Hello All, Last week I was invited, along withRia, N2RJ, and Mike, W7VO, to an online meeting of Section Managers hosted byDan Marler, K7REX, the Idaho SM. Thetopic was communications between the SM’s and the Board. It was an interesting and lively gathering,with approximately 35 SM’s in attendance. It appears that the level andquality of communications is quite variable between SM’s and the Board. Some SM’s have close and productiverelationships with their Directors. Insome cases communications are strained, infrequent, or even absent. The concern was characterized best by thecomment, heard several times during the meeting, that SM’s will sometimes senda comment or query to their Director, only to have it fall into a black hole. The SM’s readily acknowledge, andwe agree, that the reasons for problems, when they do occur, are varied. Sometimes it’s as simple as a personalityclash. Sometimes the communication ismisdirected; perhaps it is a matter that should go through Steve Ewald, ratherthan through the Director. Sometimes itrelates to the degree of effort invested, either by the SM or by the Director. Factoring into this is the natureof the communication. In some cases, thecommunication involves matters local to the Division or Section. These, of course, really do need to gothrough the individual Division Director. Other times, it involves section management issues best considered by Headquarters. In this regard it was noted that the workingrelationship between SM’s and HQ, particularly Steve Ewald, appear to be quitegood. And there are also times at whichthe communication involves broader strategies or issues of interest to theBoard as a whole. This third category is interestingfor several reasons. SM’s are, almost bydefinition, very interested and active Hams with knowledge and experience wellabove average. This is knowledge that theBoard can and should be using. In manycases, it does. However, free flow ofthis information is, or may be, hindered by an old Board tradition that membersin a Division are discouraged from communicating to the Board except throughtheir Division Directors. How strongthis tradition remains is an open question, but it is certainly perceived bythe SM’s that in some Divisions it remains strong. It is a tradition that may have some positiveaspects when applied to matters that can or should be dealt with on a Divisionlevel, but insofar as it is applied to broader issues of policy that reflectmatters on a national level, it leaves Division members, and particularly theSM’s, at the mercy of their particular Director’s opinions and motivation. This is a filter that serves only to limitthe flow of useful information. The SM’s are looking for a way tooffer their thoughts to the Board on a broad and level field, and a way,perhaps, in which the Board could distribute information to them. As the meeting last Wednesday progressed,the idea of a discussion group accessible to ODV, SM’s, and a few select staffmembers began to develop. Here are someof the characteristics that such a group might possess: 1. Itwould be open to all Directors, Vice Directors, Officers, and Section Managers,as well as a few key staff 2. Itwould be moderated in some fashion. Whathas worked out well for other groups is to require approval for the first severalposts from a new member, after which posts would not be gated. The moderator could, however, reactivatescreening and/or limit member access as needed in the name of decorum. 3. Thegroup would have a statement of purpose, enforces loosely by the moderator,that: a. Messages and transactions would be directed tothe group as a whole, not to particular individuals b. Topics would be limited to those of generalinterest. In particular, matters limitedto a Division would not generally be appropriate c. No one would be required either to post or torespond 4. Civilitywould be expected and enforced. Lastly, this mechanism is notmeant, not could it be, a way to resolve all shortcomings in the communicationbetween the Board and the Section Managers. It is a tool. It is only atool. But perhaps, if it is successful,it could help bridge the gap that seems to have arisen. We propose that such a discussiongroup be established using the GroupIO system that the League used for a numberof other discussion groups. The effortto set this up is not large. We wouldalso need to find a suitable moderator. Thoughts ? MikeK1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net