[at-l] ATC

[optimyst at gmail.com (Richard C Evans)]

Words like corporate tricks and "opposition" seem to me to be out of
place in this discussion.  Remember that the ATC board is a volunteer
group, not some entrenched group of bureaucrats getting rich off the
membership.  We come from the membership, are term limited to 6 years,
and, as I said, just voted ourselves to an early "retirement," with no
financial benefits, but a whole lot of psychic ones.

You would have had a tough time thinking of the board as out of touch
or disconnected if you had seen most of us two weeks ago hiking up to
Weaverton Cliffs to enjoy our last moments together as the final board
of managers of the old ATC before dispersing to places like Maine and
Florida and Colorado to resume our "real world" lives.  We met Boy
Scouts and thruhikers on our way to that gorgeous view, just an
ordinary group out for a hike on a beautiful spring day full of hope
on this extraordinary trail we all cherish.  We didn't smell like the
thruhikers, but I daresay we looked like your average scruffy group of
hikers, quite equal before the impassive eyes of the Appalachian
Mountains.

The point I'd like to make is that this board was very
independent-minded when it came to "buying" the line being "sold" by
consultants, staff, park service, or anyone else.  I can assure you
that guys like Walt Daniels forcefully made known their objections to
things they didn't like.  The final plan was not perfect, nor is it
complete, but it did convince over 90% of the board that it was the
best option that could be drafted in a timely manner, and that it was
time to move forward.  It had gotten to the point of overanalysis and
gridlock, so our job was to get past that and set us on the path to a
stronger, more effective ATC.

Much is left to be done, not in debating the name change, the
fund-raising emphasis or making major course corrections, but in
fleshing out all the details that will make the organization
successful in its mission and responsive to its members.  Email your
local staff and clubs.  Let them know what you think.  If you need any
contact info, let me know.

Another point to counter the idea of there being a voiceless
opposition in ATC:  Bob Kyle, who represented the southern region on
the board and finished his AT section hike in 2004, was one of two nay
votes in the 25-2 vote to adopt the strategic plan.  You'd think that
if there was a corporate us vs. them mentality, then Bob Kyle would
have committed organizational suicide, yet that is not the case at all
because Bob has been nominated to a seat on the new Stewardship
Council.  I assure you that the diversity of opinions is valued in the
organization.

I'm optimistic that the new ATC will find a way to value every member
and give them a role to play in the protection of the trail.  As I
said before, communication will be the key.

Happy trails,

Solar Bear

On 5/29/05, Doug Mathews <mathews@uga.edu> wrote:
> I have to respectfully disagree.  There would be no harm in actively
> requesting member input. For the most part, only those with a real interest
> or agenda would respond. Having a member organization that feels somewhat
> disenfranchised would appear to be be simply trying to use the members a
> source of revenue.  There are many members out her in cyber space who are
> equally qualified to offer input.  Of course, we need access to the
> information that the board does to operate on a level playing field. Its an
> old corporate trick to keep information close so that those with other
> ideas are blind sided and made to look a little less knowing to weaken
> their positions. On the other side of that coin, maybe the "opposition"
> might have come to the same conclusion or had a better idea if they had all
> the info to work with in the first place.
> 
> Mainframe