The LSR sent the email below and the enclosed attachments to ODV
on 12.12.21.
To date the Committee has received no negative feedback.
Absent objections before the Meeting, it is the intent of the
Committee to recommend the adoption of the Standing Orders - As
Arranged by Subject.
The adoption of the SOs As Arranged By Subject, does not
terminate the need to perhaps consider adding SOs on other matters.
One necessary future step will be to improve/modernize the existing
language; a draft that accomplishes that goal is under review by the
LSR, but isn't ready for Prime Time, yet.
Indemnification
As discussed at the July Second Meeting, the proposed Articles
of Association amendments drafted by Imlay and Mutha Cullina that
attempted to address both the mandatory and the permissive
Connecticut Non-Stock Act indemnification requirements were poorly
and confusingly drafted. As a result, the Committee recommended
neither version be adopted and the Board concurred in that
recommendation
The LSR promised to submit an indemnification provision for
adoption at this, the January 2022 Annual Meeting. It has a draft
under final review that will be recommended for passage at the
meeting.
The Legal Structure Review Committee
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Robert B. "Bob" Famiglio
K3RF
Rod Stafford
W6ROD
Fredric J. "Fred" Hopengarten
K1VR
Richard A. "Rick" Roderick
K5UR
President
David Minster
NA2AA
Chief Executive Officer
As part of the ongoing effort of the Legal Structure Review
Committee to update the ARRL's governing and operational
documents, one of the important items that we found have to have
been long neglected are those referred to as Standing Orders.
If you look for them you will find that there is a mix of
current and deleted SOs and that they are in a stream of
consciousness list — there is no logical organization by topic or
subject.
Due to the efforts of Director Fred Hopengarten you will find
enclosed as a PDF the SOs, as originally written, but re-arranged
into a preliminary semblance of logical order. This took a lot of
work on Fred's part and all should thank him for the effort.
Consideration should be given by all of us as to whether any
individual SO should be deleted, altered or supplemented. Thought
should also be given to "what is missing" from these SOs, in other
words what matters have we not addressed, but should address. The
Committee will share that it believes almost all can be rewritten
for greater clarity; in fact, there is such a draft, but the
Committee believes before it makes any suggestion as to improved
language, the Board should have the opportunity for form its own
opinions.
The SOs are not Bylaws and do not require 2/3 to adopt, delete
or change.