February 2018 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:27047] FW: Minutes on which approval will be requested
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

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: Sarratt, Greg, W4OZK Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 6:23 PM To: Henderson, Dan N1ND Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27024] Minutes on which approval will be requested Dan, I vote yes. Thanks, 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK On Thursday, February 1, 2018 12:12 PM, "Henderson, Dan N1ND" <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> wrote: Per the decision of President Roderick and at the direction of CEO Shelley, attached please find the version of minutes of the 2018 ARRL Annual Board Meeting held January 19-20 which the Directors of the Board are now asked to approve. Directors are asked to send their approvals to the reflector at this time. Thanks and 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> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

1 0

[arrl-odv:27044] Re: Minutes — Final Vote Count
by John Robert Stratton 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Dan As only 10 Directors have expressed their votes on ODV: For Against Boehner Stratton Pace Tiemstra Holden Carlson Blocksome Lisenco Williams Norris would you be so kind as to identify the unknown two additional votes in favor of the draft Minutes in ODV#27024? As a further thought, and for clarity, would you please identify the votes of all five of the Directors ( Abernethy, Frenaye, Vallio, Allen, Sarratt) whose votes have not yet appeared on ODV? 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 *_______________________________________* On 2/2/18 10:52 AM, Henderson, Dan N1ND wrote: > The Secretary has directed me to confirm that we have received 10 affirmative votes on the Minutes of the January, 2018 meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors. As such, according to our rules, the minutes are approved as presented in ODV#27024. > > The approved minutes have been posted on the ARRL web site and we will include a short item on the news crawl with a link to where the minutes can be found. > > Thank you all for your help. 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 > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > > ****

3 2

[arrl-odv:27043] Minutes
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

The Secretary has directed me to confirm that we have received 10 affirmative votes on the Minutes of the January, 2018 meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors. As such, according to our rules, the minutes are approved as presented in ODV#27024. The approved minutes have been posted on the ARRL web site and we will include a short item on the news crawl with a link to where the minutes can be found. Thank you all for your help. 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

1 0

[arrl-odv:27042] IN NEWS Feb 2 2018
by Pereira, Carla, KC1HSX 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Please see this week's In Newsletter, attached. Have a great weekend! Carla Pereira, KC1HSX Assistant to Chief Executive Officer ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio(tm) Tel:1-860-594-0242<tel:1-860-594-0242> Fax:1-860-594-0259 cpereira(a)arrl.org<mailto:cpereira@arrl.org>

1 0

[arrl-odv:27036] Minutes on which approval will be requested
by James F. Boehner MD 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

To all, There has been more controversy than I have ever seen in the approval of minutes of any meeting in which I was a part. I hesitate to offer a bit of a compromise, but we need to get the minutes out to the members. I was somewhat confused as to why our previous policy allowed the distribution of unapproved minutes, but it probably stemmed from a situation like the one we find ourselves in now. I would propose that we all approve the minutes from ODV #27024, and have a news story detailing the board meeting, the board minutes, and any other issues brought forward that did not appear in the official minutes that need to be communicated to our members. This way we will have both a correct set of minutes per Roberts Rules of Order, and additional information to our members for any concerns of transparency. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Representing ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Rod Blocksome Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 4:24 PM To: Henderson, Dan N1ND Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:27034] Re: Minutes on which approval will be requested I have to say I had some familiarity with Robert's Rules of Order but have been educated in the finer points these past few days. For that reason and my belief that we need to act in a timely manner to get approved minutes out..... I vote aye to approve the minutes attached to Dan's message to ODV # 27024 Rod, K0DAS Midwest Div. Dir. On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Henderson, Dan N1ND <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> wrote: Per the decision of President Roderick and at the direction of CEO Shelley, attached please find the version of minutes of the 2018 ARRL Annual Board Meeting held January 19-20 which the Directors of the Board are now asked to approve. Directors are asked to send their approvals to the reflector at this time. Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary – American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0236 <tel:(860)%20594-0236> <mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org> dhenderson(a)arrl.org _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

4 3

[arrl-odv:27024] Minutes on which approval will be requested
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 02 Feb '18

02 Feb '18

Per the decision of President Roderick and at the direction of CEO Shelley, attached please find the version of minutes of the 2018 ARRL Annual Board Meeting held January 19-20 which the Directors of the Board are now asked to approve. Directors are asked to send their approvals to the reflector at this time. Thanks and 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>

9 8

[arrl-odv:27032] Rules to Consider when Voting on the Minutes
by jbellows＠skypoint.com 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST DIRECTORS CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING RULES CURRENTLY IN EFFECT IWHEN CASTING A VOTE ON THE JANUARY MEETING MINUTES ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER (11TH EDITION) PROVIDES MINUTES SHOULD REFLECT WHAT WAS DONE NOT WHAT WAS SAID ..the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting not what was said by the members> Roberts sec. 48 MINUTES SHOULD NOT CONTAIN OPINIONS The body of the minutes should never reflect the secretarys opinion. Favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done. Roberts sec. 48 A WITHDRAWN MOTION IS TREATED AS IF NOT MADE After a motion is withdrawn, the situation is as though it had never been made.? Roberts sec. 48.C THERE IS A LOGICAL CORALLARY TO THE PRECEEDING PROVISION, IT IS A MOTION NEVER INTRODUCED CANNOT BE PART OF THE RECORD. --------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE CARLSON ABERNATHY MOTION THE BOARD VOTED TO PROVIDE AMPLE TIME TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN THE UPCOMING MONTHS. WE SHOULD USE THE NEXT 5 PLUS MONTHS TO DISCUSS WITH MEMBERS AND WITHIN THE BOARD ANY CHANGES TO THE AABLS. CODE OF CONDUCT OR OTHER RULES RATHER THAN SPINNING OUR WHEELS DISCUSSING WHY: 1. PERSONAL NOTES NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF THER MINUTES SHOULD NOW BE INCLUDED; 2. A WITHDRAWN MOTION NEVER ACTED UPON SHOULD NOW BE PART OF THE MINUTES, OR WHY 3. MOTIONS NEVER INTRODUCED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. DURING THE NEXT MONTHS EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO MEMBERS, ADVISE THEM HOW HE VOTED ON VARIOUS ISSUES THAT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD IN JANUARY AND TO EXPRESS HIS OPINION ON THESE QUESTIONS. IF THERE IS A BELIEF WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF FOLLOWING ROBERTS AS OUR MEETING GUIDE THERE IS AMPLE TIME TO DO THAT BUT IT SHOULD BE DONE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER. IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. 73, Jay, KØQB

2 1

[arrl-odv:27025] Re: Final Minutes — Let's Vote For Both – Record Vote For The Adoption Of The January 2018 Minutes
by John Robert Stratton 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

The West Gulf Division — steadfast in the belief that full disclosure and candor is in the best long-term interest of the League and its Members — on the matter of the Minutes of the January 2018 Meeting of the Board of Directors of The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, must respectfully stand for full disclosure of the Proceedings. *Accordingly, the West Gulf Division VOTES*: *2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version (/inclusive of /***/Abernethy-1 Motion and Lisenco Motions/) For ** ****2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version (/non Abernethy-1//Motion//and Lisenco Motions/)**** **Against** **** **** _______________________________________ 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 *_______________________________________* On 1/31/18 4:58 PM, John Robert Stratton wrote: > * > **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 > > *_______________________________________*** > > > > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv ****

2 1

[arrl-odv:27026] Minutes on which approval will be requested
by James F. Boehner MD 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

As Director of the Roanoke Division, I vote to approve the minutes. '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Representing ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Henderson, Dan N1ND Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:12 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:27024] Minutes on which approval will be requested Per the decision of President Roderick and at the direction of CEO Shelley, attached please find the version of minutes of the 2018 ARRL Annual Board Meeting held January 19-20 which the Directors of the Board are now asked to approve. Directors are asked to send their approvals to the reflector at this time. Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary - American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0236 <mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org> dhenderson(a)arrl.org

1 0

[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