These sort of personal attacks are the reasons that I think this evenings webinar can be a disaster, if not regulated, and  the reason I suggested that our electronic meeting might be premature.  

I have not been on the board that long, but long enough that I am sick and tired to the personal attacks.  If we can't disagree without lowering ourselves to the status of bullies, then we have no reason to exist.  

Despite a common thread in the rumor mill and recent Ham Convention that the Board is trying to be underhanded and secret about the Vice Directors and the Code of Conduct, I call on all of the directors to ignore such attacks and marginalize those who wish to take such stances, that are neither professional nor in the best interests of the ARRL membership.

As to the Thursday night webinar; Mr. Norton if you are truly planning to use the internet from a cruise ship, I would suggest that you plan to pay the $10.00 per minute (or whatever the charge is...always much higher than home) out of your own pocket.  It is not up to the ARRL to subsidize your vacation.

As some of our colleagues have noted that opposition can be made without personal attacks, I must say that I truly believe that some people are not capable of doing so; and should not serve in positions of leadership.

Mr. Norton, it has been suggested that you resign your position as Director.  I'd rather suggest that you stop with the personal attacks and act in a productive manner - participating in discussions, honestly debating and help reach a consensus, even if it's not the position that you may champion.  The ARRL Board is not a 'my way or the highway' organization.  We are not the US House or Senate and we are not governed by California or Texas rules of law.  We are a non-profit corporation in the State of Connecticut, governed by the Statutes of Connecticut, as a membership based non-profit corporation.  That does not make us unique.  The Connecticut rules governing non-profit membership based corporations, were written not just for us, but for any such type organization in Connecticut.  Based on that lack of uniqueness. I trust our Attorneys including Mr. Imlay.  

73 and good Hamming (don't forget the 7 QSO Party, coming this weekend)

Jim


From: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton@gmail.com>
To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 10:15:02 AM
Subject: [arrl-odv:26422] Shame on Me - I Trusted Him Again

Shame on me.

Yeah. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. He did it again, and I fell for it.

---------------

Number 1

A while back, I expressed displeasure after finding out that the League's General Counsel, through the Legislative Action Committee appeared to have withheld important analysis of the HR555 language from the rest of the board. Vice Director Stratton clearly illustrated why CAI proposed the "compromise language," and why they are claiming victory.

Even Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, the most experienced lawyer involved with amateur antenna litigation says hams would be worse off if HR555 becomes law, and we should should work to stop it, a view shared by most all involved antenna attorneys.

Basking in this Potemkin Village illusion of success may be briefly satisfying, but when reality hits, the League will likely suffer another blow to its reputation. If HR555 becomes law, a good many HOA-based hams may actually be hurt.   

------

Number 2

At March's Executive Committee meeting in Denver, I again believed the League's General Counsel, this time when he told the assembled group that the League's governance structure needed to be changed to bring it into compliance with Connecticut state law. I was actually thinking through what should be done to solve the problem. What should we do with our non-compliant Vice Directors?

It was quite a shock when Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra not only eviscerated the "out-of-compliance" claim, but even the claim that Day Pitney's advice even actually said that it was out-of-compliance. 

Yes, it appears that the governance structure is not out-of-compliance, and that Day Pitney's advice actually did not say that it was!

Its sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being "legal advice" might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda.
  
I have never been an Vice Director, but have seen significant value imparted to the League by a number of them. I am of the belief that Vice Directors should continue their role, and nothing needs to be done, particularly in a panic.

From the information I have received, which included observing the full March EC meeting, I have no intention of supporting any changes in the position and status of Vice Directors. Of course, this might change should I see something compelling in he future.

I expect to be on Monday's webinar.

As I'll be aboard a cruise ship on Thursday, with pretty steep Internet charges, would someone please confirm that I can be reimbursed from the board meeting account. From discussions I've had, there is likely inadequate support for the measure to even bother continuing with Thursday's meeting, but feel the need to follow any conversation thoroughly, should it occur.
 
73,

Dick Norton, N6AA

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv