July 2018 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:27388] Delayed flight
by Bonnie Altus 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

My flight was delayed from 6:30 AM out of Portland to 9:50 AM so I would miss my connection. They rebooked me on a 7:21 AM flight so I will arrive in Hartford at 6:53 PM on DL1839 and probably get to the hotel at about 7:30 PM. Please save me a seat at dinner. I imagine I'll be there in time for dessert. The alternative was a midnight arrival. I'll read through the emails coming through ODV while I have breakfast but it sounds to me like some people need to grow up. Years ago, I interviewed for a job as an IT manager/database manager/programmer at a manufacturing company. When they were escorting me to the conference room, I heard an engineer yelling at a secretary. I decided on the spot that I did not want the job. I didn't tell them then, but when they called to offer me the job, I declined. Bonnie AB7ZQ

1 0

[arrl-odv:27387] Fwd: Issue Involving League Travel Expenses and Alcohol Policy
by Richard J. Norton 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:28 PM Subject: Issue Involving League Travel Expenses and Alcohol Policy To: David Norris <david.norris.k5uz(a)gmail.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS < rod.blocksome(a)gmail.com>, Dale Williams WA8EFK <dale.wms1(a)frontier.com> While reviewing Mr. Imlay's invoices and travel expense reimbursement forms, I was not pleased to see what is described below. Particularly when we have recently had inquisitions and trials where Imlay's drinking buddies serve simultaneously as prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors. Then, it is found out that Mr. Imlay is paying for their drinks, or at least giving them the impression that he is paying for them. I prepared the following E-mail for ODV, but have not sent it out. As I found the behavior not to conform to my ethical standards, the questions are intended to be provocative. Have you any opinion about sending it? 73, Dick ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by a League contractor in connection with his attendance at a March 12, 2016 Executive Committee meeting shows expenses of $75.87 on 03/11/2016 and $40.15 on 03/12/2016, identified as "Bar tab for EC members." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by the League contractor in connection with his attendance at a July 2016 Board meeting shows an expense of $24.74 on 07/14/2016, identified as "Bar tab evening 7/14." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by the League contractor in connection with his attendance at an October 22, 2016 Executive Committee meeting shows expenses of $235.26 on 10/21/2016 and $44.76 on 10/22/2016, identified as "Bar tab with EC members." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. These $421 expenses for alcohol seem to possibly not be in concordance with the League policy of having all directors and officers pay for their own drinks before and during the group dinners held during Board meetings. In addition to the question of compliance with League policies, this type of expense brings up the question of possible improper influence on Board members when they are or will be acting on issues involving the contractor. To stimulate your thinking on the matter, here are some questions that I hope you will possibly find provocative in that they may emphasize viewpoints that you may not have considered otherwise. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- *□ Agree □ Disagree *The expense report's explanation should have identified the drink's recipients. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All the recipients of the drinks were aware that the contractor was later reimbursed by the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree** T*hose who pay for their drinks before and during group dinners can simply report these costs on their expense forms and get reimbursed for them. *□ Agree □ Disagree* It is acceptable for the League to pay for drinks at all times. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Although it is not present policy,* t*he League should start paying for drinks before and during dinner. *□ Agree □ Disagree* It is acceptable for the League to pay for drinks if costs are laundered through a contractor. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is absolutely no ethical issue involved with a contractor appearing to absorb these expenses. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is absolutely no ethical issue involved with the contractor submitting these costs for reimbursement. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All board members and officers are entitled to have alcoholic beverage expenses reimbursed by the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree* If alcoholic drinks were paid for by the individuals who consumed them, and the costs were identified as alcohol and included on the individual expense forms, they would have been reimbursed. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Whereas having the League openly fund alcohol before dinners is unwise, after dinner there is no problem. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All persons who accepted drinks paid for by the contractor should identify themselves. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All persons who accepted drinks should reimburse the contractor, and the contractor should reimburse the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is no problem with accepting drinks from someone and then serving as a juror in a case involving that person. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Persons who accepted drinks paid for by a contractor and then served as a juror in a case involving the contractor would have no problem if the league membership were made aware of these actions. *□ Agree □ Disagree *Paying for drinks would have no impact on voting for, or against, innovative treatment of a professional contractor, such as voting to indemnify him from costs that would conventionally be covered by malpractice insurance. *□ Agree □ Disagree* If certain Board members have found and are using a method to have their drinks paid for by the League, other Board members have no business even knowing about it or questioning it. *□ Agree □ Disagree* The director asking these questions should be censured or removed from office for "conducting an investigation."

1 0

[arrl-odv:27386] Fwd: The Bullying of Mary Hobart Myth
by Richard J. Norton 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:37 PM Subject: The Bullying of Mary Hobart Myth To: david.norris.k5uz(a)gmail.com, Dale Williams WA8EFK < dale.wms1(a)frontier.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS <rod.blocksome(a)gmail.com> *Introduction* Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay have periodically attempted to gather sympathy for their apparent displeasure with recent summaries of their own activities and expenses by the creation and dissemination of a Mary-Hobart-Was-Bullied-Myth. Their descriptions of what constituted the alleged bullying have never been specific. This memo will summarize my evaluation of the League's 2012 fundraising costs that was presented in January 2013 to the Board at the New Orleans Annual Meeting, the meeting where the alleged "bullying" was claimed to have taken place. Additional comments on the League's Development Department's performance are also included. *Lisenco E-mail Quote*s 1) Mr. Norton has been on the attack for years. We should have done something when he decided to take on Mary Hobart, who eventually left the ARRL earlier than she should have. 2) Incumbent Board members sat silently while Director Norton bullied Mary Hobart mercilessly, *making false accusations against her* and causing her to retire. (Emphasis added) *Imlay Quote* 1) The Board allowed Mr. Norton to bully CDO Mary Hobart into resigning, using precisely the same disturbing tactics he is now employing against me and others. This really needs to stop now. *Hobart's Relationship with the ARRL Board* Ms. Hobart was elected to the position of Chief Development Officer by a vote of the Board; consequently, she attended Board meetings. The present Development Department manager is not an elected officer and does not attend Board meetings. *Specific Evaluation Presented* At the 2013 Annual Meeting, I presented my evaluation of the League's fundraising efficiency. In 2012, the League Statement of Activities showed the following: Contributions and Support $1,126,533 Expenditures, Fundraising $ 717,435 The financial information is publicaly available in the 2012 ARRL Annual Report, at www.ARRL.org <http://www.arrl.org/>. Out of the $1,126,533 raised, the sum of $409,098 therefore remained for use in League programs. Thus, 63.7% of the funds raised was used to raise the funds. Note also that the true fundraising costs are really even higher since the League does not record costs such as those related to QST-ads-concerning-fundraising to the "fundraising" account. My comments were directed at the* 63.7 cents of every dollar being used to raise the dollar*. This is a number so high that if potential donors were aware of it, their donations might well be impaired. The comments were directed at the fundraising costs, never directed at Ms. Hobart personally. The analysis and criticism were appropriate for a Board member to have performed and presented to the rest of the Board. Management oversight is a regular component of Board activity. Ms. Hobart, who was present at the meeting because of her officer status, obviously heard the analysis and, because she was in charge of the fundraising operation, may have felt both responsible and possibly uncomfortable. For Ms. Hobart, or anyone else, to label a questioning of the appropriateness of 36.3% fundraising-efficiency as constituting "bullying" is totally unwarranted. Note that I have never seen any evidence that Ms. Hobart made such a characterization, only Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. *Comparative Activity* Plenty of information is available on the web that rates and compares non-profit fundraising costs. For example, Charitywatch.org has a "Top-Rated" list that includes those that generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs. Since after fundraising expenses, the League only had 36.3% of funds raised to spend on programs, it would not make the "Top Rated" list. For a comparable Amateur Radio fundraising activity, note that the 2014 Boston WRTC committee raised nearly $750,000 at a cost of somewhere around 1 or 2 percent. This efficient fundraising encourages donations. *Performance Evaluation * There is no doubt that my financial performance standards differ significantly from those of Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. Whereas my comments were directed at encouraging a more cost-effective fundraising effort, Mr. Liscenco and Mr. Imlay portray them as being a personal attack on Ms. Hobart. They were clearly not a personal attack on Ms. Hobart. The discussion did not criticize Ms. Hobart by name. It was about the high level of fundraising costs. It is in the interest of both the organization and the membership that fundraising be carried out efficiently. *Ms. Hobart's Retirement and Financial Impact* In 2015, the League raised $1,394,351 at a cost of 30.8%. In 2016, the League raised $1,240,262 at a fundraising cost of 39.7%. The decrease in fundraising costs appear to be largely driven by elimination of the CDO salary and benefits. Also, note that the amount raised increased after Ms. Hobart's retirement. Although I certainly do not claim credit for her departure, the conclusion appears to be that it substantially benefited the ARRL financially. *Additional (Not Discussed at Meeting) Performance Issues* As a Director, I found that the following items represent performance below what I expected from a department run by a Board-elected "Chief" officer, particularly from someone who was the organization's second highest paid employee, in addition to being an elected officer. None of these issues were discussed in open meetings, and I am not certain Ms. Hobart was aware of my specific concern about them.. 1) Brick-display at Newington League Headquarters a) There were, and still are, no apparent standards for the inscriptions on the bricks. Years after a brick, with only a callsign on it, is installed, observers will likely be unable to connect the brick with the person that the brick was intended to recognize. A number of individuals may have held the callsign after the brick was installed. This contrasts with similar commemorative displays, such as brick displays at other institutions and even headstones at VA cemeteries. b) The lack of organization of the brick display contrasts with displays at other institutions. For instance, on a visit to my alma mater, I located my brick in seconds once I found the area containing those of my graduating class. 2) Care Not Taken with Amateur Callsigns and League Activity a) A press release was made announcing a one-million dollar bequest containing an error in the donor's callsign. b) A sample of promotional material for the Second Century Campaign shown at a Board meeting had an incorrect callsign for the campaign chairman and lead donor. c) Correspondence to the Board had an incorrect callsign of the League's President. d) Fundraising material was produced that contained an odd and erroneous reference to the LOTW program, suggesting to the reader a lack of understanding of the program. 3) Lack of Attention to Everyday Operating Expenses After notifying me of her expected attendance, and asking if I wanted her to bring anything, Ms. Hobart then volunteered to bring me a roll-up ARRL banner for display at a Visalia DX Convention. Rather than being just transported as baggage, the 4-pound banner was shipped using FedEx's most expensive options, arriving days before the convention started, with a return shipping form with all the same next-day delivery-before-10-AM options checked. Had I not carried it back to Newington, it would have cost the League $275 to send a nice-but-not-necessary $200 prop out for a few hours use. 4) Lack of Attention to Employee Travel Costs The expenses for ARRL Newington staff support of a Pacificon Convention included airplane travel by two League employees. One spent $535 for his air travel while a Development Department staffer spent $1210 for the same air travel. I did not find this to represent prudent management of League resources. 5) Negotiating the Sale of Naming Rights to the ARRL Lab to a Radio Manufacturer-Supplier The Development Department negotiated the sale of naming rights to the ARRL Laboratory, which conducts testing and evaluation of radio equipment, to one of the League's advertisers, who manufactures and distributes radio equipment. The sale was stopped by Board action, in realization that having a Lab named after one manufacturer evaluating radio products made by either the namesake or its competitors might not enhance the League's reputation for evaluation integrity. Note again that none of these five items were discussed openly at any meeting. They do, however, represent evidence that the then Development Department management was not up to the high level of performance that the League deserves. *Lisenco Definition of "Bullying"* At the January 2018 Board meeting, during discussions concerning the 1000-or-so E-mails the Directors had received commenting on proposed changes to Articles and By-Laws, Director Liscenco used language like, "Don't be bullied" (by the 1000 E-mails) into doing what the members want. This indicates that Mr. Liscenco's commonly invokes the word "bully" to hopefully characterize and discredit any debate arguments made in opposition to his views or opinions. *Conclusions* Participating in a Board-level discussion of the suitability or unsuitability of the 2012 League's 36.3% fundraising efficiency at the 2013 Board meeting was a proper part of a Director fulfillment of his fiduciary responsibilities. Ms. Hobart was present at the meeting because of her Board-elected officer position, not her employee status. She heard discussion that was critical of the results of her department's work. Although they were not voiced at that meeting, there were other reasons for dissatisfaction with the performance of the Development Department. Both the League's fundraising and the fundraising efficiency increased after Ms. Hobart's departure. Her departure was financially beneficial to the League. Mr. Lisenco's claim of "*making false accusations against her*" is, ironically, a false.accusation. Mr. Imlay's defensive characterization is also untrue. I hope that Board members start to use some vestige of critical thinking to evaluate all claims made during Board deliberations and in Board-related communication, particularly those of Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. 73, Dick Norton. N6AA .

1 0

[arrl-odv:27385] Fwd: Response to "Formal Complaint Filed with E & E"
by Richard J. Norton 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: Response to "Formal Complaint Filed with E & E" To: david.norris.k5uz(a)gmail.com, Dale Williams WA8EFK < dale.wms1(a)frontier.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS <rod.blocksome(a)gmail.com> Gentlemen of the E&E Committee: 1) It is clear from your letter of May 28 that the complainant is a contractor to the League, not an officer, director, vice director or employee. Under the "Code of Conduct", a third party does not appear to have standing to file ethics complaints. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a courtesy to you, my fellow board members, I will reply. If you have a complaint from a Board member, it would be appropriate for you to forward it to me. 2) My statement to the A&F Committee was to confirm what Director Woolweaver had told the committee - *Mr. Keelan confirmed the fact that he was only made aware of Mr. McCarthy's leaving his firm, The Keelan Group, after Mr. McCarthy's contract with ARRL was negotiated. * This puts the lobbying contract change in an entirely different light. If Mr. McCarthy indeed negotiated the contract with ARRL while still employed at The Keelan Group without the consent of his employer, it raises a concern that we are contracting with someone who may have violated a fiduciary obligation to his employer. The fact that Mr. Keelan agreed to the language of a service termination letter has no bearing on the foregoing or on the information shared by Dr. Woolweaver. The original decision to engage the Keelan Group was based in large part on Matt Keelan’s personal connections with Rep. Greg Walden and on the “bench depth” of his team. In making the change to Mr. McCarthy, ARRL seems to have given up both those advantages, yet with no reduction in cost. What benefit did the League get for contracting with a smaller organization for the same price? Director Woolweaver, a veteran of many lobbying efforts, inquired about the loss of lobbying knowledge and political connections when the League went from using a lobbying firm with multiple practitioners to employing a single-person firm. Such a question is entirely within the purview of the A&F Committee. As such, I suggested that the initial draft of the A&F minutes be changed to record the discussion. It is possible that Mr. Keelan made different representations to different ARRL parties. That could be determined by a group call between the A&F Committee and Mr. Keelan. Unfortunately, no such clarification was attempted by the Committee. 3) I believe that Mr. Imlay's use of the undefined term "independent investigation" is inappropriate. There was no "independent investigation." No records or e-mails were subpoenaed. No investigators were hired. No office was searched. I made a simple, brief phone call to Mr. Keelan to ascertain his position. I reported to the Committee what I was told. Directors have an obligation to exercise due diligence in their deliberations. Determining the accuracy or inaccuracy of information that affects League decisions is a clear example of exercising due diligence. I hope members of the E&E Committee recognize the importance of having a sound basis for decision-making. 4) Mr. Imlay's complaint contains the statement, *"**I intend to have my own conversation with Matt Keelen and ask for his confirmation or denial of Norton's recitation of his alleged conversation with Matt. I will share the results of that with the E&E Committee." * It has been over six weeks since this statement was made. What did Mr. Imlay report? 5) An E&E Committee evaluation of this complaint could include a phone call to Mr. Keelan and Dr. Woolweaver to verify the facts. I suggested such a call to one of your Committee members some time ago. Has any such attempt been made either before or after forwarding the complaint to me? The truth of the allegation should be critical to any evaluation. 6) As to the remaining assertions in Mr. Imlay’s complaint, they relate to a *private* e-mail I sent to Ms. Middleton that was not intended to go any further but that was forwarded without my knowledge or consent. There was no defamation because a) I can substantiate the representations I made to her in that e-mail and b) I did not communicate my concerns to a broad audience. I prefer not to elaborate on them at this time, as they could prove embarrassing to others, and I may opt to make public the full record of this ethics complaint, as I am permitted to do under current policy. *Conclusion* I had hoped that your committee would ignore this baseless action, like the previous E&E Committee did with a similar allegation last December. All our time would be much better spent preparing for the July Board meeting and dedicating our efforts to improving Amateur Radio. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:27384] Fwd: Formal Complaint Filed with E & E
by Richard J. Norton 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

This is to advise the entire Board that Mr. Imlay and apparently Mr. Lisenco, are pursuing another E&E action. I received the complaint notice below from Mr. Norris, who chairs the E&E Committee. I, and others that I have consulted with, believe the "complaint" is without merit. Yet, the Ethics and Elections Committee persists in pursuing it, apparently without first taking steps to verify the truth of statements made. In addition to the original "complaint," I am forwarding you my reply to Mr. Norris and additional related communication that I've sent to him. I am sending this because Mr. Norris has not acted on my request to forward the entire package to the Board 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Norris <david.norris.k5uz(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:52 AM Subject: Formal Complaint Filed with E & E To: richardjnorton(a)gmail.com Cc: dale.wms1(a)frontier.com, Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome(a)gmail.com> GM Dick, I regret to inform you that a formal complaint has been filed with Elections and Ethics Committee against you by a Board member and an associate. I have attached the formal letter from the Elections and Ethics Committee and the complainants’ supporting exhibits. Please see the attachments. I am sending you the hard copy of these documents as well. Please note, this is all considered *Board confidential*. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Chair, Elections & Ethics Committee *ARRL **The National Association for Amateur RadioTM*

1 0

[arrl-odv:27382] Pending Board/EC motions
by Tom Frenaye 18 Jul '18

18 Jul '18

AN updated version of the pending Board/EC motion list is attached. Thanks to an update from CEO Shelley, I've changed a number of items to Completed. I count 13 complete as of today, and several more pending action during the Board meeting this week. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:27381] Convention part 2
by Dale Williams 17 Jul '18

17 Jul '18

Additional files regarding the Dayton ARA proposal. 73, Dale Williams WA8EFK

1 0

[arrl-odv:27380] convention
by Dale Williams 17 Jul '18

17 Jul '18

Gentlemen, The Dayton Amateur Radio Association, sponsors of Hamvention, has approached us with the request to host a National Convention in conjunction with the 2019 Hamvention. Please refer to the attached document ARRL Invitation.docx. As this request is very recent, I ask for your consideration as you review the attached material. From the Official Rules pertaining to Conventions: /"8.2 - 5. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Board of Directors may authorize or direct upon such terms as it may prescribe, the holding, as a National Convention, of a meeting of persons interested in Amateur Radio from throughout the operating territory of the League.////The President will assign a member of the Board to work with the staff to evaluate National Convention applications and negotiate ARRL participation.////The management, program and financial plans of every such convention shall be subject to the approval of the Executive Committee."/ I would like to propose authorizing the convention, but with appropriate constraints based upon terms negotiated by our President and Staff. Admittedly the timing of the request places an extraordinary burden upon the decision process, and I beg your indulgenceas we consider the proposal this week. Thanks and 73, Dale Williams WA8EFK Due to an exceptionally large file size, some details from Greene County(Greene County 2018 VGsinglepages.pdf) will follow later this evening.

1 0

[arrl-odv:27379] FW: 2018 Report of the Ethics and Elections Committee
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 17 Jul '18

17 Jul '18

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> From: David Norris <david.norris.k5uz(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:43 PM To: Pereira, Carla, KC1HSX <cpereira(a)arrl.org>; Henderson, Dan N1ND <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> Cc: Rick Roderick <K5ur(a)aol.com> Subject: 2018 Report of the Ethics and Elections Committee Carla, Please see the attached report. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM

1 0

[arrl-odv:27378] FW: RE: Safety Committee Report
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 17 Jul '18

17 Jul '18

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> From: Zygielbaum, Art, K0AIZ Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:16 AM To: Henderson, Dan N1ND <dhenderson(a)arrl.org> Subject: Fwd: RE: Safety Committee Report Just to be sure. This is what Greg Lapin sent me last night. Sorry I have to miss the meeting. 73, Art

1 0