View from inside an H2O bubble – watch as it assimilates the astronaut’s hands.
This is solely my opinion on the upcoming PPRAA Bylaw change proposals. The plan is to vote on these proposals at the next general membership meeting Wednesday at IHOP N. Powers.
73 Dan Martin KDØSMP
I reference the proposed changes at the link distributed on 11/1/2014 3:12 PM by Pam Scott wrote:
I vote NO on the change to Article II – Section 1. Membership.
I think it unwise to broaden eligibility of both:
1) club membership, and
2) Board of Directors
to any person, whomsoever. My objection to this complete elimination of credentials, of any and all nature other than existence, cries for a statement as to why.
When I look for the why of it, my objection is reinforced by the logical disconnect of it. The stated reason for making this change is “… to more clearly define a full membership.”, yet clarity is not enhanced. Rather, the definition is muddled by this change. The current wording, “… who is the holder of a valid, renewable amateur radio operator license issued by the appropriate governmental entity” is already clear. Licenses on record at the FCC are easily verified, this fact serves to call into question the stated rationale for changing the membership definition.
More importantly, FCC rules require HAM licensees to abide by rules and regulations, and so to be responsible to some degree. The FCC and ARRL encourage HAM licensees to serve their communities as responsible citizens through, among other means, public service, helping their fellow HAM licensees, and acting as wholesome role models for youth. I think this requires some qualification beyond mere existence if PPRAA is to take those roles seriously.
Clarity is not enhanced by this change. The fundamental nature of amateur radio community is not improved by this change.
I vote NO on the change to Article II – Section 3. Annual meeting.
This change is ungrammatical, the paragraph is correct in its unchanged form. Four Directors are to be elected. The change states that four Board of Directors are to be elected to the Board of Directors. I can make the error of this change clear by highlighting the main thrust of the passage in bold:
“At said meeting the members entitled to vote, shall elect by ballot by a plurality vote of such members present, four board of directors for a term of two (2) years to serve with the four holdover directors, for the ensuing year, or until their successors … ”
Read the bold text in that. Clearly, the directors are being elected to the board, yet the change states that the board is being elected. That directors, and not board of directors, are being elected is confirmed by noting that the remainder of the sentence clearly states that the newly elected directors are to serve with the holdover directors, not that the newly elected board is to serve with a separate holdover board of directors.
Basically, directors are elected at the meeting, not a board of directors. The original text is correct.
I vote YES on the change to Article II – Section 4. Notice of meetings.
I vote YES on the change to Article III – Section 6. Notice of directors’ meeting.
I vote YES on the change to Article VII – Section 7. Membership committee.
I vote YES on the change to Article VII – Section 12. Asset committee.
I vote YES on the change to Article VIII – Rules of Order.
I vote NO on the change to Article III – Section 9. Appointed Board Members.
This change establishes two director positions having privileges higher than all others. If approved, eight of the directors must be elected to limited terms while the Zero Beat editor and the webmaster are exempted.
I can understand the desirability of having the Zero Beat editor and the webmaster involved in PPRAA activities, even in board of director meetings. It is not, however, necessary that they be, since their fundamental function is to communicate club activities, not to govern club activities. For example, the Secretary, or any or all of the officers for that matter, can have the responsibility to furnish input to the Zero Beat editor and to the webmaster. I acknowledge that the communicator’s first hand knowledge of events is desirable, but it is not necessary.
The desirability of their first hand knowledge is already satisfied by their membership, in that they can stand for election to the board. They can run for consecutive terms and, so, serve continuously for as long as they like. They will be elected, however, like every other member of the board without holding a specially elevated position as an unelected board member.
Simply put, the necessity of this change does not stand scrutiny. The whole mechanism of elected board members is put at risk. If these two positions are specially elevated like this, then what other positions might be? It opens a can of worms. I know of many clubs that encourage their newsletter editors and webmaster to attend meetings. I know of none that appoint them to unelected board membership. It simply is not necessary.
Let me put it in different terms. We all know that radio operators, be they in the armed forces, ARES, in any command center or attached to any infantry outfit or operational unit, have a responsibility to accurately and completely pass message traffic without augmenting or supplementing it. Reliably transmitting and receiving the message traffic is their job for very good reasons that we need not list here. Fundamentally, the job of any editor, be it a newsletter editor or webmaster, is no different, it is to report activities. That is the job to which the Zero Beat editor and the webmaster are appointed.
If they are elected to the board, then fine, they write as board members. However, they should not be placed in positions privileged above other board members by being exempt from a requirement to be elected to the board of directors.
I vote NO on the change to Article III – Section 1. General Powers.
Same reasons as above. Additionally, this opens the door to additional appointed board members. Why? What other board member appointees will not have to stand for election by the membership? What is the need for this? Why should they not have to be elected?
If we feel we need more than eight elected board members, then let us increase the number of seats on the board of directors. That would be much preferable to appointing board members who are not subject to election by the membership.
I vote YES on the change to Article III – Section 2. Election and term of office of directors.
Dan Martin, KD0SMP