I seem to recall that in Robert's Rules, minutes need to reflect "actions taken", and discussion before or after the action itself is not included, (but could create a new "action", and that would be reported). That would imply to me that Rick is indeed correct in that simply reporting within the minutes that Mr. Siddall provided his report to the committee is all that is required, unless the following discussion led to a vote on something new. That said, I'm not the RRoO expert. Maybe Jeff or Mike Raisbeck can comment... 73; Mike W7VO
On 10/17/2022 10:03 AM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
> > consideration should be given to removal or new boilerplate that can be applied to every report.
> I agree. The description should be enough without mentioning there were questions.
Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:08 am Subject: [arrl-odv:34181] Fur Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall
ODV,
The “entertain questions” language seems to be boilerplate in the Executive Committee minutes. That same terminology is employed within the descriptions of CEO Minster’s and Director Stratton’s comments before and after mine. The language was included in the early draft template before the substance my report was even added. So I suggest that If a change is made, consideration should be given to removal or new boilerplate that can be applied to every report.
73, Dave K3ZJ
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:25 AM To: "K9LA@arrl.org" <K9LA@arrl.org>, "N5AUS@n5aus.com" <N5AUS@n5aus.com>, "arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>, "w6rod@comcast.net" <w6rod@comcast.net> Subject: [arrl-odv:34180] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall
Perhaps "Mr Siddall offered clarifications"
Mike R.
-----Original Message----- From: Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD) <K9LA@arrl.org> To: Stratton, John, N5AUS (Dir, WG) <N5AUS@n5aus.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Stafford, Rod, W6ROD (Intl Affairs VP) <w6rod@comcast.net> Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2022 9:20 am Subject: [arrl-odv:34179] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall
Rod and John,
I understand the need for attorney-client privilege. No problem.
But it still seems to be kind of brusque to me to say Mr. Siddall entertained questions, and that's it.
Carl K9LA
--------------------------------------------- From: John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:43 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Stafford, Rod, W6ROD (Intl Affairs VP) <w6rod@comcast.net>; Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD) <K9LA@arrl.org> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:34177] Re: EC meeting minutes — Questions To David Siddall
Carl
Respectfully, permit me to echo Judge Stafford's observation that providing details regarding the specific questions directed to FCC Counsel David Siddall and his responses would/could result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege between David Siddall and the ARRL.
However, there is no sin and no waiver in responding to the Member that the questions and responses dealt with legal matters before the FCC and Congress on and for which Mr. Siddall was representing the League. If there is continued insistence, share with the Member that disclosing either the questions or responses would/could waive the attorney-client privilege resulting in possible damage to efforts being undertaken by the League to protect the Members', including his, interests.
Since the Minutes are to reflect the conduct/actions of the EC, I suggest that an exclusion of matters that came before the EC could result in less kind Members accusing the League of secrecy and "hiding the ball." We didn't and shouldn't do so. I would (and have when the issue has arisen in my Division) ask the inquisitive Member if he believes we should harbor secrets or maintain legally permitted disclosure when necessary to protect his rights and those of other Members. The inquisitive are usually satisfied with such a response. But, YMMV.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
_______________________________________ On 10/16/22 8:28 PM, Rod Stafford wrote:
> > Providing details could result in revealing privileged attorney-client communications.
Of course, you may want to finesse the answer a bit to the League member Carl.
Rod
Amateur Radio W6ROD ARRL Int’l Affairs Vice President
> > > On Oct 16, 2022, at 5:57 PM, Luetzelschwab, Carl, K9LA (Dir, CD) <K9LA@arrl.org> mailto:K9LA@arrl.org wrote:
> >
> > > The last sentence in item 4 of the September 12 EC minutes says: "Mr. Siddall entertained questions."
A Central Division member asked "What were the 'questions' and what were the answers?"
We should either provide those details or not make such a general statement.
Carl K9LA Director, Central Division _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> >
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv