I think some of you will be interested in this exchange with our senior SM. While it is true that this is the way the system works, we probably should discuss the system sometime soon and decide if there's any way to make it work better. Joe, I hope you don't mind me posting my reply to everybody. You raised an important point. ----- Original Message ----- From: W5PDY@cs.com <mailto:W5PDY@cs.com> To: wstinson@listenup.com <mailto:wstinson@listenup.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Re: enhancements to the Web site Walt, Tnx for ur reply...My only comment is "why didn't we know about it in November rather than in January"? We could have had our comments in to you much sooner and not have to hear about it with a "leak." Why was it kept so secret? Joe Knight, W5PDY That's a great question and I'm glad you asked it. The impression that information was kept "secret" is due to an intentional aspect of the process by which most boards conduct their work. The committee system that the board uses is based upon Robert's Rules, and has been in place at ARRL as long as anyone can remember. The committees are arms of the board but have very limited authority on their own. Part of their job is to study issues that are too complex or detailed to be considered in open session and then make a report and recommendation back to the board. Unless specifically instructed otherwise, they don't have any authority to disseminate their work prior to its being received by the board. The board often takes the report and recommendation and goes off in a completely different direction. It's not unusual for the conclusions of the report to be rejected and the recommendation ignored. Sometimes, as in this case, the board will decide to table the item pending public comment. So, when you think about it, it makes good sense to go public only after the board has deliberated on the topic and decided how to handle it. It the committees were to do otherwise, they could stir up issues before the board possessed any information, turning an orderly governance process into a totally chaotic one - which is precisely what happened. The system usually works just fine, except when a controversial issue arises. Then, there is almost always the claim that somebody was trying to pull a fast one. The truth is, it's just the way the system works. All budget proposals have issues controversial to someone in them. This report was handled no differently from any other committee report. The complaints about "keeping things behind closed doors" fails to recognize an elemental part of the ordinary board process. Because aspects of this budget report were leaked before the report was even read by all the directors, it's impossible to know how the directors would have chosen to handle the situation if there had been no leak. I trust that this board would made a good choice. Unfortunately, it never had the chance. 73, Walt W0CP