RRGCC Answer

Post by **weber** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:07 pm

Has anyone else noticed how many high quality people, including officers and CAC members, have been leaving the RRGCC in recent weeks and in the last few days? This cannot be a good sign, and it certainly presents a disturbing picture of our coalition to others in the general climbing community – especially in light of the discord-fomenting diatribe frequently posted on this forum (until recently) by one of its officers. The appropriate thing to do, I guess, is to ask our RRGCC officers why all the resignations and “terminations.” However, in the past, I've had very little luck in having my emails and calls answered by them.

Any thoughts here?

- an old dirtbag climber

Post by **Spragwa** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:48 am

I think that's appropriate Geezer. Person to person questions. Unfortunately, I don't believe that they will be able to answer honestly. I don't mean that anyone intentionally lies, but there are definitely issues of perception. The reasons people give for leaving, are not the ones that I hear the officers relay in explanation. Again, I don't believe that most are intentionally neglecting to tell the truth, except for Gretchen, but I do believe that in an unconscious effort to refuse responsibility, they don't process what is said.

Yeah, I'm going all psycho-analytical here...or maybe I am just psycho.

Post by **spinalbifida** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:57 am

Has there been any discussion about what happens if the RRGCC loses the property, i.e., can't make a balloon payment?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:52 pm

geezer wrote:Has anyone else noticed how many high quality people, including officers and CAC members, have been leaving the RRGCC in recent weeks and in the last few days? This cannot be a good sign, and it certainly presents a disturbing picture of our coalition to others in the general climbing community – especially in light of the discord-fomenting diatribe frequently posted on this forum (until recently) by one of its officers. The appropriate thing to do, I guess, is to ask our RRGCC officers why all the resignations and “terminations.” However, in the past, I've had very little luck in having my emails and calls answered by them.

Any thoughts here?

- an old dirtbag climber

Rick, it's been going on for quite sometime. No one can take away the past accomplishements of the ED and the RRGCC and the lasting, positive impact they have had on climbing in the RRG, however the present situation is inexcuseable. Far too many good, motivated people have left the RRGCC due to frustration with the ED (Shannon) and the current president of the BOD (Gretchen). It's insane that willing volunteers, contributors, and competent leaders are mistreated the way they are.

There are still some very good people in the RRGCC, and I admire their ability to perservere through all the BS. I hope they can effect positive change from within. It's a daunting task, though, and until the ED steps down - as she has said she will - I'm skeptical.

To those of you who say that unless you have worked or contributed, you have no right to bash the RRGCC, I respectfully disagree. I have done both, but that's not my point. If the RRGCC wants to attract members and donations, they should listen to the climbing community. I'm not holding my breath for that, though. The questions on thered.org remain unanswered. Pathetic.

Post by **the lurkist** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:55 pm

As one of those former officers, first a disclaimer. I have not been critical of the RRGCC until well after I stepped down. I stepped down specifically to get out of the way of the MPP deal being finalized. I recognized at the time that there needed to be solidarity with the BOD/ED and as I was not able to agree with the ED, I stepped aside in lew of the folks who could agree.
The BOD as it stands now is scared by the thought of LAS (life after Shannon). She has been working 40-60 hrs/wk for free for years now. The BOD can't fathom that the RRGCC can exist without a work horse investing that amount of time. I would suggest that they need to have a bit of vision. I would bet that the org could exist with a cooperative group of people running it. Identifying goals, dividing up tasks, and pushing "run" on the program.
Essentially, look how poorly a management style of megalomaniacal centralality micromanagement has worked. Try a decentralized method based on trust and community input. What a novel idea for a grass roots advocacy group.
In the end, unless there is a sugar daddy that is willing to pick up the bill, I worry about default. I hope they have a take out plan.

Post by JB » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:38 pm

Essentially, look how poorly a management style of megalomaniacal centralality micromanagement has worked.

I would, hugh, but i just went stupid from trying to understand your loquacious magniloquence.

Post by **spuzo** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:41 pm

Hugh - well said

Post by **dhoyne** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:35 pm

Maybe I'm the only one that sees this:

Instead of having one person work 40-60 hours a week, and others trying to volunteer and getting turned down, here's a novel idea. DELEGATE!! You can get 10 people to do 4 hours a week without a problem. This will make alot more people feel like they're helping the cause, and it will also help communication because more people will know what's going on.

Post by **vic** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:41 pm

Why didn't I think of that?
(okay, I love sarcasm, but since not everyone does understand my sick sense of humor, here's a disclaimer: I have though of it before... so have others... look at the sec for instance... but in the end, it's not the way the founder of RRGCC and co-founder of the RRGCC have set up the organization)

Post by **the lurkist** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:59 pm

I would, hugh, but i just went stupid from trying to understand your loquacious magniloquence.

nice. touche'