---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:37 PM Subject: The Bullying of Mary Hobart Myth To: david.norris.k5uz@gmail.com, Dale Williams WA8EFK < dale.wms1@frontier.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> *Introduction* Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay have periodically attempted to gather sympathy for their apparent displeasure with recent summaries of their own activities and expenses by the creation and dissemination of a Mary-Hobart-Was-Bullied-Myth. Their descriptions of what constituted the alleged bullying have never been specific. This memo will summarize my evaluation of the League's 2012 fundraising costs that was presented in January 2013 to the Board at the New Orleans Annual Meeting, the meeting where the alleged "bullying" was claimed to have taken place. Additional comments on the League's Development Department's performance are also included. *Lisenco E-mail Quote*s 1) Mr. Norton has been on the attack for years. We should have done something when he decided to take on Mary Hobart, who eventually left the ARRL earlier than she should have. 2) Incumbent Board members sat silently while Director Norton bullied Mary Hobart mercilessly, *making false accusations against her* and causing her to retire. (Emphasis added) *Imlay Quote* 1) The Board allowed Mr. Norton to bully CDO Mary Hobart into resigning, using precisely the same disturbing tactics he is now employing against me and others. This really needs to stop now. *Hobart's Relationship with the ARRL Board* Ms. Hobart was elected to the position of Chief Development Officer by a vote of the Board; consequently, she attended Board meetings. The present Development Department manager is not an elected officer and does not attend Board meetings. *Specific Evaluation Presented* At the 2013 Annual Meeting, I presented my evaluation of the League's fundraising efficiency. In 2012, the League Statement of Activities showed the following: Contributions and Support $1,126,533 Expenditures, Fundraising $ 717,435 The financial information is publicaly available in the 2012 ARRL Annual Report, at www.ARRL.org <http://www.arrl.org/>. Out of the $1,126,533 raised, the sum of $409,098 therefore remained for use in League programs. Thus, 63.7% of the funds raised was used to raise the funds. Note also that the true fundraising costs are really even higher since the League does not record costs such as those related to QST-ads-concerning-fundraising to the "fundraising" account. My comments were directed at the* 63.7 cents of every dollar being used to raise the dollar*. This is a number so high that if potential donors were aware of it, their donations might well be impaired. The comments were directed at the fundraising costs, never directed at Ms. Hobart personally. The analysis and criticism were appropriate for a Board member to have performed and presented to the rest of the Board. Management oversight is a regular component of Board activity. Ms. Hobart, who was present at the meeting because of her officer status, obviously heard the analysis and, because she was in charge of the fundraising operation, may have felt both responsible and possibly uncomfortable. For Ms. Hobart, or anyone else, to label a questioning of the appropriateness of 36.3% fundraising-efficiency as constituting "bullying" is totally unwarranted. Note that I have never seen any evidence that Ms. Hobart made such a characterization, only Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. *Comparative Activity* Plenty of information is available on the web that rates and compares non-profit fundraising costs. For example, Charitywatch.org has a "Top-Rated" list that includes those that generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs. Since after fundraising expenses, the League only had 36.3% of funds raised to spend on programs, it would not make the "Top Rated" list. For a comparable Amateur Radio fundraising activity, note that the 2014 Boston WRTC committee raised nearly $750,000 at a cost of somewhere around 1 or 2 percent. This efficient fundraising encourages donations. *Performance Evaluation * There is no doubt that my financial performance standards differ significantly from those of Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. Whereas my comments were directed at encouraging a more cost-effective fundraising effort, Mr. Liscenco and Mr. Imlay portray them as being a personal attack on Ms. Hobart. They were clearly not a personal attack on Ms. Hobart. The discussion did not criticize Ms. Hobart by name. It was about the high level of fundraising costs. It is in the interest of both the organization and the membership that fundraising be carried out efficiently. *Ms. Hobart's Retirement and Financial Impact* In 2015, the League raised $1,394,351 at a cost of 30.8%. In 2016, the League raised $1,240,262 at a fundraising cost of 39.7%. The decrease in fundraising costs appear to be largely driven by elimination of the CDO salary and benefits. Also, note that the amount raised increased after Ms. Hobart's retirement. Although I certainly do not claim credit for her departure, the conclusion appears to be that it substantially benefited the ARRL financially. *Additional (Not Discussed at Meeting) Performance Issues* As a Director, I found that the following items represent performance below what I expected from a department run by a Board-elected "Chief" officer, particularly from someone who was the organization's second highest paid employee, in addition to being an elected officer. None of these issues were discussed in open meetings, and I am not certain Ms. Hobart was aware of my specific concern about them.. 1) Brick-display at Newington League Headquarters a) There were, and still are, no apparent standards for the inscriptions on the bricks. Years after a brick, with only a callsign on it, is installed, observers will likely be unable to connect the brick with the person that the brick was intended to recognize. A number of individuals may have held the callsign after the brick was installed. This contrasts with similar commemorative displays, such as brick displays at other institutions and even headstones at VA cemeteries. b) The lack of organization of the brick display contrasts with displays at other institutions. For instance, on a visit to my alma mater, I located my brick in seconds once I found the area containing those of my graduating class. 2) Care Not Taken with Amateur Callsigns and League Activity a) A press release was made announcing a one-million dollar bequest containing an error in the donor's callsign. b) A sample of promotional material for the Second Century Campaign shown at a Board meeting had an incorrect callsign for the campaign chairman and lead donor. c) Correspondence to the Board had an incorrect callsign of the League's President. d) Fundraising material was produced that contained an odd and erroneous reference to the LOTW program, suggesting to the reader a lack of understanding of the program. 3) Lack of Attention to Everyday Operating Expenses After notifying me of her expected attendance, and asking if I wanted her to bring anything, Ms. Hobart then volunteered to bring me a roll-up ARRL banner for display at a Visalia DX Convention. Rather than being just transported as baggage, the 4-pound banner was shipped using FedEx's most expensive options, arriving days before the convention started, with a return shipping form with all the same next-day delivery-before-10-AM options checked. Had I not carried it back to Newington, it would have cost the League $275 to send a nice-but-not-necessary $200 prop out for a few hours use. 4) Lack of Attention to Employee Travel Costs The expenses for ARRL Newington staff support of a Pacificon Convention included airplane travel by two League employees. One spent $535 for his air travel while a Development Department staffer spent $1210 for the same air travel. I did not find this to represent prudent management of League resources. 5) Negotiating the Sale of Naming Rights to the ARRL Lab to a Radio Manufacturer-Supplier The Development Department negotiated the sale of naming rights to the ARRL Laboratory, which conducts testing and evaluation of radio equipment, to one of the League's advertisers, who manufactures and distributes radio equipment. The sale was stopped by Board action, in realization that having a Lab named after one manufacturer evaluating radio products made by either the namesake or its competitors might not enhance the League's reputation for evaluation integrity. Note again that none of these five items were discussed openly at any meeting. They do, however, represent evidence that the then Development Department management was not up to the high level of performance that the League deserves. *Lisenco Definition of "Bullying"* At the January 2018 Board meeting, during discussions concerning the 1000-or-so E-mails the Directors had received commenting on proposed changes to Articles and By-Laws, Director Liscenco used language like, "Don't be bullied" (by the 1000 E-mails) into doing what the members want. This indicates that Mr. Liscenco's commonly invokes the word "bully" to hopefully characterize and discredit any debate arguments made in opposition to his views or opinions. *Conclusions* Participating in a Board-level discussion of the suitability or unsuitability of the 2012 League's 36.3% fundraising efficiency at the 2013 Board meeting was a proper part of a Director fulfillment of his fiduciary responsibilities. Ms. Hobart was present at the meeting because of her Board-elected officer position, not her employee status. She heard discussion that was critical of the results of her department's work. Although they were not voiced at that meeting, there were other reasons for dissatisfaction with the performance of the Development Department. Both the League's fundraising and the fundraising efficiency increased after Ms. Hobart's departure. Her departure was financially beneficial to the League. Mr. Lisenco's claim of "*making false accusations against her*" is, ironically, a false.accusation. Mr. Imlay's defensive characterization is also untrue. I hope that Board members start to use some vestige of critical thinking to evaluate all claims made during Board deliberations and in Board-related communication, particularly those of Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay. 73, Dick Norton. N6AA .