the SEAOC-Online newsletter which is now back in
our lap. Now, if SEAOSC delegates blocked such motions repeatedly, I
support them.

Another reason for block vote has been Allen's contract. SEAOSC has
repeatedly for past three years expressed unhappiness with Allen's
performance. However, both Scot Stedman and Ken Lutterel choose to ignore
our complains, and to our surprise started defending Allen. Why? I have no
idea.

You are right that this voting procedure makes the board ineffective in
certain areas. When our forefathers wrote those bylaws, maybe they wanted
that. Maybe SEAOC board should stay away from local politics and simply
focus on promoting SEAOC.

Once again, thank you for your support.

Shafat



At 7/20/98 06:20 PM, you wrote:
>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.
>
>