January 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:16427] Re:RE: RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Joel Harrison 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

It just strikes me as funny that anyone in their wildest imagination would attempt to connect the elimination of senior dues with the meeting location. Not only are the two not connected in anyway, you can't make any dollar comparison between a board meeting in Houston -vs- Hartford and the cost of services to a member over 65 -vs- a member under the age of 65. Joel -----Original Message----- From: n3llr(a)earthlink.net [mailto:n3llr@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:52 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16427] Re:RE: RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question We had a division webinar meeting last with the SM's and AD's. Thr SM's expressed their thanks that they were sent info about the board meeting before release to the general membership. Incidentally there were questions about the elimination of senior dues but after discussion it didn't appear to be a problem. One asst director mentioned that he saw a message on a reflector he follows that some members are aware senior dues are to be eliminated and if so why did the board meet in Houston? Don't know if that will become a problem but the question is in the reflector. - Bill N3LLR

1 0

[arrl-odv:16427] Re:RE: RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by n3llr＠earthlink.net 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

We had a division webinar meeting last with the SM's and AD's. Thr SM's expressed their thanks that they were sent info about the board meeting before release to the general membership. Incidentally there were questions about the elimination of senior dues but after discussion it didn't appear to be a problem. One asst director mentioned that he saw a message on a reflector he follows that some members are aware senior dues are to be eliminated and if so why did the board meet in Houston? Don't know if that will become a problem but the question is in the reflector. - Bill N3LLR -----Original Message----- From: "John Bellows" <jbellows(a)skypoint.com> Subj: RE: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question Date: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:09 pm Size: 12K To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> .. In fact Dave Sumners posting to the SMs of a summary of Board actions is a step consistent with the PSC Section Governance Study Interim Report.

1 0

[arrl-odv:16426] Re:Board meeting agenda, SM question
by dick＠pobox.com 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

28 JAN 2008 - 1300 CST As you all know, I don't post a lot of miscellaneous comments (other than the very occasional bit of government humor) to either the OD or ODV reflectors. However, the subject listed in the header above has caught my attention and I offer the following food for thought: 1. My understanding of the ARRL governance structure is that all ARRL policy- making is done by the ARRL board of directors. The buck stops with us. 2. The section managers are not ARRL policy-makers. This is a major part of the rationale for our current parallel governance structure. Section managers supervise ARRL field operations; primarily in public service, emergency communications, the ARRL Official Observer program, and local public information activities. 3. To a degree, this is reflected in our discussions of and policies concerning conflicts-of-interest and the conduct of ARRL elections. SM candidates are not held to standards quite as strict as those for our directors and vice- directors because they are not considered to be ARRL policy-makers. 4. If they are to be involved in ARRL policy-making, our current parallel governance structure needs to be changed so there is only one line of authority. Section managers would have to be held to the exact same conflict-of-interest standards - including loyalty to ARRL policies and operations. I'm not going to name names or specific sections, but a few of you know we have a very few section managers who are often anti-ARRL in their actions or lack of same. 5. We all should confer with our section managers on various issues. I seek direct opinions from the three Central Division section managers on issues that could change their section obligations and authority. If there is a legitimate issue the section managers want considered by the board, we should consider it. We just did that at our last board meeting. However, it's not a good idea for section managers to vet our board meeting agenda because they are not the ARRL policy-makers. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Joel Harrison 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

I want to amplify one point Jay makes below: >From my reading of the comments the SMs in areas where there are pre-Board Division Cabinet meetings or another regular mechanisms to exchange information with the Director be for the Board Meetings seemed more comfortable with the flow of information. Id like to encourage the Directors that dont utilize cabinet meetings, telecons or some form of communication with the SMs prior to the board meetings to do so. This does work and does address most of the issue raised and also goes a long way in addressing the topic of communicating that weve been so fond of lately. A two way relationship between the Director and SMs is a good thing. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:33 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question This thread has assumed a life of its own. As Dave noted it would be hard to justify general distribution of reports prior to the time they are received. Additionally, some reports such as those of the standing committees are often supplemented at the meeting based upon updated information and actions. The discussion appears to have its genesis in a concern of some Section Managers as to being informed prior to the Board meeting as to issues likely to be addressed and to a lesser extent receiving information as to Board actions. Before we take this too far we need to remember the PSC is currently working on these very questions as part of the Section Governance Study. In fact Dave Sumners posting to the SMs of a summary of Board actions is a step consistent with the PSC Section Governance Study Interim Report. For what it is worth, of the SMs who responded to the Governance study questionnaire and expressed a concern, where primarily concerned about issues directly affecting the Sections operation or major member issues not the issues contained in most committee reports. From my reading of the comments the SMs in areas where there are pre-Board Division Cabinet meetings or another regular mechanisms to exchange information with the Director be for the Board Meetings seemed more comfortable with the flow of information. There will always be glitches in the process and I expect most of us can do a better job of communicating with the SMs in our divisions, assuming they are interested, but for now we have tasked the PSC to look into this. Before we decide to make any significant changes we need to give them some room and let them finish the study and present their recommendations. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:58 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question Procedurally I don't think it would be a good idea to release committee reports prior to the meeting, i.e. before the Board receives and accepts them. The agenda currently is structured so that recommendations to be considered by the Board can be listed (for example, see items 8 and 9 of the January 2008 agenda). In practice, recommendations are seldom received in time to be added to the agenda prior to the meeting. To do that we would have to abandon the practice of holding standing committee meetings the day before the Board meeting, so the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages. Dave K1ZZ. _____ From: Rod Stafford W6ROD [mailto:w6rod@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:45 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16405] Re:Board meeting agenda, SM question Jim You're absolutely correct. Without all the reports the agenda itself has little value. Even if we were to send out the agenda before the meeting, the next logical thing that would be requested is distribution of all the reports that go to the directors. And, even in our new "transparent" operation, that would be a big bunch of work for staff. Not to mention all that information going out to "who knows where and who." It would also mean all of the people doing reports (including me) would have to get those done way ahead of the BoD meeting. You know what kind of havoc that would cause!! And I wish I could "dry out." 73, Rod At 09:10 PM 1/26/2008, K8JE wrote: Rod, In addition to your comments, the most significant thing about one of our agendas is that it doesnt typically <<snip>> 73, Jim Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by John Bellows 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

This thread has assumed a life of its own. As Dave noted it would be hard to justify general distribution of reports prior to the time they are received. Additionally, some reports such as those of the standing committees are often supplemented at the meeting based upon updated information and actions. The discussion appears to have its genesis in a concern of some Section Managers as to being informed prior to the Board meeting as to issues likely to be addressed and to a lesser extent receiving information as to Board actions. Before we take this too far we need to remember the PSC is currently working on these very questions as part of the Section Governance Study. In fact Dave Sumners posting to the SMs of a summary of Board actions is a step consistent with the PSC Section Governance Study Interim Report. For what it is worth, of the SMs who responded to the Governance study questionnaire and expressed a concern, where primarily concerned about issues directly affecting the Sections operation or major member issues not the issues contained in most committee reports. From my reading of the comments the SMs in areas where there are pre-Board Division Cabinet meetings or another regular mechanisms to exchange information with the Director be for the Board Meetings seemed more comfortable with the flow of information. There will always be glitches in the process and I expect most of us can do a better job of communicating with the SMs in our divisions, assuming they are interested, but for now we have tasked the PSC to look into this. Before we decide to make any significant changes we need to give them some room and let them finish the study and present their recommendations. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:58 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question Procedurally I don't think it would be a good idea to release committee reports prior to the meeting, i.e. before the Board receives and accepts them. The agenda currently is structured so that recommendations to be considered by the Board can be listed (for example, see items 8 and 9 of the January 2008 agenda). In practice, recommendations are seldom received in time to be added to the agenda prior to the meeting. To do that we would have to abandon the practice of holding standing committee meetings the day before the Board meeting, so the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages. Dave K1ZZ. _____ From: Rod Stafford W6ROD [mailto:w6rod@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:45 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16405] Re:Board meeting agenda, SM question Jim You're absolutely correct. Without all the reports the agenda itself has little value. Even if we were to send out the agenda before the meeting, the next logical thing that would be requested is distribution of all the reports that go to the directors. And, even in our new "transparent" operation, that would be a big bunch of work for staff. Not to mention all that information going out to "who knows where and who." It would also mean all of the people doing reports (including me) would have to get those done way ahead of the BoD meeting. You know what kind of havoc that would cause!! And I wish I could "dry out." 73, Rod At 09:10 PM 1/26/2008, K8JE wrote: Rod, In addition to your comments, the most significant thing about one of our agendas is that it doesnt typically <<snip>> 73, Jim Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

[arrl-odv:16423] Re:RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Procedurally I don't think it would be a good idea to release committee reports prior to the meeting, i.e. before the Board receives and accepts them. The agenda currently is structured so that recommendations to be considered by the Board can be listed (for example, see items 8 and 9 of the January 2008 agenda). In practice, recommendations are seldom received in time to be added to the agenda prior to the meeting. To do that we would have to abandon the practice of holding standing committee meetings the day before the Board meeting, so the disadvantages may outweigh the advantages. Dave K1ZZ. ________________________________ From: Rod Stafford W6ROD [mailto:w6rod@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:45 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:16405] Re:Board meeting agenda, SM question Jim You're absolutely correct. Without all the reports the agenda itself has little value. Even if we were to send out the agenda before the meeting, the next logical thing that would be requested is distribution of all the reports that go to the directors. And, even in our new "transparent" operation, that would be a big bunch of work for staff. Not to mention all that information going out to "who knows where and who." It would also mean all of the people doing reports (including me) would have to get those done way ahead of the BoD meeting. You know what kind of havoc that would cause!! And I wish I could "dry out." 73, Rod At 09:10 PM 1/26/2008, K8JE wrote: Rod, In addition to your comments, the most significant thing about one of our agendas is that it doesn't typically <<snip>> 73, Jim Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

[arrl-odv:16422] Board Minutes posted
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

The Board Meeting minutes are posted at http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0801/ A Web story with the meeting highlights will be up later today. Dave

1 0

[arrl-odv:16421] RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Brian Mileshosky 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Thanks for the note, Joel. I sent him an email explaining how things work (via committees, reports and presentations) and he was appreciative. We sit on the board of the Division's largest ham club (660 members) and have very, very specific agendas. For a small group (with respect to ARRL) that's easy to generate and work under. I think he was expecting the same sort of thing with ARRL. He certainly wasn't confrontational; I think just an honest question fueled by some discussion he had with other opinionated SMs. Nonetheless, we've got it squared away. Thanks for everybody's input. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Joel Harrison wrote: > > > Brian, > > > > One other note. I know many of the Directors hold "cabinet meetings" with > the SM's and other selected individuals in the Division or call the SM's on > the phone a week or two prior to the board meeting to advise them of things > we know are coming up and to also find out what is on their minds, etc. > > > > You may want to discuss this with a few of the directors for some ideas for > the future. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that "a lot" of the > SM's were angry about not knowing what was on the agenda. Maybe he was > speaking about the Rocky Mountain Division SM's, but in any event I'm > confident you can relieve any concerns or issues he may have. > > > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > > > > > > > _____ > > From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:29 PM > To: arrl-odv > Subject: Board meeting agenda, SM question > > > > All - > > > > First, does anyone have an agenda for the last board meeting in electronic > format? If so, can someone please send it to me? > > > > We had a swapfest today and I was talking with New Mexico's newly elected > Section Manager. He commented that 'a lot' of Section Managers were angry > that they didn't know what was on the agenda for the board meeting in > advance so they could provide input. > > > > I explained that the agenda is pretty general, and the meeting is > predominantly committee and officer reports, which then result in motions > depending on the discussion that takes place. I don't know of a single > motion (at least in my time on the board) that have been prepared in advance > of the meeting, much less specific topics of discussion (outside of > committee reports) such as the regulation by bandwidth topic - which was > promoted as being a topic of the board meeting in advance. After offering > this explanation his comment was to the effect of "that's not a good way to > run a board meeting." Now, he's a great guy, brand new to the section > manager job, not aware of how board meetings are conducted, and probably > getting opinions from other opinionated section managers. > > > > As for his "that's not a good way" comment, I don't know any better way to > conduct our meetings unless we have a separate pre-meeting to cast things in > concrete before we have the real board meeting. > > > > Does anybody have a better explanation I can provide him? I'd like to share > our agenda with him so he sees how general it is, with nearly nothing on it > for advanced discussion other than the scheduled discussion of reports. > > > > On a separate note, I think offering the SMs a summary of board decisions > was a wise move, and we should consider giving them a heads up of what's to > occur at future board meetings - as is appropriate, depending on the topic, > and depending on if we ODVers know what's to be put on the table - so they > don't feel isolated. > > > > Thanks and 73, > > Brian N5ZGT > > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division Rocky Mountain Division website: http://www.tribcsp.com/~arrlrm

1 0

Discussion with Members Outside Your Division
by Joel Harrison 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Recently a number of you have mentioned talking to Steve Waterman. Steve, of course, is a national figure and gets around a lot and it is good that he, as a member, has access to many of you. I want to caution you, though, about having any in-depth discussions regarding ARRL policy with Steve, or any member from outside your division without FIRST discussing it with the appropriate Director and making sure the Director is in the loop, and also it is your responsibility to ensure the member you are talking to understands he/she should be discussing the issue with their elected director. The reason is very simple. You are elected to represent a geographical constituency and if the elected representative from a division is approached by a member in their division regarding a policy issue and isn't convinced it has merit, there should not be an end-run arrangement to cut the respective director out of the loop. There is historical precedence here as well. We had an issue several years ago with one director who felt it was his "duty" to respond and discuss policy matters with any member from anywhere, and a couple of members who could not convince their duly elected representative of the merits of an issue simply cut their director out of the loop and went to the director outside their division, and this director felt it was his obligation to bring the issues to the board. It is NOT and this practice is simply out of line and does nothing but agitate, aggravate and destroy the democratic process by which our Articles of Association and By-Laws are founded. This director was informally admonished by the board and finally got the message. So, just remember, if you are called on the phone or discuss a matter with a member from outside your division it is REQUIRED that, if policy questions arise, you advise the person he must speak with his director and that you must bring the respective director in the loop BEFORE you have any discussion with the member from outside your division. If the respective director does not want you discussing policy matters with the member, then it is imperative that you honor that request. It doesn't matter who called who or how the contact was initiated. This is a very simple rule that I believe everyone understands, but is worth repeating given some of the comments I've heard recently concerning this issue. Just remember, again, bring the respective director in the loop BEFORE and honor any request that your appropriate colleague may have. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0

RE: Board meeting agenda, SM question
by Joel Harrison 28 Jan '08

28 Jan '08

Brian, One other note. I know many of the Directors hold "cabinet meetings" with the SM's and other selected individuals in the Division or call the SM's on the phone a week or two prior to the board meeting to advise them of things we know are coming up and to also find out what is on their minds, etc. You may want to discuss this with a few of the directors for some ideas for the future. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that "a lot" of the SM's were angry about not knowing what was on the agenda. Maybe he was speaking about the Rocky Mountain Division SM's, but in any event I'm confident you can relieve any concerns or issues he may have. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:29 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Board meeting agenda, SM question All - First, does anyone have an agenda for the last board meeting in electronic format? If so, can someone please send it to me? We had a swapfest today and I was talking with New Mexico's newly elected Section Manager. He commented that 'a lot' of Section Managers were angry that they didn't know what was on the agenda for the board meeting in advance so they could provide input. I explained that the agenda is pretty general, and the meeting is predominantly committee and officer reports, which then result in motions depending on the discussion that takes place. I don't know of a single motion (at least in my time on the board) that have been prepared in advance of the meeting, much less specific topics of discussion (outside of committee reports) such as the regulation by bandwidth topic - which was promoted as being a topic of the board meeting in advance. After offering this explanation his comment was to the effect of "that's not a good way to run a board meeting." Now, he's a great guy, brand new to the section manager job, not aware of how board meetings are conducted, and probably getting opinions from other opinionated section managers. As for his "that's not a good way" comment, I don't know any better way to conduct our meetings unless we have a separate pre-meeting to cast things in concrete before we have the real board meeting. Does anybody have a better explanation I can provide him? I'd like to share our agenda with him so he sees how general it is, with nearly nothing on it for advanced discussion other than the scheduled discussion of reports. On a separate note, I think offering the SMs a summary of board decisions was a wise move, and we should consider giving them a heads up of what's to occur at future board meetings - as is appropriate, depending on the topic, and depending on if we ODVers know what's to be put on the table - so they don't feel isolated. Thanks and 73, Brian N5ZGT

1 0