August 2018 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:27517] Callsign correction
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 20 Aug '18

20 Aug '18

As astutely pointed out, the callsign for Mike Ritz in the NW division is W7VO not W7RO. Thanks Tom! 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>

2 1

[arrl-odv:27516] Persons submitting petitions for the upcoming election cycle
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 20 Aug '18

20 Aug '18

Per Rules and Regulations Concerning American Radio Relay League Division and Section Manager Elections: * Noon -- 3rd Friday of August -- Deadline for receipt of completed nominating petition forms by Secretary * Monday after 3rd Friday of August -- The Secretary notifies each candidate of the names and callsigns of other candidates * 4th Friday of August -- Deadline for Election Committee to determine eligibility and notify candidates The following petitions were received by the Secretary's office by the deadline of Noon on Friday August 17, 2018: Central Division: Director: Kermit Carlson W9XA Valerie Hotzfeld NV9L Vice Director: Carl Luetzelschwab K9LA Hudson Division: Director: Ria Jairam N2RJ Mike Lisenco N2YBB Vice Director: Bill Hudzik W2UDT New England Division: Director: Tom Frenaye K1KI Fred Hopengarten K1VR Vice Director: Mike Raisbeck K1TWF Northwestern Division: Director: Bonnie Altus AB7ZQ Horace Hamby N7DRW Mike Ritz W7RO Vice Director: Delvin Bunton NS7U Daniel Stevens KL7WM Mark Tharp KB7HDX Roanoke Division: Director: James Boehner N2ZZ George Hippisley W2RU Vice Director: John Humphrey W4IM Bill Morine N2COP All petitions have been transmitted to the Ethics and Elections Committee, which is finishing its deliberations on the final petition, with notification due by this coming Friday August 24. All candidates will be notified this afternoon of the names of the other candidates filing for the election in which the filed. All that have been certified by the E&E have been notified and received instructions on their 300-word statements and photographs, as well as for requesting mailing labels/information. The information will be given to the various ARRL news outlets after the E&E have completed their certification responsibilities. 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>

1 0

[arrl-odv:27514] WWV -WWVH
by James F. Boehner MD 20 Aug '18

20 Aug '18

I did not want to kick up a lot of dust, as this is really not something that is directly on our plate. However, Bill and I have received concerns from our members. I think we should take the lead from Chris, as if this is NIST’s overall plan, I really do not think we will have much say in the matter. I think the Rally Congress tool is a bit overkill. We do not want to waste our political capital. I think our membership should just know that we are aware of the situation and looking deeper into the matter. Perhaps just a follow-up news story would be adequate. The link provided could be included as one example as to how the amateur radio/SWL community is reacting to the news. ’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 Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2018 6:41 PM To: bshelley(a)arrl.org; nwdvd(a)comcast.net Cc: arrl-odv(a)arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:27511] Re: WWV -WWVH Could we not reference the link that ZZ and CEX mentioned? Seems an article and referencing the link would be one way to go. Rick ... -----Original Message----- From: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO), N1VXY (CEO) <bshelley(a)arrl.org> To: Pace, Jim, K7CEX, K7CEX <nwdvd(a)comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org>; k5ur <k5ur(a)aol.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27509] Re: WWV -WWVH I am, but am on email. Should we consider using the Congressional letter writing software? If so, write their Congressional representatives? Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Executive Officer ARRL, Inc. Sent from my Verizon Motorola Smartphone On Aug 19, 2018 5:57 PM, "Pace, Jim, K7CEX" <nwdvd(a)comcast.net> wrote: Barry is on vacation 73 and good Hamming Jim, K7CEX To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it...Confucius On Aug 19, 2018 2:30 PM, "Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> wrote: I think Chris had some communications with Frank to get his input, but seems we ought to be able use the link Jim Boehner and Jim Pace provided in a web article. Barry, can you have the communications team put something together? 73 Rick - K5UR ... -----Original Message----- From: Mike Lisenco N2YBB <n2ybb(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 1:54 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27505] WWV -WWVH Hello ODV- There appears to be a major groundswell for a petition drive regarding the proposed defunding of WWV/WWVH. I’ve been getting a fair amount of feedback from members. Might I suggest that we get out in front of this issue and advocate for the membership. At least bring the membership up to date on the situation? Some news should be sent out so that we don’t get caught with our pants down. Just a thought. 73 de Mike N2YBB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

2 1

[arrl-odv:27507] WWV
by Northwestern Division Director 19 Aug '18

19 Aug '18

Here's one effort: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-funding-nist-stations-ww…

1 0

[arrl-odv:27503] WWV/WWVH
by James F. Boehner MD 19 Aug '18

19 Aug '18

I think I'm on too many reflectors. This from the WSJT-X reflector. Here is how one group is handling the pending shut-down of WWV/WWVH https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-funding-nist-stations-wwv -wwvh '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

2 1

[arrl-odv:27502] Re: Two Paths In A Wood, Diverge
by John Robert Stratton 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

Rick Thank you for the courtesy of the prompt reply and for the courtesy of the clarification for the Board of the intent regarding the execution of a proposed contract. _______________________________________ 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 8/17/18 12:42 PM, Niswander, Rick wrote: > > The document will be signed by Howard but not by anyone at the ARRL. > It is not an executed contract without both parties. > > Frederick (Rick) Niswander, Ph.D., CPA, CGMA > > Professor of Accounting > > Bate 3110 > > East Carolina University > > Greenville, NC 27858 > > *From:*arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Robert Stratton > *Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2018 1:34 PM > *To:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > *Subject:* [arrl-odv:27499] Two Paths In A Wood, Diverge > > */Trial by ambush, thinly veiled character assassination, delaying > tactics, manufactured complaint ... /* > * > The Road Not Taken* > > I find such comments that appear to attribute improper or disloyal > motives to those who request that this Board take the time to review > those matters not previously known about Howard Michel to be > inappropriate. There should be no opprobrium visited on those who have > done the research shared in Vice Director Raisbeck's email and who > have respectfully requested that their colleagues consider the > concerns raised by such research. Such efforts are the result of good > men, and women, acting in good faith and in accordance with what they > believe is in the best interest of the League. We may disagree, but we > should not be disagreeable. > > The matters discovered by diligent, and not very difficult > research, do raise valid questions and concerns. In the final > analysis, after consideration of these matters (/or others/) it may be > the wisdom of this Board, to proceed to offer employment to Howard > Michel on some terms. Right or wrong, that will be the decision of the > Board, but by law the duties of this Board do not end at a vote to > adjourn and do not end after a vote on any matter. > > Governance is an ever continuing river — the responsibility of > leadership never cease — it continues whether one wishes it to cease > or not. Sometimes the greatest mark of leadership is the willingness > to reflect on whether a previous decision or action, taken in good > faith, may have been — or may not have been — in the light of changed > conditions or new information — an incorrect decision. Such reflection > is not a sin and participation in it may or may not result in a > changed course of action. But a condemnation of those who in good > faith suggest it does not reflect well on us as an organization. > > There is no sin — and there is wisdom — in at least considering > newly discovered evidence. It appears that the search committee may > not have discovered or considered the matters raised by review of the > materials listed in Vice Director Raisbeck's email. That may reflect a > defect in the current structure of our search process, which should be > considered in any future search efforts, or it could just be the press > of time. Either way, to interpret it as an attack on the integrity of > the members of the search committee, is error, as nothing in Mike's > email even hints at such. > > To the comment that the candidates' resumes were > available/reviewed, etc., I respectfully observe that resumes are > merely advertising brochures and by themselves are insufficient to > provide a complete image of a candidate. > > > > *The Board's July Decision — And The Limits of That Decision* > > I appreciate Rick's confirmation that the Board voted in July ONLY > to */extend/* a job offer to Michel. It did not authorize, without > Board approval, the execution of an employment contract with Michel. > > Approval of any employment terms offered or requested is solely > the prerogative of the voting Directors, as is the authorization to > actually enter into a binding, signed contract, with the terms of such > contract approved only after a formal Board review and a formal Board > vote, neither of which have yet occurred. > > * > **Any Employment Contract, Executed Without Actual Board Approval > Would Be An Act In Derogation of The Authority Of The Board And > Possibly Actionable Under Connecticut Corporate Law** > > * I am deeply concerned by the bold statement that > ***We expect to have a****_signed copy_**__**_of the employment > agreement by Friday_* > > If one is to believe the bold statement — it is the intent of the > President and/or some League employees — to sign a 5-year binding > contract to employ a man whose credentials, in good faith, have been > called into question by long time, respected Directors — for terms and > financial compensation that have not been disclosed to the governing > body of the ARRL, the Board of Directors. > > I dearly hope, that I have misread and misinterpreted that bold > statement. If so, I extend my apologies to Rick and the Board for my > shortcomings in comprehension and reading level. > > But, the execution of an employment agreement with Michel, or any > other CEO candidate, without the prior approval of the Board would be > a staggering affront to the authority of this Board. Were such an > action to be taken in the business world, the consequences would be > immediate and adverse to the interests of the participating parties. > > I believe and am concerned that such an action would be extremely > detrimental to the integrity of the Board and the League. Such an > action — one executed without the legal authority of the Board — > could motivate third parties to question its legality and to seek to > terminate it in a court of law. Due to the level of dissent amongst > the membership, we should not expose the League to such a risk. > > While subsequent ratification by the Board would probably resolve > any question as to legality and enforceability, the damage to the > reputation of the League could be substantial and irreversible. > > > *We Do Not Act In A Vacuum* > > For decades the League, and the Board, have enjoyed the luxury of > operating without much attention or serious, weaponized, input from > the membership at large. > > That luxury appears to have died in the events of last fall. > > The Voice has not dissolved and it, although silent, is clearly > paying attention to this Board's actions. While some on this Board > dismiss the Voice as misinformed, evil or worse, such a dismissal > ignores both the actual impact it had on the outcome of certain > actions proposed for the January Board meeting and the substantial > influence of its key leaders — both the public and non-public leaders. > > I have spoken with a number of Directors whose experience is > similar to mine — we have all received calls and emails from ARRL > Members who are deeply concerned that the League will again hire > another Gallagher — an man with a perceived personal agenda and no > real Ham radio experience. Some of these conversations have been with > substantial donors who are extremely influential and widely respected > members of the Amateur Radio community. > > And a number of them are active in myARRLVoice. Whatever your > opinion of the Voice — it remains in existence, remains vigilant and > intends to alter what it believes is a poorly chosen path on which it > sees the current leadership embarked. It also has demonstrated a > clear ability to rally a substantial portion of our Members to action. > > It is worth noting, with no disrespect to any affected party, that > it has managed for the first time in League history to simultaneously > field five opposition candidates to incumbent Directors — and it is > funding those opposition candidates. And it intends to win. > > The fact that we, as a Board, have opposition or that we act with > consideration of that action, does not mean that recognizing and > taking into account such opposition means we are, or must, "kow-tow" > to that opposition. But, to ignore it is not the height of wisdom. > > Without regard to whether the final decision of the Board is to > hire Michel — a matter over which men of good faith may legitimately > disagree — were it to be learned that a contract were executed with > Michel without actual formal Board approval, the repercussions could > prove to be extremely damaging to the League. The outcry could equal > or exceed that of last fall. > > Worse — and what concerns me greatly — is that another open civil > war over an easily avoidable issue could reinforce or cement the FCC's > belief that the League is past its sell date and no longer can be > considered to actually represent Amateur Radio. That could activate > the threat to deregulate Amateur Radio or at a minimum it could result > in the FCC choosing to ignore the League and Amateur Radio. > > > *Two Roads Diverged In A Wood* > > We must choose one of the paths before us — they clearly diverge. > > Do we take the Michel path without delay, do we pause to provide > more time to investigate and more closely evaluate the available > paths, or do we take the alternative path and reconsider the other top > candidates? > > Realistically an organization is judged not by adherence to a code > of non-reflection, but by the quality of the outcome of its decisions. > If that means the ARRL should pause to more closely examine the path > on which it must trod, that, again, is not a sin nor a mark on our > reputation. Such pause or reflection, were it to occur, would I > believe be viewed by those whose support we need — Members and > bureaucrats — as a sign of integrity and maturity. > > To reply to a comment in one of the emails: absent offers or > agreements made on behalf of the League of which we are unaware, we > have no legal liability to ANY candidate arising from their efforts to > sit at our table. Whatever time or monies a candidate my have invested > is just that — an investment; not a loan for which we have any > obligation. Courtships are not always successful and there are, or > should not be, participation trophies. It would be inappropriate > without prior Board approval or knowledge for any candidate to have > been offered or promised what amounts to a financial participation trophy. > > > > *** A final observation*: my concern is for the League and Amateur > Radio. Frankly, I don't care if in the process of protecting both that > there may be some skinned knees or bruised egos. Governance is a > contact sport. > > So, the ad hominem attacks need to cease. Good men and women > (/there are those who may wish to exclude me from that company, but > you cannot in good faith exclude the others/) of long standing service > to Amateur Radio and the League have brought to their colleagues > matters that concern them and that they believe should concern their > colleagues. Reflect, consider, agree or object. > > Two paths diverge in the woods — we must choose one. > > > > > _______________________________________ > > 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 8/16/18 4:12 PM, Mike Raisbeck wrote: > > Rick, > > Let's not forget that there are really two issues before us, not > one; they are separate but also interrelated. > > The first is the process that was used. There are many ways to > evaluate a process - static review, reliance on advice from > experts, and others. One of these ways is by looking at the > results the process provides. The first time we used this > process, the result looked good at first, but turned out not so > well. It would appear that the second time the result may again > be flawed, judging by the result. The process needs serious > review, based on the batting average to date > > The second is the suitability of the candidate himself. > > The first time we applied this process, folks trusted the > committee and relied on its conclusions without resorting to much > independent research. The second time some Board Members are a > bit more wary. Had the potential negative information been > available earlier, and not required individual Board Members to > spend hours in searching, we might have been able to have this > conversation in a more timely manner. I wish it had been so. > > Now we are faced with a painful question. > > Was the committee aware of the issues and concerns that have been > presented today? If yes, can we explain why that information was > not shared, and why the decision came out as it did? If no, can > we explain why the committee did not find these items? > > Mike > > K1TWF > > Mike Raisbeck > k1twf(a)arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv, K5UR via arrl-odv > <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 3:25 pm > Subject: [arrl-odv:27490] Board Decision > > Folks, the Board has already voted and approved a motion that > stated Dr. Michel was a suitable candidate and to tender an offer > of employment, which has been done. I can’t imagine what damage it > would do to the reputation of our organization if we backed off a > job offer, and furthermore, I don’t know to what extent Dr. Michel > has possibly acted to his detriment in reliance of our job offer. > > The Directors, who signed the confidentiality statement, had > access to all candidate resumes of everyone considered weeks > before the final selection, ample time to do whatever due > diligence anyone saw fit, including dialogue with your colleagues > on the CEO Search Committee. This debate should have happened > weeks ago, in the Board room and before, not weeks later because > you didn’t agree with the outcome in the Board room. > > Over the years, when I was a Director, there were numerous > significant motions passed by a majority of the Board that I did > not agree with, and some of those I was very upset about, but I > never tried to torpedo the decision. Once the Board made the > decision, I respected it. We all should do the same. There was a > process used that was approved by the Board. The group carried out > their assignment as the Board directed. *A recommendation was made > and a majority of the Board voted to extend a job offer.*We need > to respect the process, and proceed with the Board meeting *to > **elect Dr. Michel CEO and Secretary. * > > 73 > > Rick – K5UR > > > > On 8/15/18 8:14 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: > > Hi all: > > It looks like we have things worked out for an agreement with > Howard. *We expect to have a****_signed copy_**__**_of the > employment agreement by Friday_****a*t which time, and as I > mentioned to Dr. Woolweaver today, we will provide the info > David requested on the contract. > > Just a reminder to put on your calendar, if you haven't > already, the special board meeting is a week from today, > August 22, at 9:00 PM Eastern. > > 73 > > Rick - K5UR > > *7.30.18** > Rick and Ric*k > > *What are the terms of the employment contract?* > > _______________________________________ > > 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 <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > > 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 ****

1 0

[arrl-odv:27499] Two Paths In A Wood, Diverge
by John Robert Stratton 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

*/Trial by ambush, thinly veiled character assassination, delaying tactics, manufactured complaint ... /* * ** The Road Not Taken* I find such comments that appear to attribute improper or disloyal motives to those who request that this Board take the time to review those matters not previously known about Howard Michel to be inappropriate. There should be no opprobrium visited on those who have done the research shared in Vice Director Raisbeck's email and who have respectfully requested that their colleagues consider the concerns raised by such research. Such efforts are the result of good men, and women, acting in good faith and in accordance with what they believe is in the best interest of the League. We may disagree, but we should not be disagreeable. The matters discovered by diligent, and not very difficult research, do raise valid questions and concerns. In the final analysis, after consideration of these matters (/or others/) it may be the wisdom of this Board, to proceed to offer employment to Howard Michel on some terms. Right or wrong, that will be the decision of the Board, but by law the duties of this Board do not end at a vote to adjourn and do not end after a vote on any matter. Governance is an ever continuing river — the responsibility of leadership never cease — it continues whether one wishes it to cease or not. Sometimes the greatest mark of leadership is the willingness to reflect on whether a previous decision or action, taken in good faith, may have been — or may not have been — in the light of changed conditions or new information — an incorrect decision. Such reflection is not a sin and participation in it may or may not result in a changed course of action. But a condemnation of those who in good faith suggest it does not reflect well on us as an organization. There is no sin — and there is wisdom — in at least considering newly discovered evidence. It appears that the search committee may not have discovered or considered the matters raised by review of the materials listed in Vice Director Raisbeck's email. That may reflect a defect in the current structure of our search process, which should be considered in any future search efforts, or it could just be the press of time. Either way, to interpret it as an attack on the integrity of the members of the search committee, is error, as nothing in Mike's email even hints at such. To the comment that the candidates' resumes were available/reviewed, etc., I respectfully observe that resumes are merely advertising brochures and by themselves are insufficient to provide a complete image of a candidate. *The Board's July Decision — And The Limits of That Decision* I appreciate Rick's confirmation that the Board voted in July ONLY to */extend/* a job offer to Michel. It did not authorize, without Board approval, the execution of an employment contract with Michel. Approval of any employment terms offered or requested is solely the prerogative of the voting Directors, as is the authorization to actually enter into a binding, signed contract, with the terms of such contract approved only after a formal Board review and a formal Board vote, neither of which have yet occurred. * **Any Employment Contract, Executed Without Actual Board Approval Would Be An Act In Derogation of The Authority Of The Board And Possibly Actionable Under Connecticut Corporate Law * I am deeply concerned by the bold statement that **We expect to have a_signed co_py_ __of the employment agreement by Friday_** If one is to believe the bold statement — it is the intent of the President and/or some League employees — to sign a 5-year binding contract to employ a man whose credentials, in good faith, have been called into question by long time, respected Directors — for terms and financial compensation that have not been disclosed to the governing body of the ARRL, the Board of Directors. I dearly hope, that I have misread and misinterpreted that bold statement. If so, I extend my apologies to Rick and the Board for my shortcomings in comprehension and reading level. But, the execution of an employment agreement with Michel, or any other CEO candidate, without the prior approval of the Board would be a staggering affront to the authority of this Board. Were such an action to be taken in the business world, the consequences would be immediate and adverse to the interests of the participating parties. I believe and am concerned that such an action would be extremely detrimental to the integrity of the Board and the League. Such an action — one executed without the legal authority of the Board — could motivate third parties to question its legality and to seek to terminate it in a court of law. Due to the level of dissent amongst the membership, we should not expose the League to such a risk. While subsequent ratification by the Board would probably resolve any question as to legality and enforceability, the damage to the reputation of the League could be substantial and irreversible. *We Do Not Act In A Vacuum* For decades the League, and the Board, have enjoyed the luxury of operating without much attention or serious, weaponized, input from the membership at large. That luxury appears to have died in the events of last fall. The Voice has not dissolved and it, although silent, is clearly paying attention to this Board's actions. While some on this Board dismiss the Voice as misinformed, evil or worse, such a dismissal ignores both the actual impact it had on the outcome of certain actions proposed for the January Board meeting and the substantial influence of its key leaders — both the public and non-public leaders. I have spoken with a number of Directors whose experience is similar to mine — we have all received calls and emails from ARRL Members who are deeply concerned that the League will again hire another Gallagher — an man with a perceived personal agenda and no real Ham radio experience. Some of these conversations have been with substantial donors who are extremely influential and widely respected members of the Amateur Radio community. And a number of them are active in myARRLVoice. Whatever your opinion of the Voice — it remains in existence, remains vigilant and intends to alter what it believes is a poorly chosen path on which it sees the current leadership embarked. It also has demonstrated a clear ability to rally a substantial portion of our Members to action. It is worth noting, with no disrespect to any affected party, that it has managed for the first time in League history to simultaneously field five opposition candidates to incumbent Directors — and it is funding those opposition candidates. And it intends to win. The fact that we, as a Board, have opposition or that we act with consideration of that action, does not mean that recognizing and taking into account such opposition means we are, or must, "kow-tow" to that opposition. But, to ignore it is not the height of wisdom. Without regard to whether the final decision of the Board is to hire Michel — a matter over which men of good faith may legitimately disagree — were it to be learned that a contract were executed with Michel without actual formal Board approval, the repercussions could prove to be extremely damaging to the League. The outcry could equal or exceed that of last fall. Worse — and what concerns me greatly — is that another open civil war over an easily avoidable issue could reinforce or cement the FCC's belief that the League is past its sell date and no longer can be considered to actually represent Amateur Radio. That could activate the threat to deregulate Amateur Radio or at a minimum it could result in the FCC choosing to ignore the League and Amateur Radio. *Two Roads Diverged In A Wood* We must choose one of the paths before us — they clearly diverge. Do we take the Michel path without delay, do we pause to provide more time to investigate and more closely evaluate the available paths, or do we take the alternative path and reconsider the other top candidates? Realistically an organization is judged not by adherence to a code of non-reflection, but by the quality of the outcome of its decisions. If that means the ARRL should pause to more closely examine the path on which it must trod, that, again, is not a sin nor a mark on our reputation. Such pause or reflection, were it to occur, would I believe be viewed by those whose support we need — Members and bureaucrats — as a sign of integrity and maturity. To reply to a comment in one of the emails: absent offers or agreements made on behalf of the League of which we are unaware, we have no legal liability to ANY candidate arising from their efforts to sit at our table. Whatever time or monies a candidate my have invested is just that — an investment; not a loan for which we have any obligation. Courtships are not always successful and there are, or should not be, participation trophies. It would be inappropriate without prior Board approval or knowledge for any candidate to have been offered or promised what amounts to a financial participation trophy. * A final observation*: my concern is for the League and Amateur Radio. Frankly, I don't care if in the process of protecting both that there may be some skinned knees or bruised egos. Governance is a contact sport. So, the ad hominem attacks need to cease. Good men and women (/there are those who may wish to exclude me from that company, but you cannot in good faith exclude the others/) of long standing service to Amateur Radio and the League have brought to their colleagues matters that concern them and that they believe should concern their colleagues. Reflect, consider, agree or object. Two paths diverge in the woods — we must choose one. _______________________________________ 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 8/16/18 4:12 PM, Mike Raisbeck wrote: > Rick, > > Let's not forget that there are really two issues before us, not one; > they are separate but also interrelated. > > The first is the process that was used. There are many ways to > evaluate a process - static review, reliance on advice from experts, > and others. One of these ways is by looking at the results the process > provides. The first time we used this process, the result looked good > at first, but turned out not so well. It would appear that the second > time the result may again be flawed, judging by the result. The > process needs serious review, based on the batting average to date > > The second is the suitability of the candidate himself. > > The first time we applied this process, folks trusted the committee > and relied on its conclusions without resorting to much independent > research. The second time some Board Members are a bit more wary. > Had the potential negative information been available earlier, and not > required individual Board Members to spend hours in searching, we > might have been able to have this conversation in a more timely > manner. I wish it had been so. > > Now we are faced with a painful question. > > Was the committee aware of the issues and concerns that have been > presented today? If yes, can we explain why that information was not > shared, and why the decision came out as it did? If no, can we > explain why the committee did not find these items? > > Mike > K1TWF > > > Mike Raisbeck > k1twf(a)arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv, K5UR via arrl-odv > <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 3:25 pm > Subject: [arrl-odv:27490] Board Decision > > Folks, the Board has already voted and approved a motion that stated > Dr. Michel was a suitable candidate and to tender an offer of > employment, which has been done. I can’t imagine what damage it would > do to the reputation of our organization if we backed off a job offer, > and furthermore, I don’t know to what extent Dr. Michel has possibly > acted to his detriment in reliance of our job offer. > > The Directors, who signed the confidentiality statement, had access to > all candidate resumes of everyone considered weeks before the final > selection, ample time to do whatever due diligence anyone saw fit, > including dialogue with your colleagues on the CEO Search Committee. > This debate should have happened weeks ago, in the Board room and > before, not weeks later because you didn’t agree with the outcome in > the Board room. > > Over the years, when I was a Director, there were numerous significant > motions passed by a majority of the Board that I did not agree with, > and some of those I was very upset about, but I never tried to torpedo > the decision. Once the Board made the decision, I respected it. We all > should do the same. There was a process used that was approved by the > Board. The group carried out their assignment as the Board directed. > *A recommendation was made and a majority of the Board voted to extend > a job offer.* We need to respect the process, and proceed with the > Board meeting *to elect Dr. Michel CEO and Secretary. * > ** > > 73 > Rick – K5UR > > On 8/15/18 8:14 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: >> Hi all: >> It looks like we have things worked out for an agreement with Howard. >> *We expect to have a_signed co_py_ __of the employment agreement by >> Friday_ **a*t which time, and as I mentioned to Dr. Woolweaver today, >> we will provide the info David requested on the contract. >> Just a reminder to put on your calendar, if you haven't already, the >> special board meeting is a week from today, August 22, at 9:00 PM >> Eastern. >> 73 >> Rick - K5UR *7.30.18** **Rick and Ric*k * What are the terms of the employment contract?* _______________________________________ 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 ****

3 2

[arrl-odv:27497] In Newsletter August 17 2018
by Pereira, Carla, KC1HSX 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

1 0

[arrl-odv:27494] Regarding the Special Meeting
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

GM ODV, For what it’s worth, here is my take on the current controversy. In reading the email argument regarding the upcoming Special Board Meeting I am struck by how this reeks of being a manufactured complaint timed in such a way as to intentionally throw a monkey wrench into the proceeding. More so, the argument as stated yesterday by Directors Frenaye, Tiemstra, Abernethy, and Vice-Directors Raisbeck, McIntyre, and Stratton seems to come straight out of the my-arrl-voice playbook. I do not think that moving the ARRL back to a 1960’s mindset is where we should be moving. I agree with Director Pace’s assessment of the situation, as well as with President Roderick. I will vote accordingly. 73 de Mike N2YBB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mike Lisenco, N2YBB Director, Hudson Division Chairman, ad hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ 917-865-3538 n2ybb(a)arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:27490] Board Decision
by k5ur＠aol.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

Folks, the Board has alreadyvoted and approved a motion that stated Dr. Michel was a suitable candidate andto tender an offer of employment, which has been done. I can’t imagine whatdamage it would do to the reputation of our organization if we backed off a joboffer, and furthermore, I don’t know to what extent Dr. Michel has possibly actedto his detriment in reliance of our job offer. The Directors, who signedthe confidentiality statement, had access to all candidate resumes of everyoneconsidered weeks before the final selection, ample time to do whatever due diligenceanyone saw fit, including dialogue with your colleagues on the CEO SearchCommittee. This debate should have happened weeks ago, in the Board room andbefore, not weeks later because you didn’t agree with the outcome in the Boardroom. Over the years, when I was aDirector, there were numerous significant motions passed by a majority of the Boardthat I did not agree with, and some of those I was very upset about, but Inever tried to torpedo the decision. Once the Board made the decision, I respectedit. We all should do the same. There was a process used that was approved bythe Board. The group carried out their assignment as the Board directed. A recommendationwas made and a majority of the Board voted to extend a job offer. We need torespect the process, and proceed with the Board meeting to elect Dr. Michel CEOand Secretary. 73 Rick – K5UR ...

3 2