Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seds-l
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:41:08 +0000
From:         "(Benjamin John McCall)" <bjmccall@CCO.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject:      SEDS-USA Address

IRWIN%CITJULIE.BITNET@vm.usc.edu ("(Irwin Kenneth Horowitz)") writes:

>        Third, we need to discuss the address that will be filed as the
>current address for the group.  Again, knee-jerk reaction is to put down the
>MIT address, but there are some legitimate concerns with doing so.

As a new person to the "national" scene, perhaps I can lend a fresh
perspective.

Let me just say first, though, that I am not engaged in any sort of
personal quibble with anyone at UAH or MIT - I don't know any of them.
Furthermore, I am not engaged in any kind of power struggle with the SEDS
chapters at those institutions - I personally have my hands quite full as
it is with being Caltech SEDS President _and_ Technical Projects Coordinator.

That much being said, I don't think you all can easily write off what I have
to say.  You can't dismiss my opinions as that of someone involved in
a power struggle or personal quibble.  I am not a board member - I have no
vested interest here.

Let's examine the question here.  SEDS-USA (a *_NEW_* organization) needs
a permanent address for filing for 501c3 status.

I would suggest that we have this address at Caltech.  I know I'll be
lynched for this, but I would also propose that we consider moving the
permanent headquarters of SEDS-USA to Caltech.

Why?  God knows I don't need or want the work that would be involved.

One concern that's been raised time and again on the L and at the last
tcon is that _national_involvement_stifles_chapter_growth_.  This is true
if and only if the chapter itself is not strong.

Now think about this - where is our National HQ - the place effectively
responsible for all of the National SEDS administration?  At an institution
with a fading SEDS chapter.  Does this make sense?

At present, MIT has approximately two working members.  Caltech has
at least ten times that many.  Does it make any vestige of sense to
keep HQ at MIT?  Certainly not.

It harms the SEDS chapter at MIT as well as the entire SEDS-USA organization.
The people at MIT don't have time to tend to National affairs lately - how
can they possibly tend to their own chapter?????

At Caltech, we have dozens of very active people.  People who literally
do not have enough to do.

Please, folks - stop being reactionary and think about what you're doing to
the future of SEDS.  It seems a shame to stifle growth of SEDS, both at
MIT and at the national level, by forcing MIT to bear the brunt of the
responsibility for SEDS national, which it seems it cannot handle.


Food for thought.

What is the procedure to follow to change the location of SEDS HQ?  As
a SEDS member and chapter president, I would like to initiate calm,
reasoned discussion of this issue.

And as to the 501c3 address, I think we need to file with whatever address
we decide is that of SEDS HQ, which in my humble opinion should be at
Caltech SEDS, a healthy growing chapter with lots of dedicated and able
people.

Respectfully submitted,
--
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
SEDS President, Technical Projects Coordinator
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU