---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM Subject: Response to "Formal Complaint Filed with E & E" To: david.norris.k5uz@gmail.com, Dale Williams WA8EFK < dale.wms1@frontier.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> Gentlemen of the E&E Committee: 1) It is clear from your letter of May 28 that the complainant is a contractor to the League, not an officer, director, vice director or employee. Under the "Code of Conduct", a third party does not appear to have standing to file ethics complaints. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a courtesy to you, my fellow board members, I will reply. If you have a complaint from a Board member, it would be appropriate for you to forward it to me. 2) My statement to the A&F Committee was to confirm what Director Woolweaver had told the committee - *Mr. Keelan confirmed the fact that he was only made aware of Mr. McCarthy's leaving his firm, The Keelan Group, after Mr. McCarthy's contract with ARRL was negotiated. * This puts the lobbying contract change in an entirely different light. If Mr. McCarthy indeed negotiated the contract with ARRL while still employed at The Keelan Group without the consent of his employer, it raises a concern that we are contracting with someone who may have violated a fiduciary obligation to his employer. The fact that Mr. Keelan agreed to the language of a service termination letter has no bearing on the foregoing or on the information shared by Dr. Woolweaver. The original decision to engage the Keelan Group was based in large part on Matt Keelan’s personal connections with Rep. Greg Walden and on the “bench depth” of his team. In making the change to Mr. McCarthy, ARRL seems to have given up both those advantages, yet with no reduction in cost. What benefit did the League get for contracting with a smaller organization for the same price? Director Woolweaver, a veteran of many lobbying efforts, inquired about the loss of lobbying knowledge and political connections when the League went from using a lobbying firm with multiple practitioners to employing a single-person firm. Such a question is entirely within the purview of the A&F Committee. As such, I suggested that the initial draft of the A&F minutes be changed to record the discussion. It is possible that Mr. Keelan made different representations to different ARRL parties. That could be determined by a group call between the A&F Committee and Mr. Keelan. Unfortunately, no such clarification was attempted by the Committee. 3) I believe that Mr. Imlay's use of the undefined term "independent investigation" is inappropriate. There was no "independent investigation." No records or e-mails were subpoenaed. No investigators were hired. No office was searched. I made a simple, brief phone call to Mr. Keelan to ascertain his position. I reported to the Committee what I was told. Directors have an obligation to exercise due diligence in their deliberations. Determining the accuracy or inaccuracy of information that affects League decisions is a clear example of exercising due diligence. I hope members of the E&E Committee recognize the importance of having a sound basis for decision-making. 4) Mr. Imlay's complaint contains the statement, *"**I intend to have my own conversation with Matt Keelen and ask for his confirmation or denial of Norton's recitation of his alleged conversation with Matt. I will share the results of that with the E&E Committee." * It has been over six weeks since this statement was made. What did Mr. Imlay report? 5) An E&E Committee evaluation of this complaint could include a phone call to Mr. Keelan and Dr. Woolweaver to verify the facts. I suggested such a call to one of your Committee members some time ago. Has any such attempt been made either before or after forwarding the complaint to me? The truth of the allegation should be critical to any evaluation. 6) As to the remaining assertions in Mr. Imlay’s complaint, they relate to a *private* e-mail I sent to Ms. Middleton that was not intended to go any further but that was forwarded without my knowledge or consent. There was no defamation because a) I can substantiate the representations I made to her in that e-mail and b) I did not communicate my concerns to a broad audience. I prefer not to elaborate on them at this time, as they could prove embarrassing to others, and I may opt to make public the full record of this ethics complaint, as I am permitted to do under current policy. *Conclusion* I had hoped that your committee would ignore this baseless action, like the previous E&E Committee did with a similar allegation last December. All our time would be much better spent preparing for the July Board meeting and dedicating our efforts to improving Amateur Radio. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA