Geoff and Jacqui make a good point, the TSA is nothing without the membership. Their opinions do matter and should at least be considered. I wrote my first message under the assumption that they were being heard. I guess, to me it is a little like Paris Hilton, she was really into the Vote or Die thing for John Kerry, seems she forgot you actually needed to register to vote... She made a good impact but in the end, the strongest thing she could have done was unavailable to her.
Where I disagree with them, is that attending the meeting and voting is the strongest way to influence change. I think talking to others and expressing opinions does have a good deal of influence. As a TSA officer, I did that a good bit to see what people wanted. I think Mark and the others do as well. I also think it means very little if you don't follow through and vote and the other side does and you loose. Seems weird and a bit self defeating, if you want something, go get it, don't just talk about it and then passively walk away when you don't get your way... Now in the end, it takes all of us, not voting is fine, I actually didn't see either of you upset about the outcome, which is good, I was speaking to those angry folks who don't bother to be involved at all but then want to be considered. I'm not sure if I'm the one who belittled your opinions for not being there to vote, if I did than it was unintended, I completely understand things happen, I think freedom of speech is huge and encourage it, but in the end, if you don't get your/our way, tough cookies. Joe On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoff H <gho...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I don't regularly follow cavetex, and more rarely post, but I think there's > one or two recurrent themes here that merit reflection. > > My membership should not mean any less to the organization because I missed > the last meeting. There's just one tier of membership. (some organizations > have multiple tiers - sustaining, associate, voting/non-voting, whatever. I > don't want that level of complication in the TSA.) The TSA exists to serve > the interests of its members. This is probably constrained somewhat by > language somewhere about serving the interests of caving in texas, > conservation, and maybe one or two more things of that sort, but for the > most part, it should do what a significant portion of its membership wants > it to do. It doesn't matter if they go to meetings, or post on Cavetex, or > just sit quietly at home and never go out. If they are members, the > organization should consider what they want. > > Conversely, my desires for what I want the organization to do should not > mean more if I did attend the last meeting. Regardless of if an opinion was > proffered at the last meeting, or at a grotto meeting, via cavetex, while > caving, or in any fashion, my expectation as a member is that the officers > would take that opinion, consider how it refects to the desires of the > membership as a whole, and act only with thought and consideration of all > viewpoints. > > It can be very difficult to understand the opinions and desires of the > membership, as it is often contradictory and usually obscure. Most members > don't express an opinion, and although they often may not have one, the > organization cannot safely presume to know, much less act, on any action of > significance without understanding what its members want. It takes effort > for an organization to understand its members. Unfortunately, it's much > easier to assume what people want, or perhaps worse, what they need. In rare > circumstances this works extremely well, but in most, it results in friction > and controversy, and will drive people away. > > The level of effort it takes to understand the wants and needs of the > members often means that the organization is hampered, and does not quickly > move into doing new things. Fortunately, this is usually what the members > want. For the most part, people become involved with something they like, so > naturally the organization is doing what they want it to do. When the > organization does something the members don't want, or just moves too > quickly, the membership may object, or may just cease to be involved. > > People are usually open to compromise, but when an organization does things > that they don't want, they usually don't complain as much as they just fade > away. They won't volunteer, they won't show up at the next meeting. They > won't bother to send in a check next time, or the time after that. Members > usually want the organization to stick to the fundamentals and not get too > far from the basics. A few people are there because they like the mechanics > of running an organization, or the politics, or a handful of other reasons, > but most are members because it furthers the goals of what they do outside > of the organization. If it hampers rather than helps, if it distracts rather > than informs, it's going to be something to be avoided rather than embraced. > > > All that said, as a TSA member, here are some of my opinions to the issues > at hand in this thread: > > $7000 is much more money than the TSA needs. I say absolutely operate at a > loss, until this gets down to something reasonable, maybe $1-2000 or so. The > members paid it in, let it benefit them. Personally, I preferred the > separate TSA land fund, but as that doesn't seem likely, and outside of > that, I see no point to accumulate large amounts of money. > > I want my hard copy of the Texas Caver. I'm also happy to have a pdf, but > at least right now, that's not so important to me. Keep in mind that it's > easy to go one way, but hard to go back. > > For those that are concerned about internet distribution of electronic > copies, perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to distribute back issues > on CD, with a license that doesn't allow for other forms of redistribution. > This may not satisfy everyone's philosophical preferences, but I suspect it > covers 99% of the practical issues. Spend some of that $7000 on mailing a > CD full of back issues to every member (and ex-member, as far as I'm > concerned.) > > 25 years ago (more or less), the Texas Caver was separate from the TSA. > Since then, it has been correlated with membership. I prefer the latter. > > Discouraging the expression of members' opinions is bad. I'd rather see > attempts to encourage and understand them. If you've made up your mind on > an issue, that's OK, but if you're in a policy-making position, you are > *obligated* to continue to consider the opinions of the membership. If > you're confident in your viewpoint, it should be very comfortable to compare > it to others. If you're not confident in a viewpoint, it's a good test so > that you may become so. Nothing the TSA does requires quick, decisive > action. Not considering the options is rarely going to be the best choice. > > With occasional exceptions, I generally choose to not participate in > meetings. Most members don't participate in this level of mechanics. I > don't feel that should be belittled. Certainly members should be welcomed, > and even encouraged to participate in meetings, as the TSA should be an > absolutely transparent organization. Some choose not to. I don't think this > means they aren't making a contribution to Texas caving. Too many cavers > have been discouraged from the TSA (and from caving) by the politics > involved. Don't demand it of them. > > That's about all from me. We're all here because we enjoy what we do, so > let's have fun. If what you're doing will result in someone else not having > fun, you probably shouldn't be doing it. > > /lecture mode off/ > Geoff > > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. See how it > works.<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009> >
