[Psml] Merit Mark comments

[Paul R. Soucy]

Lonnie,

Well said.

Thank you.

Paul
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lonnie 
  To: psoucy at sc.rr.com 
  Cc: United States Power Squadrons Mailing List 
  Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [Psml] Merit Mark comments


  Fellow members,

  I am glad I didn't send my initial reply to this discussion immediately after reading Gene's "story". My emotions ran high and I was writing things not addressing the process as a subject. So let me add my calm perspective as a past commander, favoring the buck stops at the commander.

  The last two days of responses have been well thought out and respectfull. I fully acknowledge the desire to award merit marks using the same standards throughout. I may have missed something, but I question that the member must be working 365 days out of the year. What is wrong with 83 hours in a contiguous period, having completed a project which was important to a squadron, district or Nat'l committee? Why is this person any less deserving of a MM than someone who spent 15 minutes a day doing something? I know that 20 hours of significant work for the benefit of the squadron earns a merit mark.

  My objection is paralell with Paul's asking who knows the member better than a squadron commander. I understand that past chief commanders are the area monitors, but in what way does that qualify them to judge an individual whom they have never met, nor have any real knowledge, and judge solely based on the 436 character description which can be fabricated as well as being factual. This is where I find the current process burdened with sheer subjective judgement. Instead of being an area monitor, these past chief commanders can earn their merit mark back with their squadrons and mentor there rather than trying to cull out the cheaters who will always be cheaters.

  The several points made in favor of area monitors and the current process also suggest to me some powers-that-be don't trust squadron commanders to be straight in their submissions (I was told that once by a Nat'l level person), or those from their squadron committee. My reply is that if they don't trust us, then why should I trust them, just because they are at a Nat'l level. They are no better, or all knowing, or possess greater judgememt abilities than the rest of the membership. Do I appreciate the work by all the past chief commanders, absolutely, but that does not translate to superior judgement of the general membership and their contributions. Today it is a matter of simplification also.

  The real answer here is that someone in Florida should be concerned with folks in Florida, and not give a second thought about someone in Washington who gets a merit mark. There is no question in my mind that there are MMs given or submitted by squadron commanders on the face of the 436 charactors written who have not earned a dimes worth of effort for anything. For me and my squadron, I don't give a darn about that person. I am totally focused on my squadron members. The current system will not weed out the cheaters. Furthermore, there is a great effort put forth by the squadron merit mark person, be it by committee or by the commander, which takes too much time to play the game of the 436 charactors making sure the wording is just right. Those who want to cheat will still cheat, and I don't care at my end.

  Another point is that those of us who really enjoy doing what we do whether it is 20 hours or 500 hours a year, would continue do it whether we received a merit mark or not.

  The proposal that "a member is a member" is long overdue for merit mark qualifications.

  P/C Lonnie Butler
  Bellevue Sail & Power Squadron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.usps.org/pipermail/psml/attachments/20091011/30fe20e8/attachment-0001.html