Jim, Mark (and Lynn) and Ria have all voiced valid reasons why this motion has the potential to create problems, rather than improve the election process.

    Our current Bylaws, Standing Orders and the Director's Workbook (and election procedures) are a patchwork quilt built over decades, with little thought to consistency. The lack of thought is not malice; it is a result, amongst other reasons, of a lack of competent legal advice and oversight.

    At present the Legal Restructuring Committee intends to commence the reconciliation and rewriting of all of the foregoing; the last effort to bring cohesion to the governing documents took well over six months; as we can observe it did not completely accomplish its intended task.

    It will take probably close to a year, perhaps a bit longer to rewrite all of this to a standard that the Board will find acceptable.

    Adopting this proposal, despite Fred's generous suggestion — we can fix it later — merely increases the effort with no short term benefit.

    Mark's point states a stark reality of Director, Vice Director and SM elections. Running for office, particularly at the Director and Vice Director level is both an intimidating and daunting process. It may once have been the equivalent of a ham club officer election; it ceased having that charm over a decade ago. It is now a very expensive and time consuming effort.

    We want to encourage participation, but as Mark and Lynn have pointed out that due to the commitment in time and money that running for office requires, permitting anyone to front run the process by filing early creates the very real and substantial risk that the motion, rather than encouraging what its sponsors consider to be "transparency", it will instead serve as a very effective means to discourage both non-incumbents and those with good talents but less political experience from running. The motion offers the opportunity to permit "buying" an election rather than  encouraging participation.

    Ria's point is equally valid and it also goes to encouraging broader participation. Due to the serious effort and expense in time and money and because we want to encourage participation, we should maintain a level playing field and permit the candidates to control the timing and place of their announcements.

    Another point is that this proposed change cannot be retroactive and apply to any current races; it can only as a matter of due process and fairness be applicable to future races. By that time the Legal Restructuring Committee will be well into its efforts. This motion will just complicate, with no measurable benefits, that process.

    Respectively, my opposition to the enactment of this motion remains.

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