[amsat-bb] Why we are having this big unpleasant argument on your satellite mailing list

[HenryTurner]

Hello all,

I am not an AMSAT member.  I know no one personally or otherwise who is 
to my knowledge a member of AMSAT.  The last member I knew, was W5GEL.  
Some may remember him.  He was well known and SK in July of 2003.  I 
have not worked a satellite in years.  I say all this to establish that 
I truly have no connection to anyone who has responded to any of this 
discussion.

My basic observation is the following:  AMSAT seems to have become the 
object of a takeover.  In the world of public companies this happens 
often, where an activist investor comes in with the intention of taking 
control of the company.  The reasons for this can be varied and 
complex.  Be it intellectual property, general assets or general control 
(usually with a mindset that the company is being run wrongly or 
ineptly.)  Because BODs in a public company are not really selected by 
all stock holders as such only by those who control the majority of the 
stock (don't fool yourself -- your vote is not equal to Buffett's, 
unless you own as many shares as he does.) The activist usually becomes 
well known as are his intentions.  A slate of directors is put up and if 
the activist wins, his board winners are nothing more than his proxies.  
AMSAT is different instead of an individual buying stock for control, a 
program of "get the votes" from the general membership ensues.  To put 
it in distasteful terms a propaganda war ensues.  Your common Joe or 
Joelene just does not have the access to all that two board members did 
to get the votes to be elected.

Please don't be fooled by the, "it was this or it was that." There is a 
minority who wishes to become the majority.  By bringing all this to the 
public -- chaos ensues -- doubt clouds minds meanwhile control is 
taken.  There are two board members who have caused upheaval they are 
proxies for another.

I would suggest that whether you agree with the direction of AMSAT or 
not, do not let it change (deserving to change or not) because of a 
hijacking or coup.  If it wasn't the attorney expense excuse it would 
have been something else down the road.

Thanks, again, just an opinion based on nothing more than reading these 
discussions.

Henry -- K5YDD




On 7/13/2020 2:13 PM, Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB wrote:
> Most of you are members of AMSAT. IMO the organization has some serious
> problems, and as members it is your duty to steer the organization with
> your votes. That means that you should remain aware of what is going on and
> you should make an informed vote. The satellite discussions go on, mostly
> uninterrupted, all year. A short break for politics is not unreasonable,
> and acrimonious discussion is to be expected when we take that break.
>
> Organisations are run by people who would not be doing the work if they did
> not have strong emotions about it. And they all have their own failings.
> Unfortunately, volunteer non-profit directors (and many public ones in big
> corporations) never learn a critical skill of democracy: *how to deal
> properly with opposition. *That is the root of what we are arguing about
> now. Opposition are not the enemy! Yet, they are clearly being treated as
> such. They are simply people who would reform the organization or take it
> in a different direction from the incumbents.
>
> In this case, Michelle and Patrick, before they were elected, were the
> loyal opposition - dedicated to a better organization, and deeply troubled
> by the decisions and conduct of the incumbent board. The incumbent's
> response was not to work with the opposition, but to hunker down and use
> lawyers. To the incumbent's great distress, the very same people got sent
> to the board by the membership! Leading to more lawyers. IMO the incumbents
> should have read this as a signal from the membership, rather than doubling
> down their resistance.
>
> The sad reality is that the newly-elected directors have never been allowed
> to function as directors. You should be concerned, since they are the
> people whom you elected to represent you. The main means used to disable
> your elected representatives has been refusal by the incumbents to hold
> board meetings. This refusal is almost total, with exactly *one* meeting
> being held after the organization's annual convention.
>
> The second means used to disenfranchise the newly-elected directors was
> that the incumbents withheld information which a director would generally
> be expected to have access to. As it happened, this information was at
> least in part discussion of those very same people, and contracting of
> legal counsel in a process against them.
>
> Every board has the right to legal counsel. But it's expensive, and must be
> used wisely. This was not a wise use. A wise use would have been to engage
> the opposition rather than to hunker down.
>
> One very large cause of all of this is that the same people have been
> running AMSAT for a very long time, and it becomes an echo chamber after a
> while - the us-vs-them mentality of the board vs. the opposition - but
> really the board vs. everyone else - becomes self-reinforcing.
>
> This is obviously wrong for the organization. The solution is simple, and
> every organization needs it: *regular turn-over of the people in the
> organization's leadership. *Not the stratification that we currently have.
>
> You can fix this by electing more new blood to the board.
>
>      Thanks
>
>      Bruce
>