Tom,

I’ve read and reread your recent email (arrl-odv:26404) and your well-crafted attachment several times, wanting to be absolutely sure that I understand what you are saying.  I hope I have it right, my apologies if I have misconstrued anything.

I find myself both perplexed and a bit disappointed, particularly by the concluding sentence of the attachment, in which you urge that we not question the accuracy of the Day, Pitney opinion.  Since the rest of your memorandum appears to be based squarely on that opinion, this request on your part amounts to a plea that the EC’s judgment not be questioned.

As you know, I have already questioned Day, Pitney’s conclusions.  I do not claim that I am right, and Day, Pitney certainly is a venerable law firm.  However, my analysis of their memorandum, of the Connecticut statute, and of the meager case law I could identify, found their reasoning to be faulty.  I detailed that in a memorandum send to the Board several weeks ago (see arrl-odv:26387 and arrl-odv:26398) in the hopes that someone would look at what I had to say in some detail and let me know where I might be off.  In fact, several accomplished attorneys on the back bench have looked at what I said and have concurred with me.  I had and have no desire either to be wrong or to mislead the Board, so I implored the EC to take a more critical look.

Unfortunately, the several private responses I have gotten to date from the front bench have said, in essence, what you have said publically today, which I paraphrase as “Day, Pitney said it and we will not review, revisit, or criticize their opinion.”  This is disturbing.  The Board and Officers of the League have a fiduciary duty to look after the affairs of the League, and part of this duty is to be aware of faulty information that may colour their analysis.  I have raised a BIG RED FLAG.  It may turn out to be a false alarm.  I may turn out to be misguided or ill-informed.  If either of these is the case, I apologize now, and will apologize later, publically to this whole Board.  But until we hit that point, I believe the Board has an obligation to give this a hearing, to look at the reasoning, getting additional opinions, if necessary, and, if the reasoning is faulty, to let me know how and where.

Tom, you and I will both be in Cambridge, MA tomorrow.  If you would like, I will make myself available any time to chat about this.  Perhaps we can find some common ground.  If not, I will feel compelled to bring the matter up Monday evening.

Thanks and 73,

Mike Raisbeck

K1TWF