I do not support lifting this motion from the table since there is no immediate need for it for the following reasons:

  1. This is not a transparency issue; no information is being withheld except a potential candidate’s intentions, which is always the case.


  1. This is not comparable to an election to public office. Public candidates do not go through our vetting process, they are professional politicians, running sophisticated campaigns with nearly unlimited resources that are best commenced as soon as possible to overwhelm their opposition or obtain an early advantage.


  1. You have to assume that those who wrote the rules did so in context, knew what they were doing and did so for good reasons. This is not just fixing a drafting error.


  1. Releasing the list of candidates simultaneously levels the playing field and avoids many more types of gamesmanship than the one unique example that has been suggested. In fact, the motion does nothing to cure the example provided. It would likely play out exactly the same under the new rule using the same assumptions.


  1. Incumbency is always an advantage. There is nothing a new rule will do about that. In fact, a Director can resign at any point in his or her term resulting in succession by the VD.


  1. What is the evidence of “the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership”? This sounds like “fake news” to support a solution looking for a problem.


  1. The E&E does not act in a rigidly scheduled, uniform fashion, resulting in varying time frames for vetting candidates and possible inequities in the campaign process.


  1. The motion perpetuates the possibility for mischief. In the past, there have been allegations that the E&E intentionally delayed or obstructed the vetting process with respect to certain candidates creating advantages for their opponents.


  1. The close of the application period acts as a deadline for the E&E to complete its work.


  1. Where is the deadline on the E&E's vetting process for each applicant?


What are we trying to accomplish?

73,

Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT

Pacific Division Director


On 08/14/2020 9:09 AM Fred Hopengarten <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote:


Great comments, Mark. Thanks for opening up the discussion.

 

If you run for city council, alderman, representative, senator, or president  -- every single elective post in the public sector, the information becomes public the day you file. I’ve never seen a public office candidate discouraged by the knowledge that someone else has filed.

 

But, in speaking with other members of ODV, I’ve heard about the following scenario:

 

An incumbent director decides that he has had his last go around. He informs his Vice Director (perhaps a Vice Director who was not initially elected, but rather appointed by the President and “approved” by the Director). We’re talking about a process that never saw the light of day until the VD appointment was announced.

 

Members who think the incumbent will run again, shy away from a contested election.

 

The VD (now almost the only person who knows about the intended resignation), files on the last day, with no opposition. As an unopposed candidate, the former VD (who never ran in a contested election the first time, and may have never run in a contested election), now becomes the Dir – still perhaps never having run in a contested election (the power of incumbency), or, if there is a contested election, the non-incumbent has an uphill climb (the power of incumbency).

 

This perpetuates the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership and “passes along” the seats, along with that fantastic perk – two free trips to Windsor, CT and two free ARRL shirts for Dayton, per year.

 

The purpose of this amendment is to encourage contested elections, and discourage quiet transition.

 

I suggest that the danger of power in the election process by being first to file is attenuated when compared to the danger of quiet transitions. Also, I think it in the best interest of the members to prefer noisy transitions to quiet transitions.

 

If a member of ODV does not believe that the scenario outlined above happens, I’ll be happy to name names.

 

For those playing along at home (or, more likely today, from an airport lounge), the process on Sunday will go like this:

·        E&E #1 will be on the consent agenda (along with a preceding motion to lift it off the table).

·        The motion to lift off the table succeeds or fails.

·        If the motion to lift off the table succeeds, the question becomes whether a voting Board member will remove E&E #1 From the  consent agenda.

·        If the motion is not removed from the consent agenda, it will pass with the vote to accept the consent agenda.

·        If the E&E #1 v3 motion is removed from the consent agenda, it will come up for a vote.

 

-Fred K1VR

 

From: Mark J Tharp [mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:48 PM
To: Fred Hopengarten
Cc: arrl-odv
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:30707] E&E #1


Members are notified at the end of the filing period. 

That seems sufficient to me. 


We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. 


I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. 

Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. 


Back row .02


Mark, HDX



On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote:

Colleagues,


I attach a Motion from E&E, v3.


W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait?


K6JAT objects.  So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection:


“My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. 


Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” 


W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate.


K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course.


In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later.


Fred Hopengarten, Esq.   K1VR

Six Willarch Road

Lincoln, MA 01773

781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org


New England Director

cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564

Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT






Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
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