[arrl-odv:22627] E&E appeal
Just so we are all clear about what's on the table. I have re-read the messages from the past few days. The specific wording of the appeal by Director Rehman asks that *he* as Director be allowed to send out a reminder. The last sentence of his message says: "I respectfully request that Directors that agree that my sending a reminder email to the NFL members needs to be decided by the entire Board so indicate." As I understand it, the question is not about having HQ send out a non-partisan reminder notice that a SM election is in progress but rather about the Director doing so. Not HQ, not either HQ or the Director, but the Director. Period. Thus far, here are 10-cent versions of the responses of the 8 Directors who have commented on the ODV. If I have mis-characterized your position in boiling it down, I apologize: Lisenco - OK for either Director or HQ Edgar - OK for "generic" reminder Mileshosky - OK Norris - OK for either Director or HQ, changed to OK for HQ but not Director Widin - OK for "neutral" reminder Ahrens - OK for HQ Woolweaver - OK Weaver - OK for HQ We may be able to see 5 Directors in support of Director Rehman's specific appeal on the basis of those responses. On re-reading all the comments this morning, I'm just not certain about that and respectfully ask for your help in reaching clarity. In no way whatsoever do I want to sandbag the process, thereby thwarting the will of the Board. Also, I'm aware that the clock is ticking on the NFL election. However, it would be very helpful and much appreciated if Directors would re-post your position about the *specific language* in Director Rehman's appeal to the ODV, so we can be certain that there are at least 5 Directors supporting the appeal. 73 - Kay N3KN
I have no problem if a neutral statement is sent out by the director or HQ. I would slightly favor having HQ send the message, if possible. Slightly, if this would please other board members. Follow-up on the report of League members not receiving ballots in recent a recent election would be appreciated. Was it one or two? Were there any explanations of why? 73, Dick, N6AA On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:02 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote:
Just so we are all clear about what's on the table. I have re-read the messages from the past few days.
The specific wording of the appeal by Director Rehman asks that *he* as Director be allowed to send out a reminder. The last sentence of his message says:
"I respectfully request that Directors that agree that my sending a reminder email to the NFL members needs to be decided by the entire Board so indicate."
As I understand it, the question is not about having HQ send out a non-partisan reminder notice that a SM election is in progress but rather about the Director doing so. Not HQ, not either HQ or the Director, but the Director. Period.
Thus far, here are 10-cent versions of the responses of the 8 Directors who have commented on the ODV. If I have mis-characterized your position in boiling it down, I apologize:
Lisenco - OK for either Director or HQ Edgar - OK for "generic" reminder Mileshosky - OK Norris - OK for either Director or HQ, changed to OK for HQ but not Director Widin - OK for "neutral" reminder Ahrens - OK for HQ Woolweaver - OK Weaver - OK for HQ
We may be able to see 5 Directors in support of Director Rehman's specific appeal on the basis of those responses. On re-reading all the comments this morning, I'm just not certain about that and respectfully ask for your help in reaching clarity.
In no way whatsoever do I want to sandbag the process, thereby thwarting the will of the Board. Also, I'm aware that the clock is ticking on the NFL election.
However, it would be very helpful and much appreciated if Directors would re-post your position about the *specific language* in Director Rehman's appeal to the ODV, so we can be certain that there are at least 5 Directors supporting the appeal.
73 - Kay N3KN
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
My understanding of the original request by Director Rehman was to review the E&E decision that he couldn't send a message. However, I believe that if HQ were to send the reminder, this is considerably better and should be the chosen method. As a precedent, this is preferable, since even in a Director election, HQ can send a neutral reminder to constituents. A reminder from the Director cannot be considered neutral in a Director election. If there is some reason HQ can't send a reminder, then in this instance, I believe Director Rehman should be permitted to send an appropriate neutral letter. Finally, we have been plagued for the last several years by reports of ballots that weren't received. This occurred even when we had SBS running Director elections. I think we need to understand what's going on, although I believe it will be very difficult to conclusively track down a true missing ballot, much less to discover why it was missing. If we can't figure out why ballots go astray (or are discarded by recipients, etc.), at least we can put in place a clear, easy procedure to obtain a replacement. 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote:
Just so we are all clear about what's on the table. I have re-read the messages from the past few days.
The specific wording of the appeal by Director Rehman asks that *he* as Director be allowed to send out a reminder. The last sentence of his message says:
"I respectfully request that Directors that agree that my sending a reminder email to the NFL members needs to be decided by the entire Board so indicate."
As I understand it, the question is not about having HQ send out a non-partisan reminder notice that a SM election is in progress but rather about the Director doing so. Not HQ, not either HQ or the Director, but the Director. Period.
Thus far, here are 10-cent versions of the responses of the 8 Directors who have commented on the ODV. If I have mis-characterized your position in boiling it down, I apologize:
Lisenco - OK for either Director or HQ Edgar - OK for "generic" reminder Mileshosky - OK Norris - OK for either Director or HQ, changed to OK for HQ but not Director Widin - OK for "neutral" reminder Ahrens - OK for HQ Woolweaver - OK Weaver - OK for HQ
We may be able to see 5 Directors in support of Director Rehman's specific appeal on the basis of those responses. On re-reading all the comments this morning, I'm just not certain about that and respectfully ask for your help in reaching clarity.
In no way whatsoever do I want to sandbag the process, thereby thwarting the will of the Board. Also, I'm aware that the clock is ticking on the NFL election.
However, it would be very helpful and much appreciated if Directors would re-post your position about the *specific language* in Director Rehman's appeal to the ODV, so we can be certain that there are at least 5 Directors supporting the appeal.
73 - Kay N3KN
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Here's my response to President Craigie's request that we repost our position concerning Director Rehman's appeal. After reading E&E Chairman Frenaye's email this morning, I continue to support what appears to be the E&E's anticipated recommendation that HQ (and not individual Directors) send out an email reminder concerning all contested elections. In my view, that would promote consistency by giving the same notice in all contested Section Manager and Director elections. It would not be dependent on whether or not an individual Director chose to send out a notice. And by being a consistent part of the election process, it would avoid any appearance of partiality in favor of one candidate or another. It would also avoid the E&E Committee having to review and approve differing proposed notices from individual Directors. Cliff K0CA
I am fine with a reminder being sent from HQ. Whether I send it or HQ sends it, here is what I had planned to send: "By now you should have received a ballot in via the US Mail for the Northern Florida Section Manager election. If you have not received a ballot, please contact (HQ contact person/info) and request a replacement ballot. If you haven't yet done so, please mail your ballot as soon as possible to ensure that it is received at ARRL HQ by the May 16, 2014 deadline." What I am not fine with is a reminder not being sent to members of my Division. Every action that we do can be misconstrued, accidentally or maliciously; to choose to not act out of fear of this is paralyzing and lacks leadership. RM-11708 is an excellent example. Detractors have maliciously misconstrued its purpose and intent—does this mean that we should therefore cease any rulemaking proposals? Thanks & 73, Doug Doug Rehman, K4AC Director Southeastern Division ARRL—The National Association for Amateur Radio® doug@k4ac.com www.arrlse.org www.facebook.com/arrlse
I, too, need to clarify my position. I support having HQ send generic reminders in contested elections and to allow Directors to use their discretion in deciding whether to send similarly generic reminders. Especially in instances in which a Director has established a practice of sending periodic or frequent e-mail to the division, I see no conflict of interest when this is done judiciously. Jim Weaver Great Lakes Division Jim Weaver, K8JE Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote:
Just so we are all clear about what's on the table. I have re-read the messages from the past few days.
The specific wording of the appeal by Director Rehman asks that *he* as Director be allowed to send out a reminder. The last sentence of his message says:
"I respectfully request that Directors that agree that my sending a reminder email to the NFL members needs to be decided by the entire Board so indicate."
As I understand it, the question is not about having HQ send out a non-partisan reminder notice that a SM election is in progress but rather about the Director doing so. Not HQ, not either HQ or the Director, but the Director. Period.
Thus far, here are 10-cent versions of the responses of the 8 Directors who have commented on the ODV. If I have mis-characterized your position in boiling it down, I apologize:
Lisenco - OK for either Director or HQ Edgar - OK for "generic" reminder Mileshosky - OK Norris - OK for either Director or HQ, changed to OK for HQ but not Director Widin - OK for "neutral" reminder Ahrens - OK for HQ Woolweaver - OK Weaver - OK for HQ
We may be able to see 5 Directors in support of Director Rehman's specific appeal on the basis of those responses. On re-reading all the comments this morning, I'm just not certain about that and respectfully ask for your help in reaching clarity.
In no way whatsoever do I want to sandbag the process, thereby thwarting the will of the Board. Also, I'm aware that the clock is ticking on the NFL election.
However, it would be very helpful and much appreciated if Directors would re-post your position about the *specific language* in Director Rehman's appeal to the ODV, so we can be certain that there are at least 5 Directors supporting the appeal.
73 - Kay N3KN
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hi Kay, Here is my 10 cent answer to the issue at hand. Whatever gets it done. HQ disseminating the reminder message is fine with me. Thanks. 73 de Mike N2YBB -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:02 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22627] E&E appeal Just so we are all clear about what's on the table. I have re-read the messages from the past few days. The specific wording of the appeal by Director Rehman asks that *he* as Director be allowed to send out a reminder. The last sentence of his message says: "I respectfully request that Directors that agree that my sending a reminder email to the NFL members needs to be decided by the entire Board so indicate." As I understand it, the question is not about having HQ send out a non-partisan reminder notice that a SM election is in progress but rather about the Director doing so. Not HQ, not either HQ or the Director, but the Director. Period. Thus far, here are 10-cent versions of the responses of the 8 Directors who have commented on the ODV. If I have mis-characterized your position in boiling it down, I apologize: Lisenco - OK for either Director or HQ Edgar - OK for "generic" reminder Mileshosky - OK Norris - OK for either Director or HQ, changed to OK for HQ but not Director Widin - OK for "neutral" reminder Ahrens - OK for HQ Woolweaver - OK Weaver - OK for HQ We may be able to see 5 Directors in support of Director Rehman's specific appeal on the basis of those responses. On re-reading all the comments this morning, I'm just not certain about that and respectfully ask for your help in reaching clarity. In no way whatsoever do I want to sandbag the process, thereby thwarting the will of the Board. Also, I'm aware that the clock is ticking on the NFL election. However, it would be very helpful and much appreciated if Directors would re-post your position about the *specific language* in Director Rehman's appeal to the ODV, so we can be certain that there are at least 5 Directors supporting the appeal. 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (7)
-
Cliff Ahrens -
Doug Rehman -
G Widin -
James E. Weaver -
Kay Craigie -
Mike Lisenco N2YBB -
Richard J Norton