Director Norton: If we are trotting out old sayings a quote from Paul Simon appears to be apropos of your comments. “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” It puzzles me why you would question the motives and integrity a man who has devoted more than 35 years to vigorously representing the interests of ARRL would do anything to harm the organization or mislead its governing body. You are right, shame on you. Shame on you. Number 1. No one, absolutely NO ONE has more experience in representing the interests of ARRL and individual amateurs than Chris Imlay. There may be room for differing opinions as to how best to overcome the current prohibition against amateur antennas in HOA restricted developments the plain fact is the Board has supported HR555 as the best approach to achieving our goal. Why some board participants can’t grasp the concepts of majority rule and accepting the decision of the majority is also puzzling. It isn’t surprising that CAI would claim victory. What do you expect them to say, “we tried our best but they beat us”? I’m not sure what your source is for the claim that the Hopengarten view is “shared by most all involved antenna attorneys”. I can only state that is not the view of the attorneys I know who have been engaged in that work, not for profit, but pro bono, for more than 25 years. Number 2. The presentation to the EC in March as to inconsistencies between the ARRL Articles and Bylaws and corporate governance was based upon advice from ARRL’s Connecticut legal counsel Not Mr. Imlay or the other authors of the EC memo. Perhaps you and I are reading different documents but I don’t understand how the Day Pitney advice could be construed as saying our Vice Director succession and voting provisions comply with the Non Stock Corporation statute. To name just two provisions, Day Pitney opined there is no provision in CT law for a VD to vote in the absence of a Director, or to succeed to fill a vacant Director position I recognize Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra have rendered opinions that challenge the opinions of Day Pitney. I appreciate their efforts, though as a participant in preparing the memo to the EC I found VD Tiemstra’s bald suggestion that this was part of a year-long scheme or plan to do away with Vice Directors not only baseless but personally offensive. That said, it is worth pointing out that no one, NO ONE who is an Officer, Director or Vice Director is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and the rendering of legal advice to the Board or its voting members is not authorized. The only legally authorized legal advice we have is from Day Pitney. Perhaps we need to ask them for clarification or explanation of a few points. As far as the authority the “legal opinion” of anyone else who has commented; that and $2.50 will get you on the bus in Minneapolis. Director Norton you stated “its (sp) sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being “legal advice” might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda.” Are you referring to the legal advice of Day Pitney? Are you suggesting that Vice Directors analysis is legal advice? Certainly you can’t be suggesting that the memo to the EC was legal advice beyond the quoted opinions and comments from the Day Pitney memo. If you have any factual support for your suggestion that there is some hidden agenda please provide that documentation. If not, when you make comments like you have we will need to remember the words of Paul Simon “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” Jay, KØQB From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:15 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:26422] Shame on Me - I Trusted Him Again Shame on me. Yeah. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. He did it again, and I fell for it. --------------- Number 1 A while back, I expressed displeasure after finding out that the League's General Counsel, through the Legislative Action Committee appeared to have withheld important analysis of the HR555 language from the rest of the board. Vice Director Stratton clearly illustrated why CAI proposed the "compromise language," and why they are claiming victory. Even Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, the most experienced lawyer involved with amateur antenna litigation says hams would be worse off if HR555 becomes law, and we should should work to stop it, a view shared by most all involved antenna attorneys. Basking in this Potemkin Village illusion of success may be briefly satisfying, but when reality hits, the League will likely suffer another blow to its reputation. If HR555 becomes law, a good many HOA-based hams may actually be hurt. ------ Number 2 At March's Executive Committee meeting in Denver, I again believed the League's General Counsel, this time when he told the assembled group that the League's governance structure needed to be changed to bring it into compliance with Connecticut state law. I was actually thinking through what should be done to solve the problem. What should we do with our non-compliant Vice Directors? It was quite a shock when Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra not only eviscerated the "out-of-compliance" claim, but even the claim that Day Pitney's advice even actually said that it was out-of-compliance. Yes, it appears that the governance structure is not out-of-compliance, and that Day Pitney's advice actually did not say that it was! Its sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being "legal advice" might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda. I have never been an Vice Director, but have seen significant value imparted to the League by a number of them. I am of the belief that Vice Directors should continue their role, and nothing needs to be done, particularly in a panic.
From the information I have received, which included observing the full March EC meeting, I have no intention of supporting any changes in the position and status of Vice Directors. Of course, this might change should I see something compelling in he future.
I expect to be on Monday's webinar. As I'll be aboard a cruise ship on Thursday, with pretty steep Internet charges, would someone please confirm that I can be reimbursed from the board meeting account. From discussions I've had, there is likely inadequate support for the measure to even bother continuing with Thursday's meeting, but feel the need to follow any conversation thoroughly, should it occur. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA