When I first was asked to run for Vice
Director, I agreed to do so only with the understanding that I would send out
post cards and other material supporting Mary Lou Brown for Director. I told her
what I was doing but didn’t ask for her support or for her approval of
the wording on my mailed materials. We weren’t a ticket but my goal was
to help get Mary Lou elected without regard to my election. When I was
informed that I won, I was surprised but mainly interested in the Director
election…Mary Lou was elected to my great relief and pleasure. Running “as
a ticket” is allowed but only with the two candidates agreement and
without League sanction or support.
73/Greg W7OZ
From: k8je
[mailto:k8je@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005
6:59 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:13236] Re:
Thoughts on Article 11
You are inherently correct that our
election format has all Vice Directors be elected independent of their
Director. The veiled, rhetorical question I was trying to ask relates to rare
instances in which Vice Director and Director candidates run within their
Division as a declared ticket. In these instances, would their declaration
effect a de facto loss of full independence?
Jim, K8JE
-----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, KĜQB