<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18812">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Lonnie,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Well said.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thank you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Paul</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lonnie.butler1@gmail.com
href="mailto:lonnie.butler1@gmail.com">Lonnie</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=psoucy@sc.rr.com
href="mailto:psoucy@sc.rr.com">psoucy@sc.rr.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=psml@usps.org
href="mailto:psml@usps.org">United States Power Squadrons Mailing List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:24
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Psml] Merit Mark
comments</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Fellow members,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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 <U>the buck stops at the
commander</U>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The several points made in favor of area monitors and the
current process also suggest to me <EM>some</EM> 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 <STRONG>us</STRONG>, then why should I
trust <STRONG>them</STRONG>, 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The proposal that "a member is a member" is long overdue for
merit mark qualifications.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>P/C Lonnie Butler</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Bellevue Sail & Power Squadron</FONT></DIV>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>