SCC Community Forum

The following the SCC's Fall 2011 Board meeting. This is a very reasonable proposal.

"Board health was discussed. The group agreed it would benefit the SCC to consider new structure and processes. terms of service and an election process for new board members/office positions were discussed. An application process could be productive for more qualified candidates to keep it fresh and growing in productivity.

Here are general guidelines - something similar to this should be adopted by SCC
Formal Application requirements for new BMs (RRGCC)
1. Must Submit a resume
2. Must be a current member of SCC
3. Must have previously volunteered with SCC

Terms of service
1. 3 year terms
2. Can serve 2 terms in a row, then off the board 1 year
3. Missing 3 physical Board meetings in a row results in automatic resignation."

Sometime back it was said that this may be the start of something disgusting without a response. Well, boys, I think we are rapidly approaching a place where it'll be time to go quiet on the SCC and the rest of these naysayers (or lack thereof). If that's what they want to do, I have a solution.

I thought I saw some encouraging signs. Perhaps, even "good faith initiatives". But now back to stonewalling? What is up with that?

There's a FB request for an area representative for Foster's now. What a joke. Reckon this has affected fundraising or membership? Even the SCC's Access Fund guy won't speak up. I smell a rat.

Scott P. has shed some logic on this concern. Bob has reached out. Paul has reached out. There is a lot of behind the scenes chatter. I rode up to Huntsville to watch that melee. Ben is furious. These guys are upset and there are others. If ever there was a time to reply, that time is now.

Scott Phil wrote:The following the SCC's Fall 2011 Board meeting. This is a very reasonable proposal. "Board health was discussed. The group agreed it would benefit the SCC to consider new structure and processes. terms of service and an election process for new board members/office positions were discussed. An application process could be productive for more qualified candidates to keep it fresh and growing in productivity. Here are general guidelines - something similar to this should be adopted by SCC Formal Application requirements for new BMs (RRGCC) 1. Must Submit a resume 2. Must be a current member of SCC 3. Must have previously volunteered with SCC Terms of service 1. 3 year terms 2. Can serve 2 terms in a row, then off the board 1 year 3. Missing 3 physical Board meetings in a row results in automatic resignation."

I saw that Scott...proposed by the current Pres Matt Gant, if I remember correctly, bout four yrs ago. Yet, they have stuck with the Knights of the round table structure instead. Some of that language above seems to be taken from the RRGCC. I wish they would get off this pretentious high horse of theirs and at least reach out to other orgs like that and the CCC for examples and advice. I also checked your street cred, Sir. Pretty impressive. I think that if a PhD with plenty of non-profit experience, and no dawg in this particular fight, was expressing concerns and offering advice....I'd sit up and take notice. But, that's just me.

MonkeyBoy.... I saw some positive signs early on too or I would never have offered to help. This stonewalling has me thinking we are back to square one as well. It's senseless...childish even.
I have no doubt Ben will give em an Alabama bolt war if they want one. They've now managed to alienate the only two folks in Alabama who actually own their own crags...think about that for a moment...yeah.

Beyond that....you need to get your War Eagle ass off the couch and come climbing...before your offspring arrives and permanently changes the game. I know a thing or two about that, you know.

Paul Barnes wrote:Beyond that....you need to get your War Eagle ass off the couch and come climbing...before your offspring arrives and permanently changes the game. I know a thing or two about that, you know.

Off the couch? I have until November. Let's roll.

seclimbers.org/modules.php?…

Looks like some cleanup has taken place.

Currently seeking a volunteer for Yellow Bluff property manager for the SCC Land Trust.

Jeb Orr removed from the board
No more SE Tennessee State rep
No more Ga State rep
NE Ga State rep has been replaced

I would be willing to take that position.

Better let 'em know through their website Brad...you know they hate this place.

Well it would seem that Paul and Ben's persistence is paying off. Good work guys.

RadDawg wrote:Well it would seem that Paul and Ben's persistence is paying off. Good work guys.

Well...thanks, man.
But, some if it is gonna have to be revisited.
It seems Shannon has found his list.

Do you have to know a secret handshake to get a look at it?

No need for a secret decoder ring. Tar Baby Blues 5.10+, Southern Accents 5.9 Amber Ways 5.9, Mule Time 5.10, Farm Noise 5.10, Caterpillar Perils 5.9, Poplar Mechanics 5.9, Little Piggies 5.8, Plow Boy 5.9, Boweevil Upheaval 5.11-, Corn Row Arete 5.8, Hay Day 5.7, Home Boy 5.8, Honey Pie 5.6, Country Girls 5.9, and Psychedelic Saturday, 5.9. Greg Allen, Stewart Coffield and James Dobbs were there and can confirm this if they care to. It saddens me to see our history erased and our wilderness crags turned into outside gyms. I am a long time member of the SCC and have spent countless hours giving my time and money for the cause. After doing the walkthrough at Yellow Bluff and witnessing fixed chains and perma-draws, bolts near obvious natural gear placements and a total disrespect to the Leave No Trace Ethic, I can no longer support this organization.

Spoken by the man himself. Thanks Shannon for taking the time to put that together.

Shannon definitely deserves some credit for doing in his very first post what nobody else has been able to do so far. But I'm confused - have all these routes been retro bolted?

OK...this is obviously going to spark more contentious debate, and perhaps rightly so. But, errbody take a deep breath and think for just a minute without gettin all puffed up.

We now have some history...important history at a crag that CLIMBERS own. EVERY effort should now be made to document this and restore these routes to their original state save for perhaps top anchors ( see how much I've learned? I just consented to "convenience anchors")...IF there is a need to. None of these may be retros but there's damn sure a responsibility for the SCC to definitively find out...as climbers...and as owners of the crag. Period.

Could this have been done sooner....hell yes. Like after the purchase and before the trail day yrs ago. Did anybody try to contact Shannon to do that very thing yrs ago? Yeah I think so. But the bottom line is that we have the information NOW. So what to do with it?

In my opinion, there is no statute of limitations on getting it right. No matter how badly you think people have handled it to this point, no matter how upset you may be with them over it. Get it right.

Paul Barnes wrote:None of these may be retros but there's damn sure a responsibility for the SCC to definitively find out

Wait, so are they or aren't they? And if they're not, then what's the issue with them?

As for finding out, I think I have an idea for how we could do that. The SCC could have a trail day and walk the cliff line with the guy that discovered the place and maybe some climbers concerned about retro bolts. Maybe the night before we can all yell and threaten to fight each other, just for good measure. That should be a pretty good way to sort this out and identify improperly bolted routes. Oh wait...

wwes wrote: The SCC could have a trail day and walk the cliff line...

Has the SCC provided any info from the cliff walk? I haven't seen anything here or on their site. They have responded to my emails, but even there, they have provided nothing.

shannon stegg wrote:No need for a secret decoder ring.

I guess I'll go ahead and point out the obvious -- not a single route you listed is documented on MP or any guidebook that I know of. So maybe you can "decode" where these routes actually are and/or how they correspond to known routes.

shannon stegg wrote:It saddens me to see our history erased

Kind of hard to "erase" something that has never been written down in the first place.

JL

wwes wrote: Wait, so are they or aren't they?

Here we go again...

Now ya can just post over and over and over demanding specifics from Shannon like ya did Ben.

If it needs to be revisited by Shannon, Greg, Stewart, or all of the above with list in hand...then so be it. If this whole thing has to start all over again from the beginning...then so be it. Get it right no matter how long it takes, no matter how many trips over there it takes, and no matter whose little feelings get hurt in the process...including mine, Ben's, Shannon's, the locals', or your SCC board member of choice. Yrs from now it ain't gonna matter who got their toes stepped on. But getting the history right should matter....to everyone. Which brings to mind another question.
Does the SCC need to document the routes on it's property...complete with FA info and any fixed hardware on the route? Or is that to be left to Watford and Mountain Project? Serious question...whatta y'all think? Spreadsheets are pretty easy to build and maintain nowadays, and the SCC has at least one paid employee. Should maintaining a route database for crags that the SCC owns be part of their responsibility? It seems like some effort should be made in light of all this as well as for the purpose of approving or denying any request to install new fixed hardware. If ya don't document what's there, how can ya responsibly approve or deny anything new?

Paul Barnes wrote:If ya don't document what's there, how can ya responsibly approve or deny anything new?

Yes. And the corollary is -- if you know what's there and don't share that information, how can you responsibly claim that something's been altered?

I agree with you that getting it right should be the goal, no matter how long it takes. And the first step in getting it right, as you said, is documenting the history. And to repeat my comments from the earlier forum thread, this all would have been a lot easier and a lot of controversy could have been avoided if people like Shannon had come forward when they were asked to do so and not withheld what they knew about Yellow Bluff.

JL

Sorry Mr. Saxfiend, your request was denied because I do not know you and you presented yourself in an unofficial manner. Like I stated before, I had contacted Mr. Watford three separate times to give him this information. He first ignored me, telling me he thought I was working, then he finally got tired of my calls and told me the SCC does not own the cliff line which my routes were on. A flat out lie. What's ironic is that Scott Perkins, a close friend to Mr. Watford. could of interjected and did not. You might be a good IT man, but you are a clueless climber. Anytime you bolt something you alter it.