California Surveyors Forums

The latest edition of the Chapter Newsletter is here! http://oc-surveyors.org/newsletter/

Download your copy of the current one on our newsletter page with the CURRENT link and browse past copies to catch up with what you’ve missed by YEAR.

Keep up on our upcoming events: http://oc-surveyors.org/events/

Chapter Google calendar: http://oc-surveyors.org/calendar/

Check us out on Social Media:
https://www.facebook.com/OC.CLSA
https://twitter.com/occlsa
https://www.periscope.tv/OCCLSA

Thanks for posting. Really good content, as usual.

Interesting reading. Found it curious as to the chapter's extreme focus on their being "practice based". A fellow surveyor not long ago asked me "isn't what CLSA does on a state level considered practiced based?"
Near as I could figure what is different is that the leaders of the OC chapter seems bent on filing complaints against brethren they consider more inept than themselves??.
Anyways, I digress.
What caught my interest in this and prior OC newsletters is that this group who takes great pride in filing complaints piqued my curiosity with their giving credit to the owner of the cover picture. Same goes for some of the stories in the newsletter. Credit given where credit is due. Along with links to the original owner's publications.
Now I found this curious in that giving credit where credit is due may keep one from being guilty of plagiarism. However what is missing in numerous instances and what would seem to be more important would be to include a statement along the lines of "reprinted with permission of...". Pretty much standard practice for editors to indicate obtained permissions in the effort to avoid violating copyright protections.
I find it incredibly ironic that a group led by those who are so quick to point out and seek out punishment of those many surveyors they claim to be inferior to themselves, also seem to pick and choose which laws apply to themselves.

I too am very impressed, great publication. Kudos to Delaney and the rest.
---
heck William Magee, I just downloaded another copy and found credits and citations for everything, including the cover photo.
What did I miss?
Really, you should contact the editor and get that ironed out. (full name and email in Two places on page 2, and probably others)

as far as the PPC I always felt Compliance with law was the focus, not punishment of those who don't... but I guess I read between the lines differently than you do. If you really feel they operate with vengeance (or the Board does) that is a problem. Need some details on that.

However, I too am a bit confused over the deeper meaning of the slogan "practice based", but I guess that would mean I would have to hang with them more. (I am an OC Chapter member but logistics hampers my regular attendance of the chapter meetings.)

Practice based activities are common in developing sciences and professions. A good outline can be found at: http://www.catalpa.org/pbi_1.html

"Most modern research methods do not directly assess what professional practitioners actually do. What a practicing professional actually does is at the heart of the matter. Assessment information which has not taken actual practice into consideration, has limited value for improving the practice of professional service organizations.

An important deficit of most conventional measurement schemes is the limited perception of the nature of the knowledge that is at the heart of good professional practice.

This problem stems from the inability of traditional research to define the knowledge that is at the heart of good practice in any profession. Of course, a professional practitioner does use the formal knowledge of his profession. But, it is his practice-based knowledge that makes the difference—that makes him a good professional or a mediocre one--that defines him as a practitioner rather than as a researcher or knowledge worker.

The good practicing professional learns from her experience about how to do her profession well. This body of experiential knowledge usually connects a practitioner's formal knowledge to her action. Some would assert that a key quality of a good practicing professional is her skill at learning from what she and others do when they practice their profession.

This body of knowledge is shaped by the actual experience of a practitioner. This is different from understanding the probabilities that can define outcomes. A practitioner builds this knowledge as she makes thousands of specific judgments about what to do to match the particularities of the specific person who is receiving the service and the particular context in which that person is when the service is offered.

Effective practitioners learn how to learn from particular incidents and evidence. They know how to adjust their thinking and their action to match what they have learned. They know that the right judgment about the best action to take with one person is not necessarily the right action to take with another. The right action today is not necessarily the right action tomorrow.

Effective practitioners learn how to learn from particular incidents and evidence. They know how to adjust their thinking and their action to match what they have learned. They know that the right judgment about the best action to take with one person is not necessarily the right action to take with another. T he right action today is not necessarily the right action tomorrow.

Practice-Based Inquiry begins with the nature of practice. It uses a different methodology to understand the complexity and particularity of good professional practice. Here are some examples of practice at work:


Example # 1: In the doctor's office

A doctor is a practicing professional. You are waiting for your doctor to tell you what she thinks about why you have had pains in your chest for the last two months.

You don't want your doctor to rely only on her formal knowledge about heart disease: mortality rates, probability risks for heart disease, angina, the effectiveness of modern drugs and their side effects. You want her to think about what is specific about you and your heart. You want to be confident that she understands your particular set of symptoms and context. You want her to be good at making careful judgments based on her knowledge and experience as a doctor. You want her to arrive at the best possible solution for you.

That knowledge comes from how well your doctor has paid attention to and learned from her practice as a doctor and how well she has learned about what is wrong with you in the few minutes you are together.

Practice-Based Inquiry is built on this understanding of practice.

Example # 2: In the teachers' room

You are a teacher. You listen with fascination as your principal announces the latest test score results for your school, realizing that it is as if he were announcing the winning Powerball numbers.

You know the results are important; everyone says so. You know new programs are on their way to ensure that you will teach so that the tests scores go up. You know some teachers are always talking about being professional. But they talk in generalities—"If you teach this way or that, the test scores will go up." You have a greater respect for teachers who listen skeptically, who take what they hear seriously only when it will make a difference to what they do in their daily teaching. Who talk about solving real problems they face daily in their classrooms.

You think about all the articles you read in the press about underperforming teachers, who are too highly paid. You wonder why so much of what you are asked to do does not match well with what a teacher has to do. You think of how you finally found a way this morning to explain fractions to Leslie and how excited she was to finally "get it." You know you will have to approach Michael differently tomorrow to teach him. You have found no support for how you must think as a teacher in all of the workshops or planning sessions you have been required to attend. You know that much of the formal knowledge you are learning is valuable, but…

You would not mind being held accountable for your teaching, if you were held accountable for what you must do to do your job well.

Practice-Based Inquiry provides a disciplined way for teachers to think about their practice so that they can strengthen what they do, based on what they learn from what they do. This is the special learning that comes with being a practitioner."

Why is Practice-Based Inquiry valuable?

It directly assesses the quality of the performance of complex, particular, actual practice of practicing professionals.
It provides the framework for carefully building inquiry protocols and procedures that ensure that the resulting findings are valid and legitimate.
It brings professional judgment out of the closet and transforms it into a tool for objective inquiry.
It is a rigorous reformulation of century-old procedures for conducting professional peer inquiry by teams.
It directly assesses how well a particular practice leads to the desired results.
It opens up the "black-box" between inputs and outputs that is so often a major component of variable research designs.
It provides a better understanding of the action that will improve the professional practice.
It provides a new foundation for strengthening critical systems of professional development, leadership, institution improvement and public accountability

I'm curious, what activities does the Orange County Chapter do that distinguish it as being practice based? From the title, I would take this to imply that there may be activities such as the study of boundary problems and resolutions, is this the case?

I do not speak for nor do I represent the OC Chapter. I am a member of OC and San Diego and I have been an active member of CLSA for nearly 40 years. My comments are my own and I want to make that clear.

There are varying types of ways folks participate in an association. There are those who sign up for committees and assume "leadership" roles - titles - as officers. These folks participate to bolster their resumes and they run around telling everyone they are this or that in the association. They are very proud of themselves. They are very good at handing out awards to each other and congratulating each other because of their position in an association. One after the other they run through the chairs and other than fattening their resumes, little is done to advance the interests of the association. By and large these people get nothing done. Their greatest contribution is handing out a shiny plaque to their successor. It is people like this that do the most harm to an association. They are in a theoretical position of "leadership" but they do not lead. They do though have a wall covered in nice looking plaques and awards. Meanwhile, the fundamental health of the association suffers. At a minimum, one of the primary functions of empowered association officers is to look after basic components like finances and policies, all of which gets neglected.

On the other hand, there are those who do things and make things happen. These people are the heart and soul of an association. They reach out to their peers and they spend time doing real work - they write things, they share things, they devote their time and money for the benefit of an association. They look at financial matters and they read things and they educate themselves and others. Awards are nice but they are not impressed with them. These people are motivated by the people around them and the people around them are motivated by them. It is an impressive and magnificent relationship. These are the same people criticized by those in the first group because they are threatened by those who want to make a difference. Making a difference requires hard work and the plaque people are more interested in rubber chicken award dinners as opposed to working long hard hours producing things. Instead of helping out they are always critical because they feel threatened and they put their personal interests above everything else.

Here is what my friend Curt Brown said on the topic:

"What is the future of land surveying? It is whatever you make it. You are the ones who are carrying the ball. You can tell some people by their mortgages, others by their deeds. As Shakespeare once said,

Men at some times are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

People are of three types: those that watch things happen; those that don’t know things are happening; and those that make things happen. Are we going to be underlings or are we going to make things happen?

For thousands of years surveying has depended upon its members as individuals for those creative achievements of mind that have guided it along the path of professionalism. When an idea comes, where does it originate? From the crowd? Never. The individual? Always. It is he and he alone who transmits ideas to his fellowmen. Wisdom and virtue cannot be forced from a crowd. There is no such thing as general intelligence. There is only individual intelligence communicating ideas to individual intelligences. There is no such thing as group professionalism; there is only a composite of individual professional standings.

One thing is certain, if we are going to acquire a standing or position in society, we must earn it individually by our own efforts. No man can acquire honesty by merely saying, “I am honest.” No man can acquire respect by saying, “I should be respected.” No man can acquire an education by merely saying, “I am educated.” Our individual actions, effort, and behavior are the proof of what we are. The sum total of all our individual actions is proof of what we are as a composite group, and the composite group is no better than the individuals. I hope that each of you, as an individual becomes recognized as a professional man, then all of us as a group will be acclaimed as a profession."

I am a member of the Orange County Chapter.

Good stuff Mike.

The only part I feel a need to respond to is that your post can be read that you feel that the rest of CLSA outside of the OC Chapter is mostly comprised of those whose primary interest is in collecting titles and trading awards. To be sure, all volunteer organizations have those types in their ranks and CLSA is no exception.

At times, those whose main interest is officer titles and awards - essentially a social club - have the reigns of leadership and often shut down those trying to accomplish meaningful goals. These are the folks who fear any amount of disagreement and discord within the CLSA and between the CLSA and other organizations. That describes many, but I would estimate not the majority of the CLSA. There are a lot of members who are willing and do put in effort to better the organization, as they see that betterment taking place.

Also like most other organizations, there is about 20% who put in effort and 80% who don't for various reasons. Of the 80%, there are a great many who have little idea what's going on, what issues are being addressed on their behalf, what actions are being taken, or any concerns that might exist regarding the governance of the organization. There are some that pay attention just enough to be aware of some issues but think that "the CLSA" should address it as if the 20% who actually do something are full-time paid staff rather than other paying members who contribute time and effort, often mostly at their own cost. And there are those who will do something just as soon as someone with enough energy and charisma to lead and motivate them comes along and enlists their help.

Of the 20%, all are putting in some level of effort, even if it's just showing up to BoD or committee meetings and reporting back to their chapters about the more significant happening and issues discussed at those meetings. Most put in at least a few dozen hours per year helping to make some things happen. A few put in well over 100 hours, and perhaps several hundred hours of their own time.

There is an important social component to the CLSA, as with other professional societies. For that reason, I'm glad that the social club and cruise director type members are here and appreciate the efforts they make to make sure the social component is there. The problem I see at times though is that the social club members are often uncomfortable when the down to business types pursue issues which are uncomfortable to address. How we deal with that determines the health of the organization.

IMO, for an organization like the CLSA to be and remain healthy and vibrant, there needs to be some disagreement in the ranks, and at times, that disagreement may need to rise to the level of discord. Without the unavoidable disagreement that comes with a wide variety of personalities, backgrounds, and specific interests that make up a large organization, the organization will eventually lose track of important aspects of its mission and/or drift off into irrelevance.

That's often where those whose motivation is to identify and address important issues come in and where the conflict arises. Many of the best "issues" people have one weakness in common - the have little or no sense of tact. Sometimes there are issues raised that don't get addressed not because the issue is not important, but because of how it is presented. Sadly, there are also times, once discord has taken root in an organization between those with different ideas of what the organization should focus on, when issues get ignored or shouted down, again, not because the issue is unimportant, but because of who is raising it. When the discord gets to that level, the organization is sick and in need of urgent care.

The CLSA went through that sickness not too long ago. I believe that the CLSA still has a way to go to be as healthy as it should be, but has been on the mend or nearly 2 years and is still currently heading in the right direction. Our members, including many in leadership positions, must be cognizant of differing interests of members and valid roles of CLSA to fulfill those interests. They must also learn to endure some discomfort, whether that's sitting through an awards banquet or allowing others to inquire into and pursue issues that some wish didn't exist.


That gets to the idea of "practice based". IMO, the heart of the CLSA's purpose and mission is "practice based". The practice issues are the meat, potatoes, and vegetables that the health (and relevance) of the association needs to grow and continue. The social aspects are the tasty snacks and desserts in this metaphor. They don't necessarily add a lot of value to the overall health and strength of the organization, but many need these things as a reward for having eaten their veggies.

The issues and the work to address them are the reason for the organization to exist, and therefore the heart and soul, but the social aspects are enjoyed by most and absolutely critical to some. Without the social aspects, most would eventually lose interest. Without honestly identifying and effectively addressing issues, there is no reason for the organization to exist.

These two functions are not mutually exclusive. Some may see no value in the social component, the awards and mutual admiration, but all of us want some recognition for the value we add. For some, an occasional "thanks for...[an article written, presentation made, meeting organized, or effort led]" is plenty. Some want, or at least like more public acknowledgement, which is why the awards are important.

For many, and I would estimate most, being informed, having opportunities to become better educated in our profession, and having issues affecting our practice effectively addressed is by far the most important, and for some, perhaps the only important function of an organization like CLSA.

IMO, the CLSA, including individual chapters, should have as their primary focus addressing issues of importance to the practice of surveying and providing learning and informational activities on a regular basis.

From my perspective, that's what "practice based" means. Hopefully, someone from the OC Chapter will chime in to explain what that means to them.

I believe EVERY Chapter should be a practice-based chapter. The CLSA should be made up of chapters whose members can say "mine is A practice-based Chapter" so that the article "THE" when OC members refer to it as "The practiced based chapter" becomes meaningless.

For many from other chapters, it sounds elitist when they say "The practice-based chapter", as if the rest of CLSA is comparatively irrelevant.

Over a 38 year career, I've visited or been a member of several different chapters of several different state PLS societies. From my experience, I can say that those chapters that conducted most of their business during an executive committee meeting separate from the Chapter meeting, and using the Chapter meetings as a forum to present something educational or informative were not only more interesting, but also enjoyed the greatest attendance and membership numbers. Those that regularly conducted the business of running the Chapter at the regular chapter meetings, with presentations being the occasional vendor giving an extended sales pitch or a chapter member showing pictures of the monuments that stumbled across on their vacation to some distant land were usually the most boring, and invariably had the lowest attendance and membership numbers.

People are busy. Although most of us enjoy the social opportunity of having dinner with a bunch of others who do and enjoy what we do for a living, if that is the primary or only draw, most of us are going to be less likely to make time for it very often. Add to that social opportunity, the opportunity to learn something relevant to what we do and enjoy doing for a living, and most of us are far more likely to block that night out in our calendars months in advance because we anticipate something worth making time for.

We often hear or participate in lamenting that younger people, our LSITs and unlicensed field and office techs don't seem to have any interest in the profession as a lifelong career. When I've been in the presence of someone making such a comment, I've often opined that providing education and information they can use to become better surveyors is the key to drawing the interest of these groups. More often than not, I receive looks as if I was just speaking Mongolian to them - a few seconds pause in the conversation and then they continue on a different topic as if I'd said nothing.

Practice-based is not something that should be seen as one chapter claiming for themselves. It's something we should all strive for in our own chapters and at the State level. Kudos to the OC Chapter for providing the example. Now OC folks, I hope your not only willing to share the title, but hope for the opportunity to do so several times over.

Going back to post #2 of this thread, once again, the anonymous heckler demonstrates that there is nothing attractive or inspiring about a wasted intellect.

Thanks Evan, I am a bit embarrassed to acknowledge I responded because of the heckler. I try to rise above such things. Indeed it further amplifies my observations. To my knowledge, he has never made a positive contribution to any of these discussions. Of course, it is easy to launch grenades from the safety of anonymity.

CLSA has to work out some of its problems and as always, I am ready to do what it takes. Sometimes folks may not agree with me and that is okay. As I tell everyone, I have been married 44 years and I can assure you, my wife and I have not always agreed. Still, we work hard together and remain married. That is because we care about each other. It is unfortunate there are those who still have a need to annoy, pester, and criticize those who are making progress. Instead of rowing, they are throwing and instead of working, they are jerking. The OC Chapter is very dynamic and they are workers. I don't see them running around handing out Director's awards with names of others fastened to the plaques and shiny trinkets.

In the end, it is up to each of us to decide where the association is headed. And as they say, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Lastly thank you for being unafraid to let us know who you are and to take stands when you see fit. Most people disdain cowardly acts' most people identify themselves when they stand and speak. That is how character is measured.

William Magee wrote:Interesting reading. Found it curious as to the chapter's extreme focus on their being "practice based". A fellow surveyor not long ago asked me "isn't what CLSA does on a state level considered practiced based?"
Near as I could figure what is different is that the leaders of the OC chapter seems bent on filing complaints against brethren they consider more inept than themselves??.
Anyways, I digress.
What caught my interest in this and prior OC newsletters is that this group who takes great pride in filing complaints piqued my curiosity with their giving credit to the owner of the cover picture. Same goes for some of the stories in the newsletter. Credit given where credit is due. Along with links to the original owner's publications.
Now I found this curious in that giving credit where credit is due may keep one from being guilty of plagiarism. However what is missing in numerous instances and what would seem to be more important would be to include a statement along the lines of "reprinted with permission of...". Pretty much standard practice for editors to indicate obtained permissions in the effort to avoid violating copyright protections.
I find it incredibly ironic that a group led by those who are so quick to point out and seek out punishment of those many surveyors they claim to be inferior to themselves, also seem to pick and choose which laws apply to themselves.

Magee has a tendency to spew his baseless nonsense - oftentimes early in the morning - only to reconsider and delete the posts shortly thereafter. I have captured his posts to provide context for the readers - before he tries to weasel out of the discussion.

Most folks have learned he contributes very little to the conversation. Few people seldom reply to his posts. Besides questioning Orange County's Practice Based approach there is little more than thinly guised ad hominem attacks on the successes of the chapter.

Magee clearly remains bitter the Practice Based Chapter successfully;

- worked with the CLSA Board of Directors to establish financial accountability to the membership;

- challenged the CPA that we believed mismanaged our taxes and the related accounting;

- maintains a chapter twice the size of the next biggest chapter in the state;

- publishes a good newsletter; and

- works to serve and represent our members.

Thank you to all of the folks that support our chapter and ultimately, CLSA as a whole.

DWoolley

I have just a few observations noted here.

I pointed out that the O.C. newsletter contains material that has the potential of exposing both the chapter individually, and CLSA as a whole, to litigation for copyright infringement. Again, please note that giving credit, while avoiding claims of plagiarism, does not avoid potential for copyright infringement in instances such as this when apparently permission has not been obtained to reprint and distribute. Is it not the duty of members and particularly directors to take notice of actions which bring such potential harm to the association?

As I understand it, the state association is little prepared to defend itself against such litigation. The association has lost money for several consecutive years now, and its membership numbers have been dropping significantly. At the latest state director's meeting, a negative budget was brought to the table by the financial committee. Although the director's stemmed the red ink on paper during the meeting, in part by raising members dues for the 3rd consecutive time, I personally am concerned that at 2018's year's end the balance sheet will once again be in the red and membership numbers will have continued their fall. The association can not afford to continue to operate in the red.

Exposure to litigation is the last thing the association needs at this time.

I also observed that portions of the leadership of the O.C. chapter have often advertised and championed that it not only frequently turns our survey brethern in to the BPESG complaint unit, but those same person(s) also actively encourage surveyors throughout the state to utilize the OC PPC for filing complaints against other surveyors. This and only this is the one observation of the OC chapter activities I've witnessed that sets its advertised goals and objectives apart from the goals and objectives at the state level. Again, I have to question if this is what those particular leaders of the O.C. chapter find to define what being "practice based" means.

Readers should note that the personal attacks on my character that followed my post, did not address the 2 observations I had made in my original post. The 2 observations in my original post were the only 2 issues discussed by me in this thread. Again, please note that the responding attackers deflected focus in their attacks instead of addressing the 2 observations made. This is the very definition of "ad-homenim" attacks they accuse me of. This is particularly disconcerting being as the first observation regarding copyright infringement should be invoking notice of fiduciary responsibility. It is incredibly alarming that one of my attackers, instead of recognizing his fiduciary responsibility as both a chapter and state officer, has instead responded with a deflecting ad-hominem attack. I believe I know why. More importantly, I believe that members of the O.C. chapter should be asking themselves why. Why did he he get both defensive and responded in such an attacking manner? And has this been a pattern which has risen to the surface in numerous other instances? Is it reflective of a pattern that dissuades others from rising forth to comment or challenge this particular leadership? Does questioning this or any of the chapter or state leadership invoke fear of personal attack or retaliation?

Members of a healthly organization should not feel intimidated by their leadership to speak up when they see something that they feel amiss. I believe all members of both the O.C. chapter and the state association should be asking themselves and others if this is happening and if it is a concern that should be addressed.

More on this later....

William Magee wrote:I have just a few observations noted here.

I pointed out that the O.C. newsletter contains material that has the potential of exposing both the chapter individually, and CLSA as a whole, to litigation for copyright infringement. Again, please note that giving credit, while avoiding claims of plagiarism, does not avoid potential for copyright infringement in instances such as this when apparently permission has not been obtained to reprint and distribute. Is it not the duty of members and particularly directors to take notice of actions which bring such potential harm to the association?

As I understand it, the state association is little prepared to defend itself against such litigation. The association has lost money for several consecutive years now, and its membership numbers have been dropping significantly. At the latest state director's meeting, a negative budget was brought to the table by the financial committee. Although the director's stemmed the red ink on paper during the meeting, in part by raising members dues for the 3rd consecutive time, I personally am concerned that at 2018's year's end the balance sheet will once again be in the red and membership numbers will have continued their fall. The association can not afford to continue to operate in the red.

Exposure to litigation is the last thing the association needs at this time.

I also observed that portions of the leadership of the O.C. chapter have often advertised and championed that it not only frequently turns our survey brethern in to the BPESG complaint unit, but those same person(s) also actively encourage surveyors throughout the state to utilize the OC PPC for filing complaints against other surveyors. This and only this is the one observation of the OC chapter activities I've witnessed that sets its advertised goals and objectives apart from the goals and objectives at the state level. Again, I have to question if this is what those particular leaders of the O.C. chapter find to define what being "practice based" means.

Readers should note that the personal attacks on my character that followed my post, did not address the 2 observations I had made in my original post. The 2 observations in my original post were the only 2 issues discussed by me in this thread. Again, please note that the responding attackers deflected focus in their attacks instead of addressing the 2 observations made. This is the very definition of "ad-homenim" attacks they accuse me of. This is particularly disconcerting being as the first observation regarding copyright infringement should be invoking notice of fiduciary responsibility. It is incredibly alarming that one of my attackers, instead of recognizing his fiduciary responsibility as both a chapter and state officer, has instead responded with a deflecting ad-hominem attack. I believe I know why. More importantly, I believe that members of the O.C. chapter should be asking themselves why. Why did he he get both defensive and responded in such an attacking manner? And has this been a pattern which has risen to the surface in numerous other instances? Is it reflective of a pattern that dissuades others from rising forth to comment or challenge this particular leadership? Does questioning this or any of the chapter or state leadership invoke fear of personal attack or retaliation?

Members of a healthly organization should not feel intimidated by their leadership to speak up when they see something that they feel amiss. I believe all members of both the O.C. chapter and the state association should be asking themselves and others if this is happening and if it is a concern that should be addressed.

More on this later....

And now, the victim.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:
And now, the victim.

DWoolley

and again, the ad-hominem attack.

I've tried, twice now, through PM to reason with the anonymous heckler and have never received a response.

If he/she/it is really concerned about his copyright concerns as issues, and that is really the point, then he could have contacted the OC officers directly, or PM them under the forum pseudonym to address the concern in a more private and professional manner.

But that is not the point. The point is to find some fault, flaw or error, real or imagined by somene on his personal list of enemies at every opportunity and then use it in a post on a public forum for the purpose of embarrassing that person or group in as public a manner as possible.

That he thinly veils his attacks as concerns, never openly names yet also manages to clearly identify his target, and does this from a position of anonymity is not only poor form and unprofessional, it's downright cowardly.

He now whines about personal attacks, again from a position of anonymity from which he is constantly launching attacks.

Anonymity is a way to avoid personal responsibility for offensive statements and behavior. When used as the anonymous heckler has been using it, the only reason is so he can deny responsibility for his statements when we are face to face.

Since the anonymous heckler remains anonymous, any criticism directed his way, by definition, cannot be personal, and therefore not ad hominem.

Any reader who thinks the anonymous heckler is some sort of victim here can do a search of all his posting history. Just try to find some positive comments about anything or anyone. Just try to find any posts which are not veiled personal attacks aimed at another forum user. I doubt anything positive can be found in that history.

Speaking for myself, I'm tired of it. Beyond that, I'm very annoyed by it and will call him out on it regularly.

I posted that disagreement in an organizaton is healthy. That's when the members discuss the issues openly and honestly. Using supposed concerns as a means to find fault from a position of anonymity is first, disingenuous because the anonymous heckler doesn't really care about the supposed issues he raises, and second, even if or when the issue is addressed, he merely deflects to some other supposed fault or cries that he's being picked on.

Since his aim is not to address the issues but to launch an attack, and he does it from hiding, the discussion from his end can be neither open nor honest.

There are valid reasons for someone, at times to post anonymously. Using it to launch attacks from a hiding place is not a valid reason. Everyone of the anonymous heckler's targets have user names that clearly identify who they are. Everyone who has and continues to call out the abusiveness and cowardice of the anonymous heckler do so under those names.

If my tone here is combative, just realize that it would be wholly different if discussing real concerns with a pOster who has the integrity to own their statemeets and who discusses issues honestly.

The anonymous heckler may think he is being clever by directing his critical comments to specific people and making it clear who the target is without using a name. It's simply another layer of cowardice.

"To remain silent, when they should protest, makes cowards of men".

Don't know who said it, but it sure sounds good.

Bruce Hall

Thanks for discussion regarding the definition of "practice based".
Now back to the newsletter....

I think it has something to do with the weather in the Healdsburg area.

LS_8750 wrote:Thanks for discussion regarding the definition of "practice based".
Now back to the newsletter....

And back to the newsletter. A little background. In my earlier life I had interest in journalism and it led me down several paths. Along that way I had imprinted on me the importance of journalistic integrity and liability. One of the biggest no-no's was copyright infringement and what that means. So when I noticed that the O.C. newsletter appears to have violated copyright law and exposed the state association to costly litigation, it hit me as something that should be corrected.

Now to be fair, there are a couple of rebuttable arguements as to if the O.C. newsletter actually violated copyright law. It is very telling that those who could have made those rebuttable arguements instead chose to attack the messanger instead of the message (see the definition of ad-hominem). I absolutely believe without a doubt that intimidation, bullying and harassment have no place in CLSA. I digress from this issue for now but will be discussing my concern and its current and past history within CLSA in depth shortly.

To be fair, in regards to copyright infringement, rebuttable arguements include things such as "fair use". It could be argued that the O.C. chapter was exempt from copyright infringement because its reprinting and distributing of material was done as an educational tool, i.e. "fair use". It could be argued that the O.C. newsletter is not in competition with the owners of the copyrighted material. It could be argued that the O.C. newsletter is simply too small of potatoes and is not at risk of being noticed or cared about by the owners of the copyrighted material.

These are all valid arguements. Rebuttable but valid. However they by no means come close to providing any assurance of victory in the courtroom, nor avoidance of the filing of lawsuits by the copyright owners. For this reason the state association has been exposed to litigation. Far and wide the best path anyone in a journalistic endeavor should choose would be to contact the owners of the copyrights and obtain permission. That is the time when the arguements of fair use and non-competitive media are best made. Not in the courtroom.
.

I make no apologies for bringing this issue forward. I make no apologies for bringing the issue forward here in the forum. Per the association's bylaws, this forum as part of the CLSA website, is defined as one of CLSA's official publications. I felt it best to bring it forward here to provide discussion on a statewide level as it is the statewide association who has been exposed.. To avoid the issue by those who have control over it would be for them to shirk their fidiciuary responsibilities. To instead attack the messanger who brings the issue forward is pure exposure of a much bigger issue.

Mr. Anonymity,

Out of curiosity, what is your position on embezzlement? Do you consider that and mail theft crimes and if so, where do they stand relative to things like copyright infringement?

As I am curious about the notion of criminal acts and the potential implications of charges of plagiarism, as well as a fundamental inquiry into one's professed morality, I did some research on plagiarism and, as it is a civil crime, no one has ever gone to jail for it. At best, it can result in a cash payment.

Conversely, and for the convenient purpose of comparing a civil matter to a criminal act, I came across an interesting article about a woman who embezzled $300,000 from a tool company. She was sentenced to spend from 3 to 10 years in prison. The article can be found here:

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/inde ... _time.html


“Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life so. Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something.”
― Henry David Thoreau

Excellent writing Evan Page - in your post, you are dead on in nailing down Magee's disingenuous nonsense.

OC Newsletter and Copyright Laws

If Magee's intentions were in earnest, it would have been much simpler if he had asked how the Practice Based Chapter avoided any copyright issues in publishing the newsletter. If he had a background in journalism, as he has claimed, he would realize we are not writing very much original content and therefore, there is no point in throwing "plagiarism" into the discussion - however, this does not suit his dishonest purposes.

The OC Newsletter is legal in their presentation of material.

The "printed with permission..." is not necessary and is seldom seen anymore. The OC Newsletter layout was similarly and intentionally, modeled to the second most read news aggregation website, The Drudge Report. Anyone notice news links having "printed with permission..." or even, for that matter, social media news links? No, of course not.

There is zero threat of litigation for CLSA. These faux threats used to work in scaring the CLSA BoD of yesteryear - anyone remember when our former Ex. Dir. used to throw around "anti-trust" and literate grown men would cower like the Lion in Oz? Yes, I do too.

We can ignore him, his lies and his misdirection. CLSA membership is up year over year, we are operating at a $30k surplus budget after the last BoD meeting and yes, we have raised the dues three years in a row and should hope to continue for the next several years. The raise in membership dues is because of the poor past management, we didn't raise the dues for nearly 20 years. The bylaws prevent us from raising the dues more than 10% annually. We have some catching up to do.

Being Practice Based

Lastly, I am hesitant to define what Practice Based means to the Orange County Chapter. The idea is, like a good song or poem, it means something different to each individual member. Defining the term could actually take away from the meaning. This is as should be.

There were three primary considerations when the OC Chapter rebranded itself as Practice Based:

1. Our membership includes folks from Humboldt to San Diego counties and all points in between, Mexico [shout out to Peter], Oklahoma and other locations. Being the "Orange County" chapter is geographically constraining and not representative of all our membership.

2. As a chapter, we did away with the feel good programs like Trigstar, Scouting Merit badge, etc. The idea was our well of volunteer hours was only so deep. These hours were best spent directed towards providing information and assistance to the licensed professional community. If they are doing well, they are hiring, training and helping to expand the community. We resurrected the CalPoly Pomona conference program to further suit this purpose.

3. Although we did away with many of our programs, we continue to pledge $5000 annually in scholarship money. However, this is not our members' dues money. No, we save our chapter's money to support Practice Based ideas and moreover, to prevent having to go to the state association to get money for our Practice Based ideas.

In my opinion, when viewed as a whole, the state association is not Practice Based.

Being Practice Based is whatever our membership wants it to be to each of them individually, nothing more, nothing less.

Magee is what he is - a leftover, a vestige, of the years of financial mismanagement of CLSA. He offers little of value and remains only to spread his bitterness for the Practice Based Chapter and moreover, me for having collectively put the light on the CLSA financial shenanigans between 2004 and 2014 and setting a new path forward - a Practice Based path for our chapter.

Members, rest assured, the California Attorney General is closing in on our former CLSA CPA. He will be disemboweled for what he did to CLSA soon enough.

Thank you to our Practice Based members for your continued support and for making us the biggest chapter, by nearly two times the next biggest chapter, in the 50 year history of CLSA. We have the next edition of our newsletter in final edit. Please look for it to be released next week.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:...

We can ignore him, his lies and his misdirection. CLSA membership is up year over year...

DWoolley

Total CLSA membership as of July 1 of each of the following years:

2013: 2,149
2014: 2,077
2015: 2,083
2016: 1,682
2017: 1,667

Note that these numbers are taken directly from the Board of Director's agendas and are available for any member to review.

DWoolley wrote:

...... we are operating at a $30k surplus budget after the last BoD meeting....

DWoolley

Note that the $30k surplus budget is the projected budget for next year. i.e. wishful and barring any further drops in membership, conference negative income or unanticipated expenses such as legal defense fees.

I saw the same numbers. Apparently, every time you post something, we lose two more members.