TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

As anticipated, Larry will not respond with specifics. Instead he offers ONLY his opinions and attempts to demean Jim Deck and the rest of the board. If that's what he wants to do, so be it. But I am glad he is willing to help get the vote out. That, at least, is a good thing.

But rest assured, this proposal is NOT about changing the original SAP one iota - regardless of ideas that have come up in the past.

I get that, for some, like Larry, emotions run high around this issue. But appeals to emotion are not an argument for or against something. You want to win me over? Try using logic and facts.

Preston

I would like to offer to help the LSF leadership in contacting members and researching member contact info for this vote.

Ryan Woebkenberg LSF 7233

If you want everyone to have the option to vote, then send a paper ballot out to the current listed address in the database. I think you will find that you don't get any better return than you would get from e-mail. In fact, you will probably find you would get a better response from the e-mail than snail-mail.....but be my guest, it only costs money. I am also willing to bet you will find that better than 50% of the addresses in the database are out of date. If members aren't interested enough to keep their contact information up to date, then they aren't interested enough to be involved.

A newsletter has just been mailed to all eligible members with a viable email address. Before the ballot is sent out, a fresh set of "active" members will be generated. So, if you have a buddy that didn't get the latest newsletter, strongly encourage that person to update his or her LSF record before January 5th. Two years ago, LSF members were informed that electronic communication would be the major communication method used to impart information to the membership. The Forum on the website was a major component of that strategy. The LSF leadership also uses, when appropriate, both RC Groups and RCSE in an effort to get information to as broad a spectrum as possible. Paper, preparation, and postal costs are simply too expensive for mass communication. Now that the newsletter is on its way I fully intend to enjoy Christmas and New Years.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
Jim Deck LSF President

jdadmin wrote: A newsletter has just been mailed to all eligible members with a viable email address. Before the ballot is sent out, a fresh set of "active" members will be generated. So, if you have a buddy that didn't get the latest newsletter, strongly encourage that person to update his or her LSF record before January 5th. Two years ago, LSF members were informed that electronic communication would be the major communication method used to impart information to the membership. The Forum on the website was a major component of that strategy. The LSF leadership also uses, when appropriate, both RC Groups and RCSE in an effort to get information to as broad a spectrum as possible. Paper, preparation, and postal costs are simply too expensive for mass communication. Now that the newsletter is on its way I fully intend to enjoy Christmas and New Years.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
Jim Deck LSF President

Just "informing the membership" of a change of communication method means nothing with regard to amending the bylaws. The communication requirements are defined in the bylaws. Yes, it will be a lot of work and the postage will be expensive especially the postage to members outside the USA but anything less will be invalid. Maybe that's why LSF has been relatively unchanged for 40 years.

I will not comment here or any place else on the proposal that has been mailed out. But I will comment on the process.

Many current LSF members have expressed their opinion that the original SAP was amazingly well conceived and has stood the test of time. I would not argue with that proposition.

But the original bylaws are another matter. Anyone who has spent much time dealing with documents like this would recognize that it WAS NOT well written to serve the long term interests of the organization -- especially if the long term interests required any significant changes. The original document absolutely failed to describe how "living members" and "active members" would be tracked and accounted for. And the leaders who were charged with implementing the bylaws compounded that failure by failing to implement reasonable measures to track and account for "living" and "active" members. Those failures are biting the organization in the rear right now. And they will continue to impair the ability to precisely carry out the intent of the original authors. It can be argued that "it is what it is" and we have to play the hand that we have been dealt.

It is clear that the original authors had no intent that communications required to change the bylaws would be by "electronic media" inasmuch as "electronic media" did not exist when the bylaws were written. Unless there was a change in the bylaws instigated by communication in the form envisioned by the original authors (WRITTEN), it is difficult for me to see how anyone would have the authority under the bylaws to simply wave a wand and substitute "electronic communication" for "written communication". And just in case anyone thinks that "electronic" equals "written" by default, IT DOES NOT IN NORMAL COMMERCE AND COMMON LAW UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE AGREEMENT. EVEN TODAY THIS CHANGE IN OLDER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES REQUIRES AMENDMENT BY MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.

As if this was not enough of a complication in the process that is being contemplated, there is nothing in the bylaws which confers on anyone the unilateral right to effectively "purge" membership rolls by furnishing notice via a means of communication WHICH WAS NOT ENVISIONED IN THE BYLAWS and which does not have the approval of the general membership consistent with the bylaws.

This is not to suggest that it is impossible to reasonably implement changes in the bylaws. In real life, circumstances sometimes require changes in existing agreements that may be "technically" impossible. These are sometimes resolved by making a "best effort" to abide by the original intent of the agreement. The standards which apply to these work-arounds usually require a demonstration of necessity (not convenience) and solutions which adhere as closely as possible to the original plain intent of the agreement. I won't argue the "necessity" of the proposed change beyond suggesting that the existence of the organization is not reasonably expected to be threatened by a failure to implement the change. But I would suggest that a good faith effort to furnish written communication in a form familiar to the original authors of the bylaws would go a long way toward meeting a desire to act in good faith. A bulk postcard mailing to the most recent snail-mail address of all the members on the rolls would come as close to meeting that requirement as possible.

I understand how highly motivated many members are to implement the current proposal. I would remind all of them that without responsibly addressing aspects of our poorly drafted bylaws that have resulted in the current brouhaha they will certainly be repeated in the future and many of those seeking change now may find themselves on the other side of a similar brawl in the future. It may well be that making the changes which are being proposed is a good thing. But it is a good thing being done in a bad way. Ultimately, no good thing will come to an organization that fails to govern itself by its own rules.

Happy Landings,

Don

Mr Deck, and the Board
I just read your proposal....seriously.... is this the best you could do after all the months of discussion..
You could have done something fun for the Electric guys but instead you did the obvious.
Why were you not honest in the first place.. You never intended for there to be a separate E program.
You were so burned when we shut down the SAP change, that you strategized a different route to the same goal.
Your motives are clear and obvious, this is a two step process to get the change you wanted in the first place.
It is obvious that if this passes, your next vote will be to combine the two programs since they are exactly the same except method of launch.
I am asking everyone to vote NO on your proposal...
Larry Jolly 3579

I never got the email. Something is amiss in the record keeping. This is not a good thing.

Curtis
LSF 7071
LIII

I did not receive the email either,

Garry Ogilvie
LSF 5504

No email here either. And obviously LSF have the correct email address because I keep getting email alerts when there are new posts on this topic.