[Psml] Merit Mark comments

[Brian Becker]

Having read all the points of view and valid comments – I suggest that the
comments of PC Lonnie  bear the most significance.

 

I truly hope our Chief Commander reads her message.  

 

The Merit Mark system is “sacred”.  It begins with the recommendations of
the SQUADRON COMMANDER.

 

What is the United States Power Squadrons ?  A compilation of some 400 +/-
Squadron Commanders throughout this great nation.

 

Some may, some will, cheat.  That demeans the value of the Merit Mark.  They
will bear the error of their ways. MOST however, will be fair, honest,
valid, and dependable with the integrity that most have of us have grown to
know as responsible citizens of our Nation.  I admit I am a bit “tainted” as
an ex-Infantry Officer of our Armed Forces.

 

The fact that the SQUADRON COMMANDER is person who is held with “feet to the
fire” is the best person to recommend what is meaningful to HER/HIS Squadron
at this time of evolution AND is the best to recommend.   Area Monitors are
a valuable asset to maintain some form of integrity in the Merit Mark
system,  but, the FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE SQUADRON COMMANDER should be
the end result.  What they view as significant is what is significant.

 

Never forget, in ALL considerations,  that it is the trust in the Squadron
Commander and the  duty of the Squadron Commander where the responsibility
rests lies for the best of all of the recreational boating  organizations.
Districts and National coordinate – it is the SQUADRON that provides the
base.  So, if we cannot depend upon them to recommend,  then we cannot
depend upon them
.  What is the alternative ?

 

So, please --  REMEMBER --- United States Power Squadrons is an organization
of 1) recreational boaters who enjoy boating (fun)  2) recreational boaters
who are willing to devote personal time/resources to promote safe boating
(fun doing that)  3) recreational boaters with integrity (overall)


 

The Merit Mark is important.  The Commander is proud to recommend.  The
recipient is proud to receive.  Those earned, are most proud.  Those not
earned, know  they are not earned.  The National population does not know of
those earned vs those simply awarded out of some strange purpose.

 

My 2¢

 

Currently Commander, Patapsco River Power Squadron

 

 

Proud to be District 5

 

J. Brian Becker

410 442-1230

 

 

 

 

From: psml-bounces at usps.org [mailto:psml-bounces at usps.org] On Behalf Of
Lonnie
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:24 PM
To: J Brian Becker
Cc: United States Power Squadrons Mailing List
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/20091011/1ba2d68f/attachment.html