[BC] SBE rebuttal

Wed May 18 21:59:58 CDT 2005

Sorry Chris, I disagree; this is an excellent forum to discuss SBE related 
issues. There some very bright people on this list; let them make up their 
own mind.

Before I go on, I should say that I've been a Chapter Chairman, an SBE 
Board nominee and have recruited many members. Let me also say that SBE 
does do many good things for it's members.

Let me again distill the issues I have with SBE:

1. SBE should be ONLY a professional organization. It should not be in the 
engineering services business. It should not be involved in NFL volunteer 
frequency coordination; NFL should hire a good frequency coordinator (No, 
SBE is not uniquely qualified to do it. I know of several individuals who 
qualified and would do it, but for pay,)

Sorry Ray, but I don't share your belief that NFL or the TV networks 
(including your employer, Viacom) can't afford to pay for it. They do it 
all the time for political conventions, Olympics, etc.

SBE should not be subsidizing the NFL; SBE should not recruit volunteers to 
provide discount engineering services to a for-profit entity. SBE does not 
stand for Subsidized By Engineers.

2. SBE is too interested in tangential issues, such as NFL coordination. It 
doesn't focus on what professional organizations should be doing. Often, 
the interests of the engineer differ from the interests of the 
client/employer. SBE should support only the engineer, that's what it's 
chartered to do, the engineer is who pays the dues.

3. SBE doesn't set high standards of professionalism. Professionals do not 
volunteer services to for-profit entities.

4. SBE doesn't set a minimum level of education for engineers. All other 
professions require this. Strong professions have high educational 
requirements. Engineering is an intellectual profession.

5. SBE doesn't live by their Code of Ethics. NFL GDC is an example of this.

6. SBE doesn't police their own membership. There are no penalties for 
ethics violations.

7. SBE (to my knowledge) doesn't promote the protection of life and safety 
of the general public. Yes, there are life and safety issues in broadcast 
engineering. This is the number one priority of most engineering type 
professions.

8. SBE doesn't ask the question: "Is this in the best, long-term interest 
of the profession?"

Chris, if you watch this list, you know that many engineers are frustrated 
with their lot in life. They are seen professionally as something 
slightly  above a janitor. These are bright people who deserve better.

SBE could do much to help this problem. All it would take would be to adopt 
a few policies that have worked well for other professions and then be the 
best example of high professional standards.

Let me know if I can help.

Mario

At 11:06 AM 5/18/2005, you wrote:

>Message: 18
>Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:27:17 -0500
>From: "Scherer, Chriss" <CSCHERER at primediabusiness.com>
>Subject: [BC] RE: SBE Focus - specific responses
>To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID:
>         <642E5D55DD09ED4BB8664E6DC8AF630706960F5A at ksopxng2k.intertec.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Mario:
>I have again shared your comments with Ray Benedict. As president of the 
>SBE he or his designate is the spokesman for the Society. He has asked me 
>to share this with you and this list.
>
>I must ask you, however, if you have so many concerns with the SBE, why do 
>you choose an open forum with its inherent delays to try to debate these 
>concerns? To my knowledge you have never come directly to the SBE leadership.
>
>
>
>Article 1, Section 2 of the SBE by-laws states the purpose of the Society. 
>Part d clearly states one purpose as "The creation of working alliances 
>and meeting of minds with all elements of the broadcast and communications 
>industry, including the FCC and the ultimate recipient of that which we 
>practice, the viewers and listeners."
>
>
> >1. SBE members.
> >2. SBE members.
> >3. SBE members.
>
>Everything the Society does is based on serving the interests of its 
>members. If you were to attend any board or Executive Committee meeting 
>you see that this point is raised for every issue.
>
>
> >After this, the focus should be on:
> >4. Professional development of SBE members.
> >5. Engineering education.
>
>Certification and Education are two of the ways that this is being done.
>
>
> >6. Salary issues.
>
>The SBE is not a union, nor will it ever be. However, an individual can 
>demonstrate his skill and knowledge through SBE Certification. Surveys 
>have shown that SBE Certified-engineers on average earn more than 
>non-Certified engineers.
>
>
> >7. Professional ethics.
>
>The Canons of Ethics were created for this purpose. It is up to the 
>individual to follow them. If a member violate them, his  membership in 
>the SBE is put in jeopardy.
>
>
> >8. Safety, life and property issues.
>
>This is a broad stroke. If you expect the SBE to be a safety watchdog, 
>that approaches the realm of being a union again. If you want the SBE to 
>educate on matters of safety, this is in the works. Keep in mind that 
>there are liability issues.
>
>
> >Yeah, it's cool to hang out with the big boys, but they don't pay
> >the dues and many SBE members are getting perturbed.
>
>Then I encourage these members to come forward in the appropriate forum. 
>The SBE held a membership meeting at NAB2005. No one had any complaints. I 
>do not consider an e-mail list the appropriate forum because of its free 
>form. It is difficult to hold a constructive debate, even with an 
>effective moderator.
>
>
> >AFCCE is made up primarily of Professional Engineers and attorneys.
> >They weigh in on the engineering aspects of FCC issues, not the
> >financial ones.
>
>As does the SBE.
>
>
> >If the FCC takes away a 2GHz RPU channel, who does it
> >affect? Yes, the engineer may be involved, but he/she is not the
> >licensee, who may make or lose money on an FCC decision.
>
>By your own admission is affects the engineer. However, when the station 
>complains that it cannot use any BAS equipment, the engineer is called on 
>to provide answers. The SBE tries to provide those answers, and the SBE is 
>an active voice to the FCC on technical matters relating to broadcasting.
>
>It is also simplistic to separate an engineer's concerns from a licensee's 
>concern from an industry concern. You are an experienced broadcaster and 
>should know that.
>
>
> >[The] SBE is not and should not be (like NAB) a lobbying organization 
> for stations.
>
>The SBE is not like other lobbying organizations set up solely for the 
>purpose of lobbying. The SBE has a broader purpose. Obviously effort is 
>put into creating FCC filings. The SBE has has a small amount of 
>"traditional" lobbying when it visits members of Congress. Many 
>professional associations do the same thing and most of those do far more 
>than the SBE does.
>
>
> >Frankly, the leaders of SBE look pretty silly running around
> >putting out every fire that flares up when there other more important
> >issues they should be dealing with. Leave the fires to the people who
> >are (and should be) getting paid to put them out and let the station
> >owners, not SBE members, pay the bill.
>
>The SBE does not comment on every issue that comes up. Please review the 
>list of filings from the SBE and compare that to the multitude of actions 
>from the FCC.
>
>Remember that fires left to flare become an inferno. By steering the small 
>issues we can avoid larger problems.
>
>
> >Does the American Bar Association weigh in on every piece of
> >legislation throughout the U.S.? No, that is what lobbyists get paid
> >to do. If they do weigh in, it is on legislation that directly affects
> >their membership.
>
>Again, this is what the SBE does.
>
>
> >[The] SBE needs to see the subtle distinction between what affects the
> >engineer, and what affects the engineers client/employer, and focus on
> >the former.
>
>This "subtle distinction" is exactly that: subtle. It is not a hard line. 
>Trying to create any kind of a hard line between the various subtleties is 
>admirable but simplistic. These are not simple issues.
>
>
> >As an example, look at NFL Game Day Coordination (GDC). It financially
> >affects the NFL, the TV networks, the local stations, but not really
> >the engineer. [The] NAB or the FCC should really be doing GDC, but
> >they don't because
> >1) They're too smart, and
> >2) SBE falls all over itself to do it for free.
>
>The SBE is contracted by the NFL to provide a service. It is not free. The 
>FCC does not coordinate anything; neither does the NAB. The SBE is 
>uniquely qualified to provide the service.
>
>The effort with the NFL is an offshoot of the SBE's frequency coordination 
>program, which the SBE has conducted since the mid 1970's. That program is 
>a perfect example of private industry helping to regulate (govern/oversee) 
>itself and avoiding government intervention.
>
>
> >[The] SBE should look at every issue before it and decide if it is
> >truly an issue that directly affects the members financially. This is
> >a good first step towards developing a true professional organization.
>
>This is already done with every FCC filing, although the financial element 
>is not usually part of the concern. When an SBE member learns of a 
>relevant matter, he brings it to the FCC Liaison Committee. The issue is 
>discussed and a plan is developed. That plan is submitted to the SBE Board 
>of Directors for comment and further discussion. Comments are then drafted.
>
>The Board is elected by the membership, and acts on behalf of that 
>membership. Any Certified SBE member in good standing is eligible to run 
>for a board position.
>
>
> >By the way, would one of you SBE officer/board types mind telling
> >me how much SBE spends on legal fees each year?
>
>I asked John Poray for this information. In 2004, the SBE spent $22,288 on 
>legal fees (retainer and out of pocket expenses). This represents 3.5% of 
>total SBE expenses for the year. This is a very low number considering the 
>services we get. Our combination of retained attorney/FCC Liaison 
>Committee volunteer effort is a very cost-efficient system.
>
>
>
>In addition, Dana Puopolo posted:
> >I was an SBE member for 28 years. I quit for the exact reasons Mario
> >states. As an example, at one point I found myself unemployed and
> >found the SBE's services (or lack thereof) to be totally USELESS! The
> >only things they offer are a resume database and the job listings. The
> >job listings are supposed to come out every Thursday. They hardly ever
> >do. Sometimes they don't come out for weeks at a time. But I'll
> >bet all the FCC coordination filings are all filed right on time!
>
>FCC filings have a hard deadline. Miss that deadline and your filing is 
>worthless. The JobsOnline is important and timely. It is also handled in a 
>different process by different people, so you can't compare them.
>
>The SBE is not a labor union. The SBE has never promised to be a job 
>placement service. Finding a job is the responsibility of the individual. 
>The SBE is in a position to assist with that.
>
>The SBE JobsOnline is updated weekly. I commented on this in my earlier 
>post. Because of the volunteer element required to update the information, 
>there have been rare cases where the information is delayed by a few days. 
>The SBE website redesign, which is now underway, should remedy this as 
>posting of the updates will become a staff function.
>
>
> >SBE, get out of the "helping the stations" business and BACK INTO
> >the "helping the MEMBERS" business. Then you might get me back!
>
>I don't think we ever left the "helping members" business. With that in 
>mind, a membership application is available on the SBE website. Please 
>note that I referred you. We are nearing the end of the annual membership 
>drive.
>
>I will say this again: If anyone has a concern with the SBE, please 
>contact the SBE directly. The board members and officers are volunteers 
>with regular jobs, so contact with them may not be immediate. The National 
>Office is staffed all day. Someone is always there to take your call and 
>see that action is taken.
>
>A forum like this is ideal to share information and discuss ideas, but it 
>is a simple courtesy to express a complaint directly to the person or 
>entity that it involves.
>
>The SBE Board of Directors meets in person twice each year, as does the 
>SBE Executive Committee. Additional meetings are held by telephone as 
>needed. Members are welcome to attend any of the in-person meetings. I 
>encourage you to do so. Also feel free to contact any officer or board 
>member directly. The list of contacts is available on the SBE website.
>
>Chriss Scherer, CSRE CBNT
>vice president, SBE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Hieb, P.E.
Consulting Engineer

36 H St. #2
Salt Lake City, UT 84103

e-mail: mario at xmission.com
text: 8015546069 at mmode.com
cell: 801-554-6069

NSPE ~ AFCCE ~ SBE