If CQ’s questions were asked in good faith then why didn’t they
just ask us, rather than showboat in the magazine?? If their questions were in
good faith they could have contacted Dave, had a chat about it and asked
questions, then Rich could have offered his opinion based on that conversation.
He didn’t do that. He chose to showboat, pure and simple in my opinion
and that doesn’t deserve a formal public response in THEIR publication.
Jay, we haven’t held back anything regarding the Red Cross. What
we have publicized is exactly what you have taken exception to below. We have
given our members the facts and are leaving it up to the individual to decide
what they want to do and we haven’t sugar coated it one bit. If you think
we have then we must be reading different releases. But it does us absolutely
no good to go after the Red Cross and attack them. None whatsoever. ARRL has
had a very long fruitful relationship with the ARC and that has been of great
benefit to both organizations, and it is in both of our best interests to
continue that relationship. Sure, we have an issue to work out but the door is
still open, especially since the MOU is up for renewal, and ARC has not told us
to go pound sand. They very much want to renew our MOU and they realize a
resolution of the background check must occur before the MOU is agreed upon and
signed.
Until that time, we will continue to publish updated releases as things
change.
73 Joel W5ZN
From: John
Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007
3:51 PM
To: w5zn@arrl.org; 'arrl-odv'
Subject: RE: Re the Secret Society
Why do we assume that the questions asked by CQ
weren’t asked in good faith? And for that matter what difference does it
make?
Rich Moseson has looked at our actions regarding
RM11306 and the ARC background checks, taken facts most of which as Joel notes
are correct and has concluded that ARRL is “hiding the ball” or
acting like a “Secret Society” in his June editorial. There is
some merit to the claim that we didn’t fully inform members of our
actions in RM11306 on a real time basis. It seems to me that if we exercise a
confidential approach there ought to be a good reason for doing so and we
should be able to articulate those reasons if not contemporaneously with our
dealings with FCC at least after the fact.
With regard to the ARC again Joel is correct, Moseson
just doesn’t have the facts right. ARC has been trying to
“spin” the issue while stonewalling us. What is wrong with stating
the fact that any delay has been at the request of ARC and they haven’t
moved an inch in 6 months?
I fully agree with Joel, the issue Rich is trying to
raise with these two specific topics is secrecy. I do communicate with the ARRL
members in the Dakota Division. While it is for other to judge I think I do it
pretty well. I am afraid that I have to disagree with Joel when he says; all
too many of don’t know this is “utter nonsense.” It may just
be a sign of the times, but all too few members understand the Board process
and all to many are disposed to believe “we are up to something.”
In a real sense Moseson was articulating that feeling.
My suggestion was to ask Moseson for an opportunity to
answer the questions posed in his editorial. The idea wasn’t that
“Rich is a moron for not understanding”, but that we ought to be
able to explain what we did and why we did it. I for one think it can be done.
Frankly, if we can’t provide such an explanation, perhaps Moseson is
right.
As far as the ARC is concerned, to quote Rhett Butler
“frankly, my dear I don’t give a damn.” They haven’t
moved an inch. They haven’t shown any willingness to move an inch. We
should simply state that fact and leave it up to amateurs to decide whether to
be an ARC volunteer.
We have been telling ourselves that we need to do a
better job of informing our members and pressing our “case”. It has
been said that this is not something that is “really important to amateur
radio and ARRL” and we should husband our resources for a later date and
deal with this offline.
It seems to me the dealing with this offline is what
created this issue; this is a question of integrity and credibility, two
essential elements of a viable organization.
Reasonable minds can differ on these points and it
seems the decision has been made. Still it seemed to be a discussion worth
having.
73,
Jay, KØQB