Hello All,
Last week I was invited, along with
Ria, N2RJ, and Mike, W7VO, to an online meeting of Section Managers hosted by
Dan Marler, K7REX, the Idaho SM. The
topic 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 and
quality of communications is quite variable between SM’s and the Board. Some SM’s have close and productive
relationships with their Directors. In
some cases communications are strained, infrequent, or even absent. The concern was characterized best by the
comment, heard several times during the meeting, that SM’s will sometimes send
a comment or query to their Director, only to have it fall into a black hole.
The SM’s readily acknowledge, and
we agree, that the reasons for problems, when they do occur, are varied. Sometimes it’s as simple as a personality
clash. Sometimes the communication is
misdirected; perhaps it is a matter that should go through Steve Ewald, rather
than through the Director. Sometimes it
relates to the degree of effort invested, either by the SM or by the Director.
Factoring into this is the nature
of the communication. In some cases, the
communication involves matters local to the Division or Section. These, of course, really do need to go
through the individual Division Director.
Other times, it involves section management issues best considered by Headquarters. In this regard it was noted that the working
relationship between SM’s and HQ, particularly Steve Ewald, appear to be quite
good. And there are also times at which
the communication involves broader strategies or issues of interest to the
Board as a whole.
This third category is interesting
for several reasons. SM’s are, almost by
definition, very interested and active Hams with knowledge and experience well
above average. This is knowledge that the
Board can and should be using. In many
cases, it does. However, free flow of
this information is, or may be, hindered by an old Board tradition that members
in a Division are discouraged from communicating to the Board except through
their Division Directors. How strong
this tradition remains is an open question, but it is certainly perceived by
the SM’s that in some Divisions it remains strong. It is a tradition that may have some positive
aspects when applied to matters that can or should be dealt with on a Division
level, but insofar as it is applied to broader issues of policy that reflect
matters on a national level, it leaves Division members, and particularly the
SM’s, at the mercy of their particular Director’s opinions and motivation. This is a filter that serves only to limit
the flow of useful information.
The SM’s are looking for a way to
offer 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 staff
members began to develop. Here are some
of the characteristics that such a group might possess:
1. It
would be open to all Directors, Vice Directors, Officers, and Section Managers,
as well as a few key staff
2. It
would be moderated in some fashion. What
has worked out well for other groups is to require approval for the first several
posts from a new member, after which posts would not be gated. The moderator could, however, reactivate
screening and/or limit member access as needed in the name of decorum.
3. The
group would have a statement of purpose, enforces loosely by the moderator,
that:
a.
Messages and transactions would be directed to
the group as a whole, not to particular individuals
b.
Topics would be limited to those of general
interest. In particular, matters limited
to a Division would not generally be appropriate
c.
No one would be required either to post or to
respond
4. Civility
would be expected and enforced.
Lastly, this mechanism is not
meant, not could it be, a way to resolve all shortcomings in the communication
between the Board and the Section Managers.
It is a tool. It is only a
tool. But perhaps, if it is successful,
it could help bridge the gap that seems to have arisen.
We propose that such a discussion
group be established using the GroupIO system that the League used for a number
of other discussion groups. The effort
to set this up is not large. We would
also need to find a suitable moderator.
Thoughts ?
Mike
K1TWF