January 2018 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:27012] Final Minutes - ARRL Annual Board Meeting January 2018
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

At the direction of the Secretary, please find attached a PDF of the final minutes along with the information below. A call for a vote of the Directors will come Thursday. Thanks and 73 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 ________________________________________________________________ Several pertinent parts of Robert’s Rules of Order should be cited: Using Robert’s Rules of Order (11th edition) §48 reads in part: "In an ordinary meeting, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes should never reflect the secretary’s opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done." §48 further states in part that: "The body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were make or taken up – except, normally, any that were withdrawn*…” The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads: "There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. In such a case, only as much information should be included in the minutes as is needed to reflect the necessary details clearly. For example, if, at one meeting, a main motion was made the special order for the next meeting (p.371), or a main motion was postponed after lengthy consideration to a meeting at which it was withdrawn by consent, action at the first meeting should always be recorded, and the withdrawal at the second meeting should be stated for completeness of the minutes." In Robert’s Rules §48.C you will find "After a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is as though it had never been made…" In reviewing Vice-Director Stratton’s proposed edit of the minutes to include both Director Abernethy’s motion, the review of the recording clearly shows the motion was withdraw, hence §48.C applies and the minutes should not reflect its introduction or discussion. The withdrawn motion does not appear to meet the requirements cited in the asterisked note above to §48 – it was not part of a motion from one meeting being carried over to a later meeting for the purpose of considering that specific issue. Again, the motion not appearing in the minutes is consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order. As part of the review of the recording, we looked at Mr. Abernethy’s statement regarding the motion. Since the motion was withdrawn, no discussion of it would appear in the minutes. This has been the standard procedures used by the ARRL for many years and is consistent with the rules of procedure. In addition during the discussion of his motion, Mr. Abernethy said the statement he read was for him to be sure he didn’t overlook pertinent comments he wished to make. Mr. Boehner queried whether his statement would be entered into the record to which Mr. Abernethy directly answered: “I could make it part of the minutes but I hadn’t planned on that, it was just kind of a statement.” President Roderick also questioned whether the statement should be in the minutes, at which Mr. Boehner withdrew his query about its inclusion in the minutes. At no time during the discussions did the Chair or the Board direct that the Abernethy statement be included in the minutes, so it does not appear. The question will be asked as to why the two motions that Mr. Norris brought forward from the EC but were withdrawn are included in the minutes. The two motions did receive action by the Board, though not put to a vote. The first was referred back to the Executive Committee for further discussions to include General Counsel and ARRL Connecticut Corporate counsel. The second was referred for the Administration and Finance Committee for further consideration. Both actions were taken without objection. Therefore, both are included in the minutes since some action on them was taken at the meeting. The question will also be asked as to why the Norris statement read after the two motions were referred to committees is included in the minutes. The answer is that Mr. Roderick, without objection from the Board, directed that it be included. All of the above has been verified with the recording of the meeting. A final proposed addition to the minutes was that a series of motions circulated to the Board before the meeting by Mr. Lisenco should be acknowledged in the minutes and added as an appendix to the minutes. The motions in question were never introduced for consideration by the Board nor were they discussed. Since they were not brought forward at the meeting, they should not be included in the record, as they did not meet the standard of §48, that is, there was nothing done at the meeting addressing those items.

3 3

[arrl-odv:27016] Final Minutes — Let's Vote For Both
by John Robert Stratton 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

* **Two Sets of Draft Final Minutes Now Exist And Should Be Submitted For Acceptance By the Board * We now have two sets of "Final" Minutes to consider for approval. I respectfully suggest that both be submitted on Thursday to the Board for approval; voting would be for one version or the other and the version with the majority of votes will be deemed to be the actual adopted 2018 January ARRL Board of Directors' Meeting Minutes. I suggest this approach, because the two draft sets of Minutes stand for two fundamentally different views of the League's and this Board's commitment to transparency — and will be so interpreted by the Membership. I am concerned the consequences of the Membership's interpretation of the final version of the Minutes will either fuel and exacerbate the current dissatisfaction with the League or it could serve to calm the waters and serve to restore some measure of trust in the Board and current leadership. I note in connection with the last point that what occurred at the Meeting, including the submission of Mr. Abernathy's Motion and the withdrawal of Mr. Lisenco's motions, is already known, and is being discussed. Cries of angst as to "/how do they know/" is an exercise in futility; it appears everything that occurred was disseminated within either hours or no longer than a day after the meeting ended. So what we vote to approve will be measured and judged against what is known. *The Two Sets of Minutes * We have the draft submitted 1.30.18, yesterday, by Mr. Henderson, entitled: "2018 January Draft Minutes Final Revision." For clarity of discussion, I will refer to Mr. Henderson's draft as: "*2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version*." We have the draft submitted by the undersigned, N5AUS, which for clarity of discussion will be referred to as "*2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version*". The titles used are not intended to be pejorative or argumentative — the titles are used to facilitate discussion and voting. Enclosed is the final revision of the N5AUS Minutes, originally submitted on Sunday evening, modified per Rod Blocksome's suggestions on 1.29.18 and now modified to include, at Kermit Carlson's request, the correction of "/Mr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS/" to "/Dr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS/." Otherwise there are no changes between the enclosed version and the 1.29.18 version. Enclosed to eliminate any question as to undisclosed changes, are: (1) a PDF redline, with the yellow highlighting to show the changes requested by Rod and the added change requested by Kermit; (2) a PDF with no redline or highlighting. This is the N5AUS proposed final version, the "*2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version*". The two sets differ in non-substantive use of headers and columnar lists vs. run-on lists in paragraphs. The real difference lies in how they treat Mr. Abernethy's Abernethy-1 Motion and his related statement and Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of Lisenco Motions 1-7. *The Meeting We Had Vs. The Meeting We Are Asked To Report * We came into a meeting with an unprecedented level of engagement by, at a minimum, a significant subset of the Membership. And with an unprecedented consistency in demanded actions for the Board to take at the Meeting — withdrawal or defeat of what became known as the "Norris Motions", repeal or substantial modification of the Code of Conduct and the withdrawal or defeat of what became known as the "Lisenco Motions." In the face of strong opinions both within and without the Board, something remarkable (/at least in the opinion of some of the opposition/) occurred. Some adults stood up. Those adults were Mr. Norris, Mr. Williams, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Allen, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Lisenco. Mr. Norris' EC Motions, prior to the Meeting, were the subject of both intense scorn and praise. His EC motions were discussed, and posted, on his website, Mr. Carlson's website and Mr. Holden's website. It was clear Mr. Norris' EC Motions were before the Board with the intent they be adopted. Mr. Norris, the adult, had the courage to not only withdraw from consideration, on the record, the EC motions (/except for EC2, EC3 and EC5),/ but to also make a public statement regarding both the initial filing and the subsequent withdrawal of the EC Motions. That statement, read into the record, was intended to be an inseparable part of the announced withdrawal of the EC Motions. I know, because I was part of the discussion with Mr. Norris and Mr. Williams with regard to both the withdrawal of the Motions and the advisability of crafting and recording a public statement as part of the withdrawal of the EC Motions. Mr. Norris could have said nothing and let the EC Motions be skipped, and under the current strained interpretation of Robert's Rules there would be no mention of the disposition of the EC Motions in the final draft of the Minutes. That silence in the Minutes would have been a public relations disaster as it would have provided fuel for some members of the opposition to proclaim far and wide that the silence was confirmation of the ARRL's dedication to secrecy and collusion. While such a conclusion would be without merit — perception is the king and it trumps reality and the perception would have prevailed. Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Allen had the courage to address the other concern of the Members — they had the courage to introduce a motion to rescind the Code of Conduct in its entirety. They did so knowing their action would be met with heavy opposition inside the Boardroom; it was. Only adults with both courage and conviction would be willing to invite the opposition they knew the Motion would draw. But, as was Mr. Norris' withdrawal of the EC Motions, the introduction of Abernethy-1 was accompanied by a statement that was an integral part of the Motion. I know, because I was part of the discussion with Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Allen with regard to the advisability of crafting and recording a public statement as part of the introduction of the Motion. It became clear that while Abernethy-1 might not pass, it also became clear that the Board had to address the opposition to the Code of Conduct. Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Allen and Mr. Carlson crafted a compromise that adequately addressed the Members' concern over the Code of Conduct and permitted the Board to take a public position that did not require anyone to publicly oppose or support the Code. In return for the withdrawal of Abernethy-1 and the withdrawal of Mr. Carlson's original motions, Messrs. Abernethy, Carlson and Allen crafted and jointly supported what became Carlson-1b — a well thought out and executed compromise by mature adults. Neither the withdrawal of Abernethy-1 nor the appearance of Carlson-1b — with a 14 vote approval — makes sense or clearly conveys to the Members the effort and responsibility displayed by the Board on the issue of the Code of Conduct unless the Minutes contain the facts of the introduction, the accompanying statement and the terms of withdrawal of Abernethy-1 that appears in Paragraph 53 of the *2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version. * It is already widely known that Abernethy-1 was introduced at the Board meeting. The adoption of Minutes that do not address the introduction and withdrawal of this Motion will reflect poorly on the League and this Board.**There is no benefit to, or justification for, incurring the public scorn that will arise from the failure to state what is already known.* * The same applies to Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of the "Lisenco Motions". To say that the Amateur world knew Mr. Lisenco's Motions had been filed with the Board with the intent they be adopted is an understatement. These Motions were discussed, cussed, analyzed and dissected far and wide. Messrs. Norris, Carlson and Holden discussed the Lisenco Motions on their websites and Messrs. Norris and Carlson even opined as to their position on the passage of the Motions. For the Minutes to ignore one of the hottest topics of discussion prior to the Meeting by omitting Mr. Lisenco's courageous move on the record to withdraw his Motions is simply folly. It would be equivalent to being pregnant and attempting to explain the bump by claiming it was merely an undigested watermelon. Regardless of how anyone might stand on any other issue, the Board must give credit to Mr. Lisenco for also acting as an adult, even though under heavy pressure, by withdrawing his Motions on the record. If we are to retain credibility as an organization and as a Board, I believe we must err, if err we do, on the side of absolute full disclosure with regard to what occurred in one of the most watched and discussed ARRL Board meetings in the last decade. The failure to do so will be the triumph of technicality over common sense. *Robert's Rules of Order — And The Failed Interpretation of Same* Mr. Henderson (/none of my comments are personal as to Dan/) justifies the exclusion of Paragraph 53 (Abernethy-1) and Paragraph 56 (Lisenco Motions) by citing to RNOR §48: /the body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were made or taken up – except, normally, any that were withdrawn*…”// / /The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads:// / / "There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. In such a case, only as much information should be included in the minutes as is needed to reflect the necessary details clearly. For example, if, at one meeting, a main motion was made/... The conclusion drawn ignores the very language of §48: /the body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were made or taken up – _*except, *__*normally*_, any that were withdrawn*…”/ // /The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads:// / / "_*There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. *_/ I submit, with respect to Mr. Henderson, that it would be difficult to find a Board Meeting that was not more exceptional and that did not harbor the most outstanding circumstances to justify the inclusion of the discussions of Abernethy-1 (¶53) and the Lisenco Motions (¶56). In whose memory has there been a Board Meeting with more focus on the actions of the Board than this one? An abnormal Meeting? Justifying circumstances? You betcha' Red Ryder. One last observation of a much overlooked fact. WE. ARE. THE. BOARD. We have the power to include any matter in our Minutes that we choose to include, period. I respectfully submit that if there was ever a time to exercise that power — if any believe there is any technical impediment — it is now. We have the opportunity to reclaim from our critics the high ground. We can, and I submit we should. *Let's Vote* I suggest that instead of spending another week going back and forth over the Minutes or of possibly voting down the *2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version* and having to start over again, _*l*__*et's vote on both draft sets of minutes at one time.*__* *__* *_****_*Let's formally vote either for:*_ **2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version (/non Abernethy-1//Motion//and Lisenco Motions/)** ** OR** *2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version (/inclusive of /***/Abernethy-1 Motion and Lisenco Motions/) [/Enclosed as 2018 ARRL Draft Minutes — N5AUS Final Revisions - No Redline/] ** _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________***

6 6

[arrl-odv:27015] Welcome K6WX
by Northwestern Division Director 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Congratulations, Kristen McIntyre, K6WX, on your appointment as Vice Director and welcome to the board family. I hope your time with us will be a wonderful experience. 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX

1 0

[arrl-odv:27000] 2018 ARRL BOD Meeting Minutes — N5AUS Revisions
by John Robert Stratton 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed: (1) a redline Word document (2) a PDF of the redline Word document (3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline. The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional. Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc". As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy. All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board. The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion. The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs: ¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation] ¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000] ¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning] ¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.] ¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.] I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent. Thanks Dan. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________***

3 2

[arrl-odv:27010] Get Well card
by Dr. David Woolweaver 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

To the ARRL Board family: Thank you very much for the Get Well card. It was much appreciated. Thanks David

1 0

[arrl-odv:27006] Re: 2018 ARRL BOD Meeting Minutes — N5AUS Revisions — Corrections Based on Director Blocksome and Williams Suggestions
by John Robert Stratton 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Rod, Barry and Dan Based on Rod Blocksome's suggestions and my telephone conversation with him this morning, enclosed is a revision of the Minutes submitted last evening. There are again 3 documents enclosed: (1) a redline Word document (2) a PDF of the redline Word document (3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline. Other than typographical corrections — and the transfer of Art back to the Midwest Division — the changes are highlighted in yellow. These changes are easiest to see in the PDF identified as the "No Redline" PDF. Yellow highlighting is used due to the difficulty of Word clearly showing an edit to a previously existing redline document. Barry, I did not miss your email, but based on my discussion with Rod Blocksome and the nature of the changes, as both a courtesy to Dan and for clarification to the rest of the Board, I have resubmitted the drafts. Thanks to all for the comments and thanks again to Dan for his initial work. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________* Rod Good comments and proof reading. See below. I will make these changes and submit a revised version shortly. Thanks. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________* John, Quite an extensive edit and hopefully make the minutes a bit easier to read and comprehend by the members. I did jot down some corrections as I read through the pdf copy: p. 3, K0AIZ is the Midwest Division Vice-Director * Yes, you are correct. Thanks to Dale Williams for also catching Art's unplanned transfer to the Great Lakes Division. * p. 7, item 17 - the comma after "... Mr. Williams 10...." should be a period *Agreed*. p. 8, item 23 - "...no questions of comments..." should be "....no questions *or* comments...." *Agreed*. p. 8, item 23 - It appears the intent is to list the reports that were not lifted from the agenda. There were other reports not lifted besides the "other officer reports". Perhaps just list all the reports submitted with those "lifted" so noted. *A good idea, I will revise this section and submit it for review.* p. 8, item 24 - I recall no board action regarding the lack of a CEO report. The fact that Mr. Gallagher was not present is obvious from the roll call at the beginning and the election of Mr. Shelly as CEO. I think item 24 should *not* be in the minutes. * This is a judgment call and I will defer to the collective wisdom. Although the roll call, by omission, does indicate Mr. Gallagher was not present, his resignation is of sufficient import that, in the interest of full disclosure to the Members, we should consider whether making a statement in the minutes to that effect is beneficial. Perhaps, the wording in Paragraph 24 could be improved.* p. 9, item 27 - delete "...Receipt of General Counsel's Report" *Agreed*. p .10, item 30 - The original text of the amendment to the amendment should remain: "to add a maximum of $30,000 to fund the Discovery and Strategy phase of the Life Long Learning Initiative Project...." The same comment also applies to the last paragraph of item 30. * Agreed.* 73's, Rod, K0DAS On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:41 PM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS(a)n5aus.com <mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com>> wrote: Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed: (1) a redline Word document (2) a PDF of the redline Word document (3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline. The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional. Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc". As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy. All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board. The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion. The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs: ¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation] ¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000] ¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning] ¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.] ¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.] I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent. Thanks Dan. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 <tel:%28512%29%20445-6262> Cell:512-426-2028 <tel:%28512%29%20426-2028> P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________*** _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv **** ****

3 3

[arrl-odv:27004] Re: 2018 ARRL BOD Meeting Minutes — N5AUS Revisions
by John Robert Stratton 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Rod Good comments and proof reading. See below. I will make these changes and submit a revised version shortly. Thanks. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________* John, Quite an extensive edit and hopefully make the minutes a bit easier to read and comprehend by the members. I did jot down some corrections as I read through the pdf copy: p. 3, K0AIZ is the Midwest Division Vice-Director * Yes, you are correct. Thanks to Dale Williams for also catching Art's unplanned transfer to the Great Lakes Division. :-)* p. 7, item 17 - the comma after "... Mr. Williams 10...." should be a period *Agreed*. p. 8, item 23 - "...no questions of comments..." should be "....no questions *or* comments...." *Agreed*. p. 8, item 23 - It appears the intent is to list the reports that were not lifted from the agenda. There were other reports not lifted besides the "other officer reports". Perhaps just list all the reports submitted with those "lifted" so noted. * A good idea, I will revise this section and submit it for review.* p. 8, item 24 - I recall no board action regarding the lack of a CEO report. The fact that Mr. Gallagher was not present is obvious from the roll call at the beginning and the election of Mr. Shelly as CEO. I think item 24 should *not* be in the minutes. *This is a judgment call and I will defer to the collective wisdom. Although the roll call, by omission, does indicate Mr. Gallagher was not present, his resignation is of sufficient import that, in the interest of full disclosure to the Members, we should consider whether making a statement in the minutes to that effect is beneficial. Perhaps, the wording in Paragraph 24 could be improved.* p. 9, item 27 - delete "...Receipt of General Counsel's Report" *Agreed*. p .10, item 30 - The original text of the amendment to the amendment should remain: "to add a maximum of $30,000 to fund the Discovery and Strategy phase of the Life Long Learning Initiative Project...." The same comment also applies to the last paragraph of item 30. * Agreed.* 73's, Rod, K0DAS On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:41 PM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS(a)n5aus.com <mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com>> wrote: Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed: (1) a redline Word document (2) a PDF of the redline Word document (3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline. The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional. Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc". As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy. All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board. The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion. The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs: ¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation] ¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000] ¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning] ¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.] ¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.] I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent. Thanks Dan. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 <tel:%28512%29%20445-6262> Cell:512-426-2028 <tel:%28512%29%20426-2028> P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________*** _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv ****

2 1

[arrl-odv:27002] DXAC Chair W5FI Resignation
by David Norris 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

All, I regret to inform the board that effective tomorrow morning Dr. Gary Jones, W5FI, Chair and Delta Division DXAC member has resigned from the committee. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM

1 0

[arrl-odv:27001] Connecticut Governor Warns of Transport Cuts Without More Funding - WSJ
by N5AUS 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

https://www.wsj.com/articles/connecticut-governor-warns-of-transport-cuts-w… Sent from my iPad

1 0

[arrl-odv:26972] Working draft of Minutes of January 2018 Annual Meeting
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 28 Jan '18

28 Jan '18

Attached please find the current working draft of the minutes for the 2018 ARRL Annual Board meeting, just held in Hartford. This is not the final document for Board approval. If you have suggested edits, please email them to me directly for consideration. If you would use a protocol along the lines in your email of: Change Minute 100 line 5 from "The cat is green" to "The cat is forest green". Please send me only suggested changes in a stand along email instead of a "mark-up" Word document. It makes it easier to consider at this end. If you believe something substantive is wrong, please contact me directly so I can look into it with the President. Please get me anything as quickly as possible. That will allow me to turn the final draft around to you for consideration and approval in short order. 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary - American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0236 dhenderson(a)arrl.org<mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org>

4 3