My mistake... I stand corrected in part. The version of the Norris-Williams statement that John Robert had in his minutes was the same version that was put out earlier by Dan. This was not the final version I had edited in CT and I emailed Dan the needed correction which appear in this Final Draft. The difference is one adjective. The formatting between the two look different, however upon further review nothing was missing from the statement. I apologize for any confusion. 73 David K5UZ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of David Norris Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:50 PM To: 'John Bellows' <jbellows@skypoint.com> Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:27020] Re: Final Minutes — Let's Vote For Both All, We have a set of minutes produced by the Secretary. Dan went back and checked his minutes again against the recordings and we have a good, concise account of the meeting per Robert's Rules. After reading through the revised minutes, I find them to be accurate as I recollect, and Dir. Williams and my statement is as we had written the final version to be read in to the minutes. With Kermit's edits I have no problem with this version. I do have some questions about the other set of minutes as key words are left out and others inserted in the Norris-Williams statement, which was from an earlier draft. Also, I do remember there being a question to Tom and Dwayne's statement and whether or not they wanted it or it would be allowed by the Chair. Dan has apparently confirmed this sequence of events per the recordings. Gentlemen, I'm with Jay on this one. I appreciate your input John Robert, but we should be concise and stick to the rules of order and go with the Secretary's final draft. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of John Bellows Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 7:24 PM To: John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:27017] Re: Final Minutes — Let's Vote For Both . 1. You have been a strong proponent that we follow Roberts Rules of Order. 2. According to Dan Henderson the tape clearly indicates Director Abernethy stated he did not intend his comments to be a part of the Minutes. I can think of no reason Dan would not accurately report what he heard. 3. According to Roberts, the Minutes are a record of the actions during the meeting without editorial comment, not a revisionist version. There is no provision to permit the right to revise or extend the record. 4. You said the members already knew what happened at the Board Meeting, but further delay can only raise suspicions. It is time to approve the Minutes that conform to Roberts Rules of Order so all our members can see what was decided at the meeting; and those members who already know what happened can confirm or correct that understanding. 73, Jay, K0QB Sent from my iPad On Jan 31, 2018, at 4:58 PM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com <mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com <mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com%20%3cmailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com> > > wrote: Two Sets of Draft Final Minutes Now Exist And Should Be Submitted For Acceptance By the Board We now have two sets of "Final" Minutes to consider for approval. I respectfully suggest that both be submitted on Thursday to the Board for approval; voting would be for one version or the other and the version with the majority of votes will be deemed to be the actual adopted 2018 January ARRL Board of Directors' Meeting Minutes. I suggest this approach, because the two draft sets of Minutes stand for two fundamentally different views of the League's and this Board's commitment to transparency — and will be so interpreted by the Membership. I am concerned the consequences of the Membership's interpretation of the final version of the Minutes will either fuel and exacerbate the current dissatisfaction with the League or it could serve to calm the waters and serve to restore some measure of trust in the Board and current leadership. I note in connection with the last point that what occurred at the Meeting, including the submission of Mr. Abernathy's Motion and the withdrawal of Mr. Lisenco's motions, is already known, and is being discussed. Cries of angst as to "how do they know" is an exercise in futility; it appears everything that occurred was disseminated within either hours or no longer than a day after the meeting ended. So what we vote to approve will be measured and judged against what is known. The Two Sets of Minutes We have the draft submitted 1.30.18, yesterday, by Mr. Henderson, entitled: "2018 January Draft Minutes Final Revision." For clarity of discussion, I will refer to Mr. Henderson's draft as: "2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version." We have the draft submitted by the undersigned, N5AUS, which for clarity of discussion will be referred to as "2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version". The titles used are not intended to be pejorative or argumentative — the titles are used to facilitate discussion and voting. Enclosed is the final revision of the N5AUS Minutes, originally submitted on Sunday evening, modified per Rod Blocksome's suggestions on 1.29.18 and now modified to include, at Kermit Carlson's request, the correction of "Mr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS" to "Dr. Mark Stefka, WW8MS." Otherwise there are no changes between the enclosed version and the 1.29.18 version. Enclosed to eliminate any question as to undisclosed changes, are: (1) a PDF redline, with the yellow highlighting to show the changes requested by Rod and the added change requested by Kermit; (2) a PDF with no redline or highlighting. This is the N5AUS proposed final version, the "2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version". The two sets differ in non-substantive use of headers and columnar lists vs. run-on lists in paragraphs. The real difference lies in how they treat Mr. Abernethy's Abernethy-1 Motion and his related statement and Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of Lisenco Motions 1-7. The Meeting We Had Vs. The Meeting We Are Asked To Report We came into a meeting with an unprecedented level of engagement by, at a minimum, a significant subset of the Membership. And with an unprecedented consistency in demanded actions for the Board to take at the Meeting — withdrawal or defeat of what became known as the "Norris Motions", repeal or substantial modification of the Code of Conduct and the withdrawal or defeat of what became known as the "Lisenco Motions." In the face of strong opinions both within and without the Board, something remarkable (at least in the opinion of some of the opposition) occurred. Some adults stood up. Those adults were Mr. Norris, Mr. Williams, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Allen, Mr. Carlson and Mr. Lisenco. Mr. Norris' EC Motions, prior to the Meeting, were the subject of both intense scorn and praise. His EC motions were discussed, and posted, on his website, Mr. Carlson's website and Mr. Holden's website. It was clear Mr. Norris' EC Motions were before the Board with the intent they be adopted. Mr. Norris, the adult, had the courage to not only withdraw from consideration, on the record, the EC motions (except for EC2, EC3 and EC5), but to also make a public statement regarding both the initial filing and the subsequent withdrawal of the EC Motions. That statement, read into the record, was intended to be an inseparable part of the announced withdrawal of the EC Motions. I know, because I was part of the discussion with Mr. Norris and Mr. Williams with regard to both the withdrawal of the Motions and the advisability of crafting and recording a public statement as part of the withdrawal of the EC Motions. Mr. Norris could have said nothing and let the EC Motions be skipped, and under the current strained interpretation of Robert's Rules there would be no mention of the disposition of the EC Motions in the final draft of the Minutes. That silence in the Minutes would have been a public relations disaster as it would have provided fuel for some members of the opposition to proclaim far and wide that the silence was confirmation of the ARRL's dedication to secrecy and collusion. While such a conclusion would be without merit — perception is the king and it trumps reality and the perception would have prevailed. Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Allen had the courage to address the other concern of the Members — they had the courage to introduce a motion to rescind the Code of Conduct in its entirety. They did so knowing their action would be met with heavy opposition inside the Boardroom; it was. Only adults with both courage and conviction would be willing to invite the opposition they knew the Motion would draw. But, as was Mr. Norris' withdrawal of the EC Motions, the introduction of Abernethy-1 was accompanied by a statement that was an integral part of the Motion. I know, because I was part of the discussion with Mr. Abernethy and Mr. Allen with regard to the advisability of crafting and recording a public statement as part of the introduction of the Motion. It became clear that while Abernethy-1 might not pass, it also became clear that the Board had to address the opposition to the Code of Conduct. Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Allen and Mr. Carlson crafted a compromise that adequately addressed the Members' concern over the Code of Conduct and permitted the Board to take a public position that did not require anyone to publicly oppose or support the Code. In return for the withdrawal of Abernethy-1 and the withdrawal of Mr. Carlson's original motions, Messrs. Abernethy, Carlson and Allen crafted and jointly supported what became Carlson-1b — a well thought out and executed compromise by mature adults. Neither the withdrawal of Abernethy-1 nor the appearance of Carlson-1b — with a 14 vote approval — makes sense or clearly conveys to the Members the effort and responsibility displayed by the Board on the issue of the Code of Conduct unless the Minutes contain the facts of the introduction, the accompanying statement and the terms of withdrawal of Abernethy-1 that appears in Paragraph 53 of the 2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version. It is already widely known that Abernethy-1 was introduced at the Board meeting. The adoption of Minutes that do not address the introduction and withdrawal of this Motion will reflect poorly on the League and this Board. There is no benefit to, or justification for, incurring the public scorn that will arise from the failure to state what is already known. The same applies to Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of the "Lisenco Motions". To say that the Amateur world knew Mr. Lisenco's Motions had been filed with the Board with the intent they be adopted is an understatement. These Motions were discussed, cussed, analyzed and dissected far and wide. Messrs. Norris, Carlson and Holden discussed the Lisenco Motions on their websites and Messrs. Norris and Carlson even opined as to their position on the passage of the Motions. For the Minutes to ignore one of the hottest topics of discussion prior to the Meeting by omitting Mr. Lisenco's courageous move on the record to withdraw his Motions is simply folly. It would be equivalent to being pregnant and attempting to explain the bump by claiming it was merely an undigested watermelon. Regardless of how anyone might stand on any other issue, the Board must give credit to Mr. Lisenco for also acting as an adult, even though under heavy pressure, by withdrawing his Motions on the record. If we are to retain credibility as an organization and as a Board, I believe we must err, if err we do, on the side of absolute full disclosure with regard to what occurred in one of the most watched and discussed ARRL Board meetings in the last decade. The failure to do so will be the triumph of technicality over common sense. Robert's Rules of Order — And The Failed Interpretation of Same Mr. Henderson (none of my comments are personal as to Dan) justifies the exclusion of Paragraph 53 (Abernethy-1) and Paragraph 56 (Lisenco Motions) by citing to RNOR §48: the body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were made or taken up – except, normally, any that were withdrawn*…” The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads: "There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. In such a case, only as much information should be included in the minutes as is needed to reflect the necessary details clearly. For example, if, at one meeting, a main motion was made... The conclusion drawn ignores the very language of §48: the body of the minutes should contain a separate paragraph for each subject matter, and should show: (6) all main motions or motions to bring a main question again before the assembly that were made or taken up – except, normally, any that were withdrawn*…” The footnote cited above regarding a withdrawn motion reads: "There may be certain instances in which a main motion is withdrawn under circumstances that require some mention in the minutes. I submit, with respect to Mr. Henderson, that it would be difficult to find a Board Meeting that was not more exceptional and that did not harbor the most outstanding circumstances to justify the inclusion of the discussions of Abernethy-1 (¶53) and the Lisenco Motions (¶56). In whose memory has there been a Board Meeting with more focus on the actions of the Board than this one? An abnormal Meeting? Justifying circumstances? You betcha' Red Ryder. One last observation of a much overlooked fact. WE. ARE. THE. BOARD. We have the power to include any matter in our Minutes that we choose to include, period. I respectfully submit that if there was ever a time to exercise that power — if any believe there is any technical impediment — it is now. We have the opportunity to reclaim from our critics the high ground. We can, and I submit we should. Let's Vote I suggest that instead of spending another week going back and forth over the Minutes or of possibly voting down the 2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version and having to start over again, let's vote on both draft sets of minutes at one time. Let's formally vote either for: 2018 Minutes, Abbreviated Version (non Abernethy-1 Motion and Lisenco Motions) OR 2018 Minutes, Non-Abbreviated Version (inclusive of Abernethy-1 Motion and Lisenco Motions) [Enclosed as 2018 ARRL Draft Minutes — N5AUS Final Revisions - No Redline] _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 _______________________________________ <2018 ARRL Draft Minutes — N5AUS Final Revisions - Redline.pdf> <2018 ARRL Draft Minutes — N5AUS Final Revisions - No Redline.pdf> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv>