Who Pays, and Who Benefits?
SBEís Outgoing President Warns That Board Expenses Are Hurting
Radio Engineersí Participation
by James (Andy) Butler, CPBE
The author is president of the Society of Broadcast Engineers
and director of engineering for PBS. RW makes this space available
to the SBE as a service to the industry.
This is probably my last opportunity to write for Radio World
as the president of the Society of Broadcast Engineers. I want
to take this opportunity to discuss a serious issue, but first
I need to say some serious "thank yous."
My greatest thanks go to my fellow society members for allowing
me to represent you for the past two years. I am still amazed
by the thoughtful, dedicated and devoted men and women who make
up broadcast engineering. Serving as your president has given
me an even deeper appreciation of our shared profession.
I would also like to thank Paul McLane and the entire Radio
World family. Your long-standing support of the society and the
profession are invaluable and deeply appreciated.
My final thanks go to the Public Broadcasting Service. Like
the employers of most SBE officers, they have allowed me great
flexibility in my schedule and paid for a lot of travel and other
expenses so I could conduct the societyís business.
Without our employersí support, most of the societyís officers
would not be able to serve.
Equal representation
This brings me to the serious issue.
As I was preparing this article, I received a disturbing e-mail
from a board member. This particular person is a prominent radio
engineer working for a large company in a major market. He has
provided the society with excellent leadership at both the board
level and industry committee level for some time.
Recognizing his value, the SBE nominations committee had selected
him as a candidate for a key officer position in this yearís elections.
His message indicated that, after much soul searching, he had
decided to ask us to take his name off of the ballot.
The reason for his decision is the cause of my concern.
The company for which this board member works seems typical
of radio today. It has changed hands several times in the past
five years and has gone through a series of reorganizations and
policy changes.
During this process, it quit paying expenses for professional
activities such as SBE board service. Right now this individual
is paying those costs out of his own pocket, but with childrenís
college tuition and other expenses, he just canít keep meeting
those costs personally.
This is really a waste. The society needs his services and he
is willing to devote the time, but our by-laws specifically forbid
paying any expenses for routine board or officer activities.
TV and related industries are changing as well, but so far the
squeeze isnít as severe. The result is an unintentional but severe
bias at the top in the society.
The nominations committee works diligently to recruit a balance
of qualified people from all areas of our profession, but practicality
makes it tough. At this point, it is much easier to find qualified
and willing board member and officer candidates from sectors other
than radio.
Iím not implying that there is anything wrong with the present
board, but it is simply a matter of awareness and perspective.
No matter how well-intentioned you may be, if you donít deal with
the issues daily, it is difficult to understand fully how to adequately
and fairly support the working engineer who does.
Careful steps
The e-mail was a painful reminder of this situation. Thereís
a part of me that wants to advocate radical and rapid change in
response. Thatís probably not a good idea.
Too often in the past, well-intentioned efforts to achieve change
quickly have plunged the society into chaos. We need to do this
deliberately, carefully and permanently.
A first step should be a minor change in the SBE by-laws. At
this point, the society cannot help board members with routine
expenses without violating the by-laws. Before crafting any solution,
we need to remove that restriction.
I would urge the by-laws committee to propose a change and the
membership to support it.
The original restriction was imposed to avoid creating a "privileged
class" of officers who enjoyed lavish meals and travels to
meetings in exotic locations under the guise of conducting society
business.
While this may have been true of other industry groups in the
past, I think the SBE board members have demonstrated remarkable
fiscal responsibility in their activities. I donít think liberalizing
the by-laws will suddenly engender recklessness and abandon.
Once the by-laws are changed, we can carefully evaluate alternative
strategies to deal with the board expense problem.
I am far from certain about the best approach. Several people
have suggested that we approach dominant companies in the industry
and solicit money to support a governance fund for the society.
This would eliminate the need for individuals to pester their
immediate superiors for money but still put the burden of support
most directly on companies that benefit from society activities.
This sounds good on the surface and should be considered, but
I would leave it to others to determine the impact such a program
might have on the independence of the society.
Another alternative would be chapter support for board-member
activities. This has been used before.
In several instances, chapters have been concerned about adequate
representation. They recruited qualified board candidates and
agreed to underwrite some or all of their expenses if they were
elected. Because many chapters are incorporated as separate entities,
the lawyers felt that such arrangements were acceptable because
no direct national money was going to the board members.
A third option could be a dues increase. Through extremely careful
budget management and aggressive partnering, the SBE has operated
in the black for more than 10 years without a dues increase. This
canít go on forever, and ensuring fair representation of a major
segment of the membership on the board may be an important enough
issue to move us to action.
At the risk of slipping into sloganism, I would suggest that
"Taxation for Representation" might be an alternative
worth exploring.
Act now
No matter how we pay for it, I think leveling the playing field
for board- and executive-level participation is important. Every
industry segment and employment level must be represented for
our society to be effective.
I hope my radio colleagues share this view. Your influence is
fading. I hope you will join me in urging my successors to take
action to reverse this disturbing trend.
While it caused me concern, the e-mail did include a positive
section. The writer indicated that leaving national activities
would allow him to become more active in his local chapter. I
know his efforts will make a major difference for this chapter.
He even plans to try to develop a new regional convention.
I hope all society members will take a minute to reflect on
their own local chapters. Your participation at the chapter level
provides powerful support for our national efforts and brings
the benefits of society membership directly home to you.
I look forward to seeing you at a chapter meeting real soon
now, and thank you again for your kindness and support.
RW welcomes other points of view. Write to radioworld@imaspub.com.
|
