Hi Mike,

I have to agree with you. AFAIK we only began having the EC review major news releases when we had a temporary CEO. At that point it served as a check and balance. Now we have a permanent CEO and that function has somewhat stabilized as he was re-elected for another term. So there is confidence from the Board that the CEO and HQ can do these functions without extremely close supervision. 

That said these small items are a no brainer really. All we are reporting are facts, not opinion. 

I was really surprised that the news section of ARRL.org had absolutely no mention of the Board meeting. Usually there is at least one article. Individually with my division’s members I make sure that they know what is going on. I have an upcoming division meeting to provide an update and seek input, in fact. 

So I have to agree with VP Raisbeck that we should have a simple synopsis of major items. And dare I say these are “safe” items. Let’s not encumber this with more layers. The members need to know. 

Ria

N2RJ

I would have to vigorously disagree.  While there are certainly messages with enough nuance and sensitivity that extra review is reasonable, the three items I mentioned at the start of this email chain do not fall into that category.  I see no reason why quick distribution of this information is not completely within the purview of HQ, and HQ alone, and I am adamant that delays in propagation of this sort of material make us look secretive and shady.

Taking a broader view, we arrive at a discussion that we touched upon but largely avoided at the Board meeting - the role and function of the EC.

Yes, we probably need an EC, but we need to be clear about just what its function is.  The classic role of an EC is to handle matters that:

1 - require Board action

2 - are of an urgent nature and can't reasonably wait until a Board meeting

The three items I mentioned - two election results and a brief announcement of a GREAT new program, (and indeed, most news bulletins from HQ) fall nowhere near either of these two requirements.

Furthermore, it is an axiom of political control that s/he who controls the information controls the narrative.  Have we created an EC that is grabbing control of the organization?

I doubt that, at least, I doubt that it is being done in an intentional way, but nonetheless, that seems to be what is happening.  We need to put a stop to this immediately.

Mike

K1TWF
1st VP