May 2017 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:26442] Short functional report on webinar 1 May
by G Widin 03 May '17

03 May '17

Attendees: All Directors and Vice Directors except, Frenaye, Altus and Tiritilli Officers: Roderick, Widin, Milleshosky, Bellows, Gallagher, Imlay, Henderson Speakers: Round 1: Carlson, Norris, Hudgens Delaney, Raisbeck, Tiemstra, Allen, Woll Round 2: Holden, Raisbeck, Pace, Tiemstra, Boehner, Ryan Our meeting was initially set up on the GoToMeeting platform, which restricted us to 26 users. Since there were more people than that attending, Dan Henderson and Ken Bailey made a quick change to put the meeting on Web Meeting, which permitted all to attend. Thank you to all participants for an orderly and collegeal meeting. 73, Greg, K0GW

2 1

[arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct?
by Mike Raisbeck 02 May '17

02 May '17

Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you haveexperienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listeningpolitely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and goodgovernance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the HarvardWireless Club, W1AF. It was anoutstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, andour own Tom Gallagher. The attendees werean articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than isusually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me totalk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code isexcellent. Outstanding, in fact, and Iwhole-heartedly support it. In fact, allof it is outstanding. The problem isthat there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membershiporganization such as ours. I suspect(more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codesof Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between amembership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closedboard. I believe we can resolve thiseasily, with a few tweaks. But before Imake suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that mayillustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my pollingplace, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire toa booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a countingmachine. Nothing on the ballot indicatedthat it is mine. No one knows how Ivoted except me. I cannot be. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate,states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state,and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be anyaccountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she isdoing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go onin the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up,it is public knowledge. If I’m enough ofa masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on astump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator froma coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate hasenacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with aself-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization likeours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to positionourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a majorchange. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for aparticular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’tthink of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposedto a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should notundermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid aDirector from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intentionis of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of theBoard, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be toadd a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall beinterpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressingopposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or shedoes not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoonsun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code ofConduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these otherCodes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such asours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code ofConduct. Does anyone know if they haveone? And are there other similarorganizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with yourideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf(a)arrl.net

8 10

[arrl-odv:26435] Comments for the May 1, 2017 Webinar
by Mike Raisbeck 02 May '17

02 May '17

Folks, It is unclear whether I will be able to get all my comments in tonight. I have 8 or so minutes of material, but we've been told we have only 3 minute time slots. So, in case I have to skip portions, attached are the comments I intended to present. Please give them a read; in them I have attempted to wrap up, as succinctly as I can, what I see as the key points surrounding the Vice Director issue. Thanks for looking, and 73, Mike K1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf(a)arrl.net

1 0

[arrl-odv:26434] FW: Join Us for ODV
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 02 May '17

02 May '17

The Go to meeting was set up as a meeting instead of a webinar, which limimited the slots Go to the link below and register for the webinar. When you submit it you will receive back in email the log in information. We apologize for the problem... Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL - the national association for Amateur Radio Phone: 860-594-0236 ________________________________ From: Webinar Webinar [customercare(a)gotowebinar.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:05 PM To: webinar Subject: Join Us for ODV ODV Join us for a webinar on May 01, 2017 at 8:10 PM EDT. Register now! https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2850723970927105026 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. View System Requirements<http://support.citrixonline.com/s/G2W/Help/SystemRequirements>

1 0

[arrl-odv:26433] URGENT--update on tonight's GoToMeeting
by G Widin 02 May '17

02 May '17

The webinar was set up for a maximum of 26 people, which we exceeded a few minutes ago. A new meeting is being set up, and you will receive the information on how to log on to it via e-mail in the next 10 minutes. Apologies--please QRX. K0GW

1 0

[arrl-odv:26432] Re: Shame on Me - I Trusted Him Again
by Christopher Imlay 01 May '17

01 May '17

You have made your position quite clear. All such statements have consequences Mr. Norton. You would be well-advised to remember that. Chris On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Mr Imlay, > > I have been elected by the membership of the Southwestern Division to > represent their interests and in also my view, the interests of Amateur > Radio. The League is clearly a political organization, and politics may not > be a good match for those whose sensitivities might be hurt by calling out > damage they might create with their actions. > > Mr. Imlay, my concern was with your actions. My complaints were about > withholding important information critical to performing my fiduciary > duties, and then playing a key role in what appears to be misrepresentation > of "legal advice" for political means. > > Your, your co-conspirators, and allies mis-characterization of my > complaints as being a personal attack might be a way of diverting attention > from the serious issues raised. Rest assured that the views expressed are > not unique to me. > > The League should operate with open, honest discussion of issues involved. > Withholding information, inventing stories, misrepresenting facts, and > attempting to prevent your opposition from being heard is antithetical to > my concept of good government, and those engaging in any of those practices > should expect to be called out. > > 73, > > Dick Norton, N6AA > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dick, I told you a long time ago, the first time you attempted to lecture >> me about how to write contracts, that I am a professional person and I >> expect to be treated like one. I also told you that we should be able to >> disagree without being disagreeable. But I have had to endure an awful lot >> of completely baseless personal attacks from you and others either now or >> formerly associated with the Board and I don't intend to sit back and take >> it any longer. You are out of line. Cut it out. You have no business >> serving on a non-profit board of directors because you know nothing of >> collegiality and your interpersonal skills are clearly inadequate for the >> job. You really should consider resigning from the Board, Dick. Seriously. >> >> Chris >> >> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Richard J. Norton < >> richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Shame on me. >>> >>> Yeah. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. He did it >>> again, and I fell for it. >>> >>> --------------- >>> >>> Number 1 >>> >>> A while back, I expressed displeasure after finding out that the >>> League's General Counsel, through the Legislative Action Committee appeared >>> to have withheld important analysis of the HR555 language from the rest of >>> the board. Vice Director Stratton clearly illustrated why CAI proposed the >>> "compromise language," and why they are claiming victory. >>> >>> Even Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, the most experienced lawyer involved with >>> amateur antenna litigation says hams would be worse off if HR555 becomes >>> law, and we should should work to stop it, a view shared by most all >>> involved antenna attorneys. >>> >>> Basking in this Potemkin Village illusion of success may be briefly >>> satisfying, but when reality hits, the League will likely suffer >>> another blow to its reputation. If HR555 becomes law, a good many >>> HOA-based hams may actually be hurt. >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> Number 2 >>> >>> At March's Executive Committee meeting in Denver, I again believed the >>> League's General Counsel, this time when he told the assembled group that >>> the League's governance structure needed to be changed to bring it into >>> compliance with Connecticut state law. I was actually thinking through what >>> should be done to solve the problem. What should we do with our >>> non-compliant Vice Directors? >>> >>> It was quite a shock when Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra not only >>> eviscerated the "out-of-compliance" claim, but even the claim that Day >>> Pitney's advice even actually said that it was out-of-compliance. >>> >>> Yes, it appears that the governance structure is not out-of-compliance, >>> and that Day Pitney's advice actually did not say that it was! >>> >>> Its sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being >>> "legal advice" might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda. >>> >>> I have never been an Vice Director, but have seen significant value >>> imparted to the League by a number of them. I am of the belief that Vice >>> Directors should continue their role, and nothing needs to be done, >>> particularly in a panic. >>> >>> From the information I have received, which included observing the full >>> March EC meeting, I have no intention of supporting any changes in the >>> position and status of Vice Directors. Of course, this might change should >>> I see something compelling in he future. >>> >>> I expect to be on Monday's webinar. >>> >>> As I'll be aboard a cruise ship on Thursday, with pretty steep Internet >>> charges, would someone please confirm that I can be reimbursed from the >>> board meeting account. From discussions I've had, there is likely >>> inadequate support for the measure to even bother continuing with >>> Thursday's meeting, but feel the need to follow any conversation >>> thoroughly, should it occur. >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Dick Norton, N6AA >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> arrl-odv mailing list >>> arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org >>> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Christopher D. Imlay >> Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC >> 14356 Cape May Road >> Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 >> (301) 384-5525 telephone >> (301) 384-6384 facsimile >> W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG >> > > -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:26428] Regarding tonight's webinar to discuss the EC recommendation for ARRL Governance and the Role of Vice Directors for the Second Century
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 01 May '17

01 May '17

Good day. In anticipation of tonight’s, a few thoughts. I am concerned that the Board is getting caught up in issues that are not germane to the case at hand. Recent emails to the ODV camouflage the issues and detract from our business. We have been told by one of the premiere law firms in the state of Connecticut that our corporate governance is not in compliance with state law. That is the issue that the Executive Committee dealt with at the last meeting. In consideration of the issue, the E.C. came to a consensus and made a recommendation to the full Board for consideration. I understand that the Vice–Directors are fighting for their political life, and that some are concerned with their relevance. But they are not looking at the bigger picture. While I am obviously not an attorney, I find it amazing that those Vice-Directors who are an attorney (none of whom are licensed to practice in Connecticut), claim to know better than a top tier Connecticut law firm. I can only believe that in their desire to maintain their position as they know it they collectively find it easier to dismiss the findings of our lawyers rather than come to the conclusion that our attorneys know better. Our attorneys, Day Pitney LLC, are a nationally ranked law firm. They are top tier as reported by US News and World Reports. We have been informed by Day Pitney that Vice Directors may not participate in voting and have no right to immediate succession. We have been told that to continue to use Vice Directors as we have been doing may place the corporation in jeopardy. It is my contention that as a Director, it is my fiduciary responsibility to protect the League. The only way to do that is to bring the Board into full compliance with Connecticut law. I would much prefer bringing us into compliance as suggested by our attorneys than leaving things as they are with the possibility that maybe we’re okay and maybe we’re not. 20-20 hindsight is not the way to govern the corporation. If the Vice Directors truly want what is best for the ARRL, then they will understand that we need to change the way we do business now so that we may continue to do business now and into the future. The lessons learned over the past year should be reason enough to show that personal agendas need to put aside. To the Directors; this decision is ours, and ours alone, to make. I understand that you want to protect and support your Vice Director. But this is not about that. If you are engaging on this issue in that way, then you are guilty of what our members constantly decry us as being – a member of an “old boys’ network” that just seeks to perpetuate the same membership and protect their own. The recommendations made by the Executive Committee takes us out of a potential position of jeopardy, instead modernizing the role of the Vice Director. Not someone relegated to the back row, bringing you mail from the boxes outside the door, waiting for you to retire or die to move up to the front row. I imagine that the response I’ll get from this is that I have an agenda to simply get rid of the Vice Directors. I am not that cynical and that is most definitely not the case. I truly believe that this is the way to approach our problem, that is, to be in full compliance with Connecticut law. That’s all that matters, and this is the way I believe it should be done. My fear is that if we don’t make these recommended changes now we will do irreparable damage to the League. I will be listening in tonight, but I would rather not speak to the issue tonight. I’m concerned is that this will only be a scream session and will not address the issues that we need to address. I won’t participate in that. 73 de Mike N2YBB

2 1

[arrl-odv:26422] Shame on Me - I Trusted Him Again
by Richard J. Norton 01 May '17

01 May '17

Shame on me. Yeah. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. He did it again, and I fell for it. --------------- Number 1 A while back, I expressed displeasure after finding out that the League's General Counsel, through the Legislative Action Committee appeared to have withheld important analysis of the HR555 language from the rest of the board. Vice Director Stratton clearly illustrated why CAI proposed the "compromise language," and why they are claiming victory. Even Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, the most experienced lawyer involved with amateur antenna litigation says hams would be worse off if HR555 becomes law, and we should should work to stop it, a view shared by most all involved antenna attorneys. Basking in this Potemkin Village illusion of success may be briefly satisfying, but when reality hits, the League will likely suffer another blow to its reputation. If HR555 becomes law, a good many HOA-based hams may actually be hurt. ------ Number 2 At March's Executive Committee meeting in Denver, I again believed the League's General Counsel, this time when he told the assembled group that the League's governance structure needed to be changed to bring it into compliance with Connecticut state law. I was actually thinking through what should be done to solve the problem. What should we do with our non-compliant Vice Directors? It was quite a shock when Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra not only eviscerated the "out-of-compliance" claim, but even the claim that Day Pitney's advice even actually said that it was out-of-compliance. Yes, it appears that the governance structure is not out-of-compliance, and that Day Pitney's advice actually did not say that it was! Its sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being "legal advice" might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda. I have never been an Vice Director, but have seen significant value imparted to the League by a number of them. I am of the belief that Vice Directors should continue their role, and nothing needs to be done, particularly in a panic. >From the information I have received, which included observing the full March EC meeting, I have no intention of supporting any changes in the position and status of Vice Directors. Of course, this might change should I see something compelling in he future. I expect to be on Monday's webinar. As I'll be aboard a cruise ship on Thursday, with pretty steep Internet charges, would someone please confirm that I can be reimbursed from the board meeting account. From discussions I've had, there is likely inadequate support for the measure to even bother continuing with Thursday's meeting, but feel the need to follow any conversation thoroughly, should it occur. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

7 6

[arrl-odv:26418] Agenda for May 1--Options for Changes in the Role of Vice Directors
by G Widin 01 May '17

01 May '17

Below is the Agenda for tomorrow's GoToMeeting. Because there may be many individuals who wish to speak, the meeting will be conducted according to the ground rules shown below. Please read these ahead of time. This meeting is intended in the spirit of a "Town Hall Meeting." As such, everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard, but we will have to follow the ground rules to give everyone a fair chance to speak. At the end of this e-mail, I have again pasted in the details on how to connect to the meeting. For GoToMeeting, if you cannot use your Internet-connected computer to join, you may still use the 571 phone number to join as a telephone participant. We have a *backup* phone conference bridge connection, but this will *only* be used if GoToMeeting does not work for some reason. If GoToMeeting is in use, nothing will be heard on the Conference Bridge. My job as the moderator is to keep the meeting orderly and give everyone a chance to be heard. I appreciate everyone's cooperation toward maximizing communication during this session. 73, Greg, K0GW _____________________________________________________________ AGENDA Welcome and Opening Remarks--Rick and/or Tom Ground Rules--Greg 1. This is an informational session, no votes will be taken. 2. Because each attendee may wish to speak, and because we may have so many attendees, each will be given 3 minutes to speak. All attendees who wish may speak in the first round, and no one will be given a second chance to speak until all those wishing to speak in the first round have done so. 3. No one is required to speak. 4. An individual must stay within the 3-minute limit. The moderator will mute any speaker after the 3-minute point is past. 5. Individuals may not transfer their 3-minute quota to another individual to increase his/her time to speak. 6. The moderator may mute or disconnect a participant who disrupts the meeting. 7. At most two rounds of comments will be accepted, after which the meeting will end. Begin Round 1--Moderator takes names of those holding up hands, like a 20-m DX "list" operation. Begin Round 2--etc. Meeting ends on completion of 2nd round. _____________________________________________________________ GOTO MEETING INFORMATION New Meeting Mon, May 1, 2017 8:00 PM - 12:00 AM EDT Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. *https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/260532005* <https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/260532005> You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (571) 317-3112 <%28571%29%20317-3112> Access Code: 260-532-005 First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: *http://help.citrix.com/getready* <http://help.citrix.com/getready> _____________________________________________________________ CONFERENCE BRIDGE INFORMATION ---*to be used only if GoToMeeting is not working or disconnects in mid-meeting* Information for participants: 800-532-0363 <%28800%29%20532-0363> or 860-594-0400 <%28860%29%20594-0400> Audio Access Numbers: Audio Bridge - 106 Participate Code – 2423 <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2 1