[arrl-odv:34180] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall

17 Oct 2022

      Perhaps "Mr Siddall offered clarifications"
Mike R. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD) <K9LA@arrl.org>
To: Stratton, John, N5AUS (Dir, WG) <N5AUS@n5aus.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Stafford, Rod, W6ROD (Intl Affairs VP) <w6rod@comcast.net>
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:20 am
Subject: [arrl-odv:34179] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall

#yiv0136899607 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}Rod and John,
I understand the need for attorney-client privilege. No problem.
But it still seems to be kind of brusque to me to say Mr. Siddall entertained questions, and that's it.
Carl K9LAFrom: John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:43 PM
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Stafford, Rod, W6ROD (Intl Affairs VP) <w6rod@comcast.net>; Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD) <K9LA@arrl.org>
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:34177] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall Carl

    Respectfully, permit me to echo Judge Stafford's observation that providing details regarding the specific questions directed to FCC Counsel David Siddall and his responses would/could result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege between David Siddall and the ARRL.

   However, there is no sin and no waiver in responding to the Member that the questions and responses dealt with legal matters before the FCC and Congress on and for which Mr. Siddall was representing the League. If there is continued insistence, share with the Member that disclosing either the questions or responses would/could waive the attorney-client privilege resulting in possible damage to efforts being undertaken by the League to protect the Members', including his, interests.

Since the Minutes are to reflect the conduct/actions of the EC, I suggest that an exclusion of matters that came before the EC could result in less kind Members accusing the League of secrecy and "hiding the ball."  We didn't and shouldn't do so. I would (and have when the issue has arisen in my Division) ask the inquisitive Member if he believes we should harbor secrets or maintain legally permitted disclosure when necessary to protect his rights and those of other Members. The inquisitive are usually satisfied with such a response. But, YMMV.

_______________________________________ John Robert StrattonN5AUS DirectorWest Gulf DivisionOffice:            512-445-6262Cell:                512-426-2028P.O. Box 2232Austin, Texas 78768-2232 _______________________________________On 10/16/22 8:28 PM, Rod Stafford wrote:

Providing details could result in revealing privileged attorney-client communications.
Of course, you may want to finesse the answer a bit to the League member Carl.
  Rod

Amateur Radio W6RODARRL Int’l Affairs Vice President

On Oct 16, 2022, at 5:57 PM, Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD)<K9LA@arrl.org> wrote:

The last sentence in item 4 of the September 12 EC minutes says: "Mr. Siddall entertained questions."
A Central Division member asked "What were the 'questions' and what were the answers?"
We should either provide those details or not make such a general statement.
Carl K9LADirector, Central Division_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

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

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

[arrl-odv:34180] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall

Mike Raisbeck