Marty I am not at all skilled in public or member relations and can't evaluate your concern in that area competently. I am interested in protecting the Board's prerogative where that is dictated by the Bylaws. I believe my interpretation of the Bylaw to be correct. No one has deprived anyone of any opportunity to be heard. 73, Chris W3KD On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Hi, Chris.
Your reply is all about process; my original concern was how all this would be perceived by the members, and using the cover of process makes it no less malodorous to the outside observer.
As long as you raised it, however, let’s think about your quote from Bylaw 41 that highlights what I believe to be a serious if not fatal flaw in that process.
I have now heard privately from nine individuals on ODV, all of whom expressed agreement with the basic conclusion in my initial posting. A couple of them were nonetheless under the impression that Director Rehman had an opportunity to have his arguments and evidence included in the E&E report. If what I have read and been told is correct, that impression is completely wrong with respect to the matter of his disqualification. The first Director Rehman knew of the E&E decision against him is when he received the message telling him what the Committee had decided and that the decision was final. He did not even see the full report until it was circulated to OD several days later. Having complied with E&E’s initial instructions and then having been blindsided by the accusations of another Director, he had no opportunity to see, study, act on or develop a formal response to the charges against him, so it would be impossible to have his side presented in the E&E report, the only source document that the other Directors are allowed to consider under Bylaw 41.
If this decision stands, if only the accuser has a chance to make a case in the official record, then the process is indeed broken.
73,
Marty N6VI
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christopher Imlay *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 8:55 AM *To:* k6jat@comcast.net *Cc:* Marty Woll; arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:25760] Re: Commentary on K4AC matter
Jim, to you, Marty and Dick Norton I would offer the following justification for the two-step vote process that we previously used with respect to Doug's earlier request for review of the E&E Committee's decision to not disqualify Mr. Sarratt with respect to the election flyer, and which we are using now with respect to the two current E&E decisions and reports. As I read bylaw 41, there is no alternative to this process that reasonably protects the Board's prerogative.
Bylaw 41 reads in relevant part as follows:
"Decisions of the Ethics and Elections Committee may be reviewed by the Board of Directors upon the written request of any candidate for that office or five or more Directors. Review shall be limited to the materials submitted to the Ethics and Elections Committee. A majority of the Board of Directors is required to change any decision of the Ethics and Elections Committee."
Doug Rehman was a candidate for re-election and was entitled to request that the Board review the decisions of the E&E Committee recently circulated. Doug has invoked that option with respect to all three decisions of the E&E Committee pertaining to the Director election in the Southeastern Division. When that happens, the Bylaw provides that the Board* may* review the decision. But the word "may" is permissive in this context and not mandatory. That can only reasonably be understood to be intentional when the Board adopted that Bylaw language. The reason for it is that otherwise, if the Board *had* to review the decision when so requested, any candidate for election could *obligate* the full Board to consider each and every decision that went against the candidate's proffer, no matter how frivolous, repetitive or insubstantial such a complaint might be. (That is absolutely *not* to identify any of the three instances in which Doug has requested review as being frivolous, or repetitive or insubstantial at all; *I am not making any such claim*). However, I believe that the Board should, and it clearly has in Bylaw 41, reserved to itself the ability to determine in the first instance whether and when a substantive review should be conducted when a request is made properly and timely by a candidate. So the first vote must be to ask the Directors whether, having seen the decision of the E&E Committee in each instance, a majority of them believe that the decision necessitates the requested review.
Clearly, Director Norton feels that there should be such a review. Marty has urged the voting directors to vote for a review and so have you, Jim. Although Directors Abernethy and Woolweaver have stated their views slightly differently, and haven't actually voted yes or no, they each say that they wish some input from Director Rehman (which he is and has been free to provide at any time, at his option). Those statements could be read as a yes vote for review or as a suggestion for Mr. Rehman. It is certainly not for me to categorize or interpret them one way or another.
If a majority of the Board votes for a review, then the review will occur according to protocols to be worked out by the President. If not, as Rick Roderick indicated, the matter is concluded per Bylaw 41.
I hope this helps, Jim.
73, Chris W3KD
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG