Director Hopengarten’s approach divides HOA and Covenant restricted hams into groups and potentially pits the interests of one group against another This multiplies our challenge and opens us up to the possibility of different rules depending on location and circumstances. It also opens the door to allow a HOA lobbyist to suggest and fight for any number of rules for each group in the proposed law. This approach is the absolute reverse of that achieved in PRB1. Under PRB1 the HOA has the burden of showing it is reasonably accommodating the amateur. The soon to be withdrawn ARPA also placed the burden on the HOA to show they were affording the ham an effective antenna. This approach shifts the burden to the amateur to show that his or her proposed antenna fits within the allowed parameters for the specific HOA or Association group

The approach suggested by Director Hopengarten could also be turned against us in PRB1 cases. If we say it is fine to classify installations into different groups and are willing to place specific limitations on a single family detached home in an HOA, why shouldn’t the same rules apply to homeowners, not in a HOA, but living on a similarly sized parcel?

I agree with Director Blocksome that we have just emptied our political capital account on the hill and opened the door to many unintended consequences. That said, my preference is to keep this discussion within the Board and make the best of the situation by carefully examining what we are doing to avoid as many unintended consequences as possible.

Finally, I am troubled by the fact Director Hopengarten has stated he represents Lake and Road association and those associations have been placed in a separate group in this proposal. If we press for specific relief for such an association it could appear that he has a conflict of interest in that ARRL resources are being used to benefit a small group to the detriment of the vast majority of HOA and Covenant restricted amateurs.  I am not suggesting any intentional impropriety on his part, and I understand that we no longer have a code of conduct or conflict of interest policy, but we were told there are basic obligations of a director under Connecticut Non-Stock Corporation law. Again, in and effort to avoid unnecessary pitfalls it may be worthwhile to run this question by Connecticut corporate counsel.

73,

Jay, KØQB