Doug, with respect, having been consulted by the E&E Committee extensively at the time that it was deliberating the conflict matter, I would take issue with the following statement: While Dwayne’s situation was complex, I believe that E&E could have reached the same end result as it took the entire Board to do. I would suggest that the E&E Committee had absolutely no choice but to render the decision that they did and to handle the matter as they did, *given (1) the undisputed facts of the matter, and (2) the strictures of Bylaw 45 as it reads now*, from which a Board committee has no authority to diverge. While the full Board afforded itself a good deal of creative license in interpreting the current Bylaw in a way as to do what the Board felt was substantial justice, that same license is not something that a Board committee can or should grant to itself. So I would speak *strongly* in the defense of the three members of the Board comprising the E&E Committee who tried very hard to do the right thing in a difficult situation (and in fact *anguished* over the matter). To criticize them for the merits of the decision they reached, or to characterize the decision as evidencing a systemic problem with the Committee structure is not at all fair to the Committee members. While there is good and sufficient reason for the Board to consider revision of Bylaw 45, any criticism of the E&E Committee due to the substance of their decision in the conflict matter just past is, in my view, significantly misplaced. That the Board reviewed the E&E Decision and changed it, and that the Board is now considering modifications to what has proven to be a very limiting Bylaw 45 so as to better guide the E&E Committee in the future, is evidence that the *process* that we have in place works fine. Sure, it took some Board time and attention, but the circumstances, and the application of the Bylaw were matters of first impression. That it would take time to address them reflects the seriousness of the issue confronting both the E&E Committee and the Board, and the fact of the first application of an untested Bylaw. 73, Chris W3KD On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> wrote:
Greg:
In the past 3 months a significant amount of man-hours were lost dealing with two decisions of the E&E: notification of the membership concerning ballots (3-0) and Dwayne’s situation (2-1). Between emails, phone calls, and GoToMeeting sessions, I personally expended dozens of hours.
While Dwayne’s situation was complex, I believe that E&E could have reached the same end result as it took the entire Board to do.
The decision concerning ballot notifications was, pardon the colloquialism, just plain wrong.
By making the E&E elected, the committee will better reflect the thought process of the entire Board and thereby eliminate left field decisions that cause the entire Board to become involved in a review/repair of the situation.
E&E is perhaps the most important of the committees. Just as the EC is chosen by a plurality of the Board, the best selection of committee members for E&E would be done by a plurality of the Board.
73,
Doug
K4AC
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *G Widin *Sent:* Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:08 AM *To:* arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:22867] Bylaw 41 change--making E&E elected
Doug et al.,
What problem is being solved by making E&E elected, rather than appointed?
Greg, K0GW
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG