Good morning, Rick, Thanks for the update, but I see that there are now four Directors in favor of the Special Meeting. I do believe that this decision is properly within the province of the Board, not the EC, and should be delayed to allow for a more considered approach. In any event, and in accordance with Howard Michel's email disseminating the draft petition, I have attached extensive revisions and comments to the document (shown as track changes in red and blue) which were limited in scope by the short time frame available for review and should be subjected to further refinement. In sum, please note that the attached draft reflects the overwhelming preference of the leadership of the Pacific Division that any further legislative effort or request for rule making return to the original language of PRB-1 as approved by the Board. Therefore, the revisions simplify the language of the proposed regulation while adding a necessary enforcement provision. All references to the specifics of the prior legislative effort as well as the failed compromise with the CAI have been eliminated. Also, I have taken the opportunity to recharacterize the argument in support, where possible, to eliminate hyperbole, exaggeration, speculation, redundancies and other matters that may detract from the accuracy and force of the argument. Respectfully submitted, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
On December 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM k5ur@aol.com wrote:
Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
_______________________________________________ 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
