|
1. |
The list
has grown substantially in recent years, making it reasonable to require more
than 15 peaks for an emblem, and, in order to ensure that emblem holders have
climbed a representative sample of the peaks, also necessary. |
|
2. |
It will
increase participation in section activities. |
|
3. |
The D.P.S.
emblem is too easy to obtain relative to the H.P.S. and S.P.S. emblems which
require, on the one hand, more peaks and, on the other, harder peaks.
The arguments against this amendment are: |
|
1. |
Arguments
1 and 3 above are fallacious. Fifteen is a reasonable, representative
sample. |
|
2. |
If it
becomes too difficult to obtain a D.P.S. emblem, climbers will be discouraged.
Thus, participation and membership will actually decrease. |
INSKEEP'S INSIGHTS |
-- |
Jon
Inskeep |
Here are the remarks I
would like to make in the Newsletter in opposition to some of the measures
appearing on the ballot. I hope they're not too late.
FIVE NEW EMBLEM
PEAKS! What kind of madness is this? On the face of it alone, this
ill-conceived proposal should be rejected by the membership. Sure, there's
reason to add to our list of emblem peaks, but it should be done gradually and
deliberately as the durability of our peaks list deserves.
The lively
discussions at the March DPS meeting, as a result of the proposed bylaw
changes, make two points very clear: |
1) |
The proposed bylaw revision which would make such changes
subject to ballot by mail, and thus curtail open scrutiny at the meetings,
should be defeated. This amendment is being touted as a step toward greater
representation for the members. I think that it is exactly the opposite. For
members not attending the meetings, the Newsletter will be the only forum for
discussion of the issues. And as demonstrated by my own meager efforts here,
this is a poor substitute for the two-way communication at our meetings.
Dissenting and minority opinions in particular will be stifled. We will simply
have more votes from less informed people. |
2) |
The Mountaineering Committee has acted prematurely in
recommending not only the upgrading of a large number of peaks to emblem
status, but the addition of more peaks to the qualifying list before even
furnishing so much as a set of guidelines governing such action. The decision
to give any of our peaks emblem status must be based solely on the
qualifications of the peak itself. It certainly should not be because we are
playing a numbers game with the emblem requirements and don't have enough
emblem peaks. |