[arrl-odv:22594] Fwd: EC minutes FINAL
Here are the minutes of the March 29 EC meeting. Dave Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID -------- Original Message -------- Subject: EC minutes FINAL From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org> To: sumner@snet.net CC:
EC Minute 9.2 says, 9.2. Discussion resumed of how best to protect the ARRL from liability for actions of its volunteers. It was agreed that the Chief Executive Officer will distribute instructions to staff explaining how to respond to questions about individual responsibility during ARES deployments. This language is intentionally cryptic because the Minutes are published. For the Board's information, here is the back story. Something over a year ago, the state of Wisconsin adopted a law allowing concealed carry permits. Thereafter, some ARES volunteers in Wisconsin who had such permits asked if they could carry their guns on ARES deployment. On the advice of our General Counsel, Staff said no, on the grounds that this could expose the ARRL to liability if someone were injured as a result of the volunteer having a gun on deployment. This answer did not go over well with some members, some of whom quit ARES and may have quit the ARRL. The negative response was not limited to Wisconsin. Word gets around. It is true that the insurance industry recommends no-weapons policies as a means of defense in liability lawsuits. Of course no policy prevents somebody from suing the ARRL, because anybody can sue anybody for anything. Counsel's advice , as I understand it, was that telling volunteers not to carry weapons on deployment would help the ARRL win a suit if one were ever brought against the corporation. Some of our served / partner agencies have strict no-weapons policies: the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Salvation Army are the ones I have documentation on. ARES volunteers serving those agencies are subject to the agencies' policies. The Red Cross, for instance, does not allow anyone to carry weapons in their shelters. I asked the EC a year ago to take up the subject, because it seemed to me that (with all due respect to our General Counsel) if there were to be an ARRL policy on this subject, Directors had to make it. At the time, I believed that a policy statement could be developed that would satisfy both the objective of protecting the ARRL from exposure to liability and also the objective of not infuriating a significant number of members who can and want to legally carry guns. The discussion had nothing to do with personal beliefs about gun rights versus gun control. It was only about what is in the best interests of the ARRL. After in-person discussions, e-mail discussions, several straw man drafts of policies, and two iterations of the EC, it was evident that I was wrong, and no such split-the-difference policy was attainable. While exposure to liability is a risk, the last thing we want to do is to drag the ARRL into the so-called "culture wars." Apparently even rather mild discouragement of carrying guns on ARES deployment would position the ARRL as "anti-gun" and set off a firestorm of anger among members that would make incentive licensing look like a picnic. That would absolutely not be in the best interests of the ARRL. However, at some point in the future Staff will again be asked, "Can I take my gun to an ARES deployment?" Dave suggested that we drop back to the KISS level (my word, not his) of answering *just* the question that is being asked, *when* it is being asked. The answer need not be a formal policy voted on by the Board and published to the entire world that could and would be misinterpreted and blown out of all proportion (consider, for instance, RM-11708). The EC discussed this option and decided to go with it. Dave indicated what he proposed to say to the Staff members who are most likely to be asked about the subject by members. The EC liked what he said and requested him to put it in writing. After e-mail discussion and a little tweaking following the meeting, the EC agreed to Dave's proposed advice to Staff. The language is in the attached memo. Though it shows the date March 31, my understanding is that it has not yet been sent to the affected Staff members. The emphasis is on individual volunteers taking responsibility for their own choices and actions. 73 - Kay N3KN
For the record, I am constrained by my professional obligation to the Board to note that the Executive Committee's adopted position is inconsistent with my recommendations to the Committee. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> To: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 9:19 am Subject: [arrl-odv:22595] Re: Fwd: EC minutes FINAL EC Minute 9.2 says, 9.2. Discussion resumed of how best to protect the ARRL from liability for actions of its volunteers. It was agreed that the Chief Executive Officer will distribute instructions to staff explaining how to respond to questions about individual responsibility during ARES deployments. This language is intentionally cryptic because the Minutes are published. For the Board’s information, here is the back story. Something over a year ago, the state of Wisconsin adopted a law allowing concealed carry permits. Thereafter, some ARES volunteers in Wisconsin who had such permits asked if they could carry their guns on ARES deployment. On the advice of our General Counsel, Staff said no, on the grounds that this could expose the ARRL to liability if someone were injured as a result of the volunteer having a gun on deployment. This answer did not go over well with some members, some of whom quit ARES and may have quit the ARRL. The negative response was not limited to Wisconsin. Word gets around. It is true that the insurance industry recommends no-weapons policies as a means of defense in liability lawsuits. Of course no policy prevents somebody from suing the ARRL, because anybody can sue anybody for anything. Counsel’s advice , as I understand it, was that telling volunteers not to carry weapons on deployment would help the ARRL win a suit if one were ever brought against the corporation. Some of our served / partner agencies have strict no-weapons policies: the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Salvation Army are the ones I have documentation on. ARES volunteers serving those agencies are subject to the agencies’ policies. The Red Cross, for instance, does not allow anyone to carry weapons in their shelters. I asked the EC a year ago to take up the subject, because it seemed to me that (with all due respect to our General Counsel) if there were to be an ARRL policy on this subject, Directors had to make it. At the time, I believed that a policy statement could be developed that would satisfy both the objective of protecting the ARRL from exposure to liability and also the objective of not infuriating a significant number of members who can and want to legally carry guns. The discussion had nothing to do with personal beliefs about gun rights versus gun control. It was only about what is in the best interests of the ARRL. After in-person discussions, e-mail discussions, several straw man drafts of policies, and two iterations of the EC, it was evident that I was wrong, and no such split-the-difference policy was attainable. While exposure to liability is a risk, the last thing we want to do is to drag the ARRL into the so-called “culture wars.” Apparently even rather mild discouragement of carrying guns on ARES deployment would position the ARRL as “anti-gun” and set off a firestorm of anger among members that would make incentive licensing look like a picnic. That would absolutely not be in the best interests of the ARRL. However, at some point in the future Staff will again be asked, “Can I take my gun to an ARES deployment?” Dave suggested that we drop back to the KISS level (my word, not his) of answering *just* the question that is being asked, *when* it is being asked. The answer need not be a formal policy voted on by the Board and published to the entire world that could and would be misinterpreted and blown out of all proportion (consider, for instance, RM-11708). The EC discussed this option and decided to go with it. Dave indicated what he proposed to say to the Staff members who are most likely to be asked about the subject by members. The EC liked what he said and requested him to put it in writing. After e-mail discussion and a little tweaking following the meeting, the EC agreed to Dave’s proposed advice to Staff. The language is in the attached memo. Though it shows the date March 31, my understanding is that it has not yet been sent to the affected Staff members. The emphasis is on individual volunteers taking responsibility for their own choices and actions. 73 – Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (3)
-
Chris Imlay -
Kay Craigie -
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ