And thus it begins. I’ve been a board member for less than a month and now face the first (will it be “of many a”) claim that I may be unfit to serve as the result of a (non-existent) conflict of interest. My response below includes a straight up denial that I have a conflict of interest.
All other responses are interspersed.
-Fred K1VR
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of jbellows@skypoint.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 9:24 PM
To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
Subject: [arrl-odv:27929] ARPA Statement and Initial Proposal
Director Hopengarten’s approach divides HOA and Covenant restricted hams into groups and potentially pits the interests of one group against another This multiplies our challenge and opens us up to the possibility of different rules depending on location and circumstances. It also opens the door to allow a HOA lobbyist to suggest and fight for any number of rules for each group in the proposed law.
K1VR: HOA lobbyists fought ARPA for 4.5 years and staved off adoption of the rule. I know of no reason to believe they would have stopped opposing ARPA, and I know of no reason to believe that the Senate would have voted for ARPA. CAI was winning and ARRL was losing. Further, we would have lost by winning. I have not seen the wisdom of continuing down that road.
In addition, as is well-published, and attached here, it is my view that the ARPA bill was flawed. I stand ready to debate anyone who says it had no flaws.
This approach is the absolute reverse of that achieved in PRB1. Under PRB1 the HOA has the burden of showing it is reasonably accommodating the amateur. The soon to be withdrawn ARPA also placed the burden on the HOA to show they were affording the ham an effective antenna. This approach shifts the burden to the amateur to show that his or her proposed antenna fits within the allowed parameters for the specific HOA or Association group.
K1VR: I contemplate “safe harbor” regulations (like the one meter dish rule for DBS satellite TVRO anennas) which would flip the burden back onto the HOA to show why it can forbid a particular antenna system. Is it possible to put the burden on the HOA’s? Yes. “In any proceeding regarding the scope or interpretation of any provision of this section, the burden of demonstrating that a particular governmental or nongovernmental restriction complies with this section and does not impair the installation, maintenance, or use of devices used for over-the-air reception of video programming services or devices used to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals shall be on the party that seeks to impose or maintain the restriction.” 47 CFR § 1.4000 (g).
The approach suggested by Director Hopengarten could also be turned against us in PRB1 cases. If we say it is fine to classify installations into different groups and are willing to place specific limitations on a single family detached home in an HOA, why shouldn’t the same rules apply to homeowners, not in a HOA, but living on a similarly sized parcel?
K1VR: A simple answer – the same rules should not apply to fee simple homeowners that applies to HOA homeowners because the former own their land in fee simple, and the latter are subject to CC&Rs. Seeking to make both categories of ownership subject to the exact same rules is folly that the FCC has announced it will not abide. We do not seek equality, we seek only a modest limit on HOA’s.
I agree with Director Blocksome that we have just emptied our political capital account on the hill and opened the door to many unintended consequences. That said, my preference is to keep this discussion within the Board and make the best of the situation by carefully examining what we are doing to avoid as many unintended consequences as possible.
Finally, I am troubled by the fact Director Hopengarten has stated he represents Lake and Road association
K1VR: Huh? This is not true, has never been true, and I have not said it. Were it true, I would have a conflict – but it is not and I do not. This is a flat, unlimited, unfiltered, denial. I have been in HOA matters, but only on the side of a radio ham.
and those associations have been placed in a separate group in this proposal.
K1VR: They are placed in a separate group for the obvious reason that that they will have the least reason to oppose a rule favoring radio amateurs (as they have not in the past shown hostility to antennas, they involve bigger pieces of land generally, they are unlikely to be members of CAI, and they are less organized). Road associations and Lake Associations are the “low-hanging fruit” of HOAs, and create the easiest first target.
If we press for specific relief for such an association it could appear that he has a conflict of interest in that ARRL resources are being used to benefit a small group to the detriment of the vast majority of HOA and Covenant restricted amateurs. I am not suggesting any intentional impropriety on his part, and I understand that we no longer have a code of conduct or conflict of interest policy, but we were told there are basic obligations of a director under Connecticut Non-Stock Corporation law. Again, in and effort to avoid unnecessary pitfalls it may be worthwhile to run this question by Connecticut corporate counsel.
K1VR: There was no “unintentional” impropriety because there is no impropriety. Review by specialty counsel would be a waste of money.
73,
Jay, KØQB
