Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA16987; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:54:29 -0800 Return-Path: <JefWNDHNTR@aol.com-DeleteThis> Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA07484; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:54:35 -0800 Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA28412; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:51:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 16:51:50 -0500 From: JefWNDHNTR@aol.com-DeleteThis Message-Id: <941122163320_5113693@aol.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: SFBA and Splinter Groups
I havent been keeping up with all the chatter on the "SFBA Problem." As
someone who was involved with the Crissy Field plan, I can speak with
experience on the determental affect that having two competing WSing groups
can have.
First of all, I know on no "bad blood" between USWA and SFBA. I have been
involved with the SFBA since 1986 and have never heard of a problem between
the two groups
Secondly, much confusion occured when the "crissy Field Alliance" was formed
and tried to speak for all Crissy users jointly with the SFBA. In this case,
the National Park service had been dealing with the SFBA for over 8 years and
didnt understand why a new group was forming. What happened in the end was
that the CFA became the Crissy chapter of the SFB A and assumed much of the
ongoing duties governing Crissy issues.
Alligning a local chapter with the SFBA and USWA is a smart to leverage a
chapter's time and money resources: often another chapter has done alot of
the work already on a similiar problem.
Jeff Bunch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:25 PST