Gentlemen and Mrs. Craigie Today is April 19, 2014 --- the 239th anniversary of the "shot heard 'round the world" --- the day American militiamen stood down 3 companies of the King's men, the finest military in the World at the the time, at the North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts. Thus began an arduous, long, bloody and at times doubtful road to what became the United States of America. That endeavor was motivated by certain fundamental beliefs --- beliefs that have underpinned this Nation and enlightened the World for 239 years. One of those fundamental beliefs was the right to vote. The people of this Nation have spilled blood and much ink to ensure that all citizens, regardless of race, color or creed would have the opportunity to vote. One of the hallmarks of that belief in the right to vote has been the development of massive, well organized and well funded, get out the vote campaigns by political parties of all stripes. It is even considered acceptable for government --- from school boards to the Masters in Foggy Bottom --- to encourage and remind citizens of pending elections and their opportunity, duty and right to vote. Those "get out the VOTE" efforts have become so common that no one any longer raises an eyebrow; in fact, these campaigns are expected. No one is appalled when these efforts are undertaken. It is stunning; no, it is appalling that there is even a discussion over whether it is proper for either a Director or the League to remind our members of a pending election and their opportunity to elect their representatives. I commend Director Rehman for being sufficiently cognizant of his duties and responsibilities that he would want to be certain his actions were "according to Hoyle", but I stand with Director Woolweaver's statement that reminding members to vote is an obligation, not a violation. The comment from an Esteemed Member given in justification of doing nothing: "/We have to recognize that a change in turnout //_will_//impact the results of the election/" --- assuming the validity of the "general research" given by the Esteemed Member as justification for doing nothing --- could be construed as confirmation of a purposeful decision by The Incumbents to take all and any measures, including deliberate measures, to suppress voter turnout in order to ensure The Incumbents will always remain in office. Is that a message a group of Incumbents --- elected or employed --- want to send to the rank and file? Even inadvertently? Integrity is a precious thing. It can't be bought. It can certainly be damaged through deliberate acts, but it can also be damaged through thoughtless, careless, negligent acts --- even if they are on some level well intentioned. Damaged, integrity is chillingly difficult to repair. If it were to be announced to the Members that the Board has decided --- by policy or by inaction by choice or negligence --- to suppress voter turnout, knowing it "/_will_//impact the results/" --- how do you think that would be received? Our integrity would rightfully be questioned; the problem is that "our" would be defined not as individuals, but as the ARRL. Under no circumstances is it right --- through inaction or agonizing examination of minutiae --- to risk that integrity. Historically, this argument has occurred before: How many Angels will fit on the head of a pin? The outcome of that argument has just as much usefulness. If any Director is so lacking in integrity that he/she/it would deliberately and openly attempt to interfere with/skew an election there are solutions. Actions have consequences; elections are those consequences. Without relying or waiting on the aggrieved to risk up, forge pitchforks, light torches and build gallows at the next election, the Board has the authority to censure such wantonly improper conduct. The ARRL should default to a belief in individual integrity and default to doing the right thing. Doing right in this circumstance is encouraging, pushing --- screaming and yelling, if necessary --- to ensure our Members know there is an election, know how to participate and reminding them to vote. I have met Director Rehman only once --- at the January Board Meeting. One meeting does not definitively map a man's character, morals or intelligence; but, that is the reason God granted us the ability to make judgments. My judgment is I do not believe a man intent on doing wrong is going to ask for permission to do it. Unless any of you disagree with my judgment, I suggest we default to trusting the man. If he steps in the poo, well then, we can fix that. An Esteemed Member opined that Director Rehman may have an ulterior motivation in seeking to "turnout the vote". That suggestion was improper and disrespectful. While I believe this entire discussion has spun off and missed the fundamental issue, I believe all participants have been well intentioned and have had the League's best interests at heart. The slur against Director Rehman had and has no place in this discussion. I am concerned that we are attempting to develop a comprehensive fire fighting policy, while overlooking the fire raging at our feet. We can discuss whether a formal policy is needed regarding notification of members regarding elections and the parameters of such a policy, but Right Now there are contested elections and time is moving on. Either we default to trusting the judgment and integrity of Director Rehman (and each other) or HQ needs to step up NOW and remind and encourage the Members in the affected Sections (all of them) there is an election and they need/have the right to vote. After that is done, if we want to develop a comprehensive fire fighting policy, we can do so at our leisure, as the house will not be in flame. Now, we should default to the fundamental principal that increased member participation in elections is beneficial to the League and it is our obligation to encourage it --- all the time, every time and regardless of the "impact" a full turnout may have. Voting is a fundamental right --- purchased in blood. To oppose it or suppress it, intentionally or not --- by inaction, by investiture in procedure or extended considerations of hypotheticals --- is fundamentally a mistake and beneath an organization celebrating its 100th Anniversary in a Nation celebrating the 239th Anniversary of a devotion to the right to vote. John Robert Stratton N5AUS ** Vice Director West Gulf Division Life Member of Hiram Maxim's Club On 4/19/14 7:20 AM, Doug Rehman wrote:
To be clear about what I would like the Board to consider at this time, it is that members of the NFL Section receive an election reminder being sent for the current election that is substantially similar to the sample generic reminder that I included in a prior email---regardless of who sends it.
There are several possible solutions:
1)I send the reminder
2)HQ sends the reminder only to the NFL Section
3)HQ sends the reminder to all four contested Sections
4)E&E sends the reminder only to the NFL Section
5)E&E sends the reminder to all four contested Sections
6)No one sends a reminder
In the current election, options 1 through 5 all accomplish the notification.
To briefly analyze each option:
1)I have not endorsed or campaigned for either candidate. This is the only election in my Division. I have already previously mentioned the election in a monthly Division email which WAS approved (after petitions were due, I named the two candidates).
2)While this is seemingly the most innocuous option, a problem is created in that there are 3 other elections being held. IF HQ sends a reminder to only one of the Sections, it appears that HQ is trying to draw attention to it.
3)While this addresses the issue of disparate treatment, it creates a new issue: we don't know whether the Directors with the other 3 elections in their Divisions want reminders sent or not.
4)99.99% of the membership will have no idea what the Ethics and Election Committee is and the same issue as #2
5)99.99% of the membership will have no idea what the Ethics and Election Committee is and the same issue as #3
6)EPIC FAIL...
Unless the members of the Board want to work through adopting a notification policy online in an expeditious enough fashion that a timely reminder can still be sent, I submit that for this election options 1 and 3 are the most appropriate for dealing with the immediate notification need. If all of the other Directors with Section elections voice their opinion that they want reminders sent from HQ, then option 3 should be approved, otherwise option 1 should be approved (and apply equally to other Directors with ongoing Section elections where the Director would like to send a reminder).
Unless the Board members feel we can timely adopt a policy, I am not asking that a permanent policy be immediately adopted, but that a one-time notification be allowed. We can then address the nuances of a permanent policy without an election deadline looming.
Thanks & 73,
Doug
Doug Rehman, K4AC
Director Southeastern Division
ARRL---The National Association for Amateur Radio®
doug@k4ac.com <mailto:doug@k4ac.com>
www.arrlse.org <http://www.arrlse.org/>
www.facebook.com/arrlse <http://www.facebook.com/arrlse>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv