I'm a bit slow in commenting on this one. At 09:08 AM 10/1/2002 -0500, Jay/K0QB wrote:
Jim raises the broader question of the perception of many, if not most, ARRL members that the SM s work for the Directors and we are responsible for their actions. We know that is not the case. We also know that the current structure with SM s reporting to F&ES has flaws and can absorb a significant amount of time, effort and concern by the Officers, BoD and Committees. Does the word Virginia ring a bell?
Perception is important, and anyone who represents himself/herself as working for ARRL (HQ staff, DXCC card checkers, Section Managers or Field Org volunteers all are part of our public face. Yes, we are responsible to manage them. And they have a responsibility to act in a way that represents ARRL in the best light.
If Sections are a part of a Division why should the SM report to F&ES?
They are not "part of a Division". They were created for the management of volunteers in the Field Organization and the Division boundaries were a convenient starting point for further subdivision. I have a big enough job as Director, I sure don't need the additional responsibility of managing seven Section Managers and 700 volunteers in New England...
We know the Directors are responsible for policy and the SM s for operational issues under the current structure. How much of your time as a Director is spent addressing concerns about operational issues.
Just look at the work the Board committees do, much of it is more operational than policy. That's our own issue, not the fault of SMs.
Some Directors are fortunate in that they have a good working relationship with the SM s in the Division. Some don t.
I think almost all have good relationships. Or is there more diversity out their than I'm aware of?
Nothing in the organizational structure mandates any level of cooperation.
That's not a fair statement. They are all ARRL members, they all agree to implement ARRL policy. I think there is good cooperation, after all, SMs are volunteers, they have to have a lot of loyalty to the organization or they wouldn't spent so much time on it (as we all do). We don't all agree on everything, but that's healthy.
The underlying concern raised by w8hdu has some merit in that the SM s though local can have a broad impact on the organization.
Ohio may be a special problem - it has twice as many members as the Dakota Division does, so perhaps the Ohio SM ought to be on the Board instead... Actually, ten other Sections are bigger than the Dakota Division... :^ )
So long as Directors and SM are both elected this situation may continue to be another two-headed monster that can take a big bite out of the organization at anytime.
Sure they can, I agree, they manage local volunteers in implementing a bunch of our programs. They better have an impact. As for any confusion about the the two being elected, I think that's our own fault for not making it clear to members what the roles are of SMs vs those on the Board. If we're unhappy with what SMs are doing (and what is the problem, I'm not clear about it), then we can work on it through F&ES, and I assume the VRC is on top of it after hearing from Board members. I don't see enough of an advantage in appointing SMs instead of electing them, which was the real theme of Jay's message. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444