Mike:
599
73,
Jay, KØQB
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Raisbeck
[mailto:k1twf@arrl.net]
Sent:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:13236] Re:
Thoughts on Article 11
I read Jay's comment
about "independently elected" to be generic, that is, all vice
directors are "independently elected" since the membership always has
the option to vote for any combination of director and vice director
candidates. Jay - is that what you intended?
Mike
-----------------------------------
Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck
Phone: (978) 250-1236
Fax: (978) 250-0432
Web: www.mraisbeck.com
Email: k1twf@arrl.net
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential
information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received
this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying
is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and
delete this message.
From: k8je
[mailto:k8je@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:13235] Re:
Thoughts on Article 11
Jay,
A thought. You mentioned that the
“independently-elected” Vice Director could temporarily assume the
seat of a Director who must recuse himself from a vote. This sounds reasonable, but we have situation in the GLD this election in which
one Vice Director and one Director candidate have chosen to run as a team.
Provided the two are elected, there would be no independent Vice Director.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bellows
[mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com]
Sent:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:13234] Thoughts
on Article 11
Please take a couple of minutes to read the following
description of some of the concerns raised by the existing Article 11 and a
couple a suggestions as to an alternative approach to protect the integrity of
the League while not unduly restricting otherwise qualified candidates for
office.
I plan to propose a modification of the eligibility
requirements of Article 11 at the January Board Meeting. Eligibility questions
as to possible conflicts of interest have periodically plagued the Board
and created hard feelings since long before I came on the Board in 1998.
This should be a collaborative effort and I welcome
anyone interested in working on this proposal. For starters take a look at the
following:
No person shall be eligible for or hold the office of
Director…who could gain financially….. “by the improper
exploitation of his office for the furtherance of his own aims or those of his
employer.” That is just one part
of Article 11. I suggest that with the
possible exception of someone who is in a persistent vegetative state, it is possible
for anyone to improperly exploit his office in furtherance of his own
aims. While I certainly don’t
suggest that any member of the Board is or has acted improperly, the fact
remains that it would be possible for each of us to improperly exploit
our office to further our own aims. As such it could be argued that no one on
the Board is eligible for the office they hold.
Rather than eliminating otherwise qualified prospective
candidates for League office on the basis of conjecture as to what could happen
or what is possible It seems to me that we should require full disclosure of
real, potential and perceived conflicts of interest as part of the election
process and let the members decide who they want to represent them in League
affairs.
Full disclosure of possible conflicts ought to be
required not only during the election process but also during the time in
office.
Some Directors have expressed a concern that members of
a Division would be deprived of representation by their Director if he or she
had to recuse him or herself from voting on a particular issue because of a
conflict. While the members of the Division might be deprived on the
Director’s participation and vote on that issue, it would be nearly
seamless to have the independently elected Vice-Director could move to the
front row for discussion and voting on the particular issue that gave rise to
the conflict.
I suggest that
the appropriate parties to make the decision of who should represent them on
the ARRL Board are the members of a Division in the election process, not the
Board of Directors.. With full
disclosure any concerns can be discussed during the election process and the
members can make that judgment. If the members are concerned that a Director
may have to recuse him or herself due to a conflict they can certainly factor
that into the decision of whom to vote for. In any event the choice ought to be
theirs.
While we are considering these matters we ought
consider some form of ongoing disclosure of possible conflicts after election
and while we are in office.
73,
Jay, KØQB