[arrl-odv:25392] Re: [exec-com:8260] Public Statements of Dissenting Views About the Amateur Radio Parity Act
To follow up on this tread - 1) Regarding Vice-president Widen's concern that if CAI ever found out that a single ARRL director might feel that the compromise went beyond what that director approved of, it might decide that the ARRL cannot be trusted, and that CAI might opt out of the agreement is simply beyond rational belief. As mentioned previously, all CAI might do is feel smug that they have negotiated a good deal for their side. The comment that legislators might reach similar conclusions is equally fanciful. VP Widen's arguments are at best, unconvincing. General Consul Imlay's criticisms are similarly far-fetched. If anything, the cited action benefits his cause. 2) This certainly should not detract from the pride that Consul Imlay and Director Lisenco should have with respect to the HOA legislation. The bills have already gone farther than I imagined, and regardless of the eventual outcome, their work has been beneficial to Amateur Radio. 3) However, this thread has brought out a strong candidate for the most disturbing post I've ever seen on the ODV reflector. Vice President Bellows stretch of a clause in the Director's Workbook to interpret communication to members as being communication with government is at best unwarranted. His attempt at browbeating or bullying a director into groupthink is antithetical to my sense of our purpose. Elected directors or legislators owe their allegiance to the voters that they represent. If they disagree with a decision of their body, they have every right to express their opinions. Review of elected official's dissent in significantly more important bodies than the ARRL, such as the United States government, can be found by reading almost any newspaper. ARRL directors routinely express dissenting opinions in roll-call votes, which are documented in the minutes. Directors also are able to request to be "recorded as voting in opposition." The specific compromise issue discussed here was never discussed at a board meeting. There was no chance to have a director's opinions shown to the League members through published minutes or with a recorded vote. Although I'm personally not upset with the language in the compromise, I support the right of every director to express his opinion, and I'll stand up to defend his right. 4) It was pointed out that the distribution of this thread included some staff members. I have deliberately included them in this reply. Two attorneys connected with the League aggressively besmirched a director (Ironically, the director with the most experience on the board in legislative matters) to both the board and the employees. This memo should let both the board and employees know that the opinions transmitted were not shared by the entire board. Note also that I've communicated with other board members (emphasis on plural), and they agree with me. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM, G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> wrote:
Dick, Until a compromise is embodied in something permanent, it remains fragile. If CAI were to feel that ARRL is not committed to the compromise, it might decide that it cannot be trusted, and opt out of the agreement. Legislators becoming aware of dissension might reach similar conclusions. Those operating on behalf of the Parity Act have enough to do without fighting a rear-guard operation created by ourselves.
This is not to say that there should never be disagreement within the Board, just that it needs to remain "in the family," as Chris has pointed out. 73, Greg, K0GW
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Huh?
I don't understand.
If the goal of the ARRL is to get CAI and legislators to accept the "compromise," it would appear to me that being able to say, "We have compromised so much that an ARRL director has been openly critical, and some members are complaining," would be helpful in convincing CAI and legislators that they should believe that the ARRL has indeed compromised enough, and the requested legislation is fair, and should pass.
What am I missing? Why are some of you upset?
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> wrote:
Memo to the Executive Committee and to the Elections and Ethics Committee members attached.
73, Chris W3KD
-- 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Dick, I hope that this issue can be discussed more thoroughly over time, because I think there are a few not-so-subtle aspects of the issue that you may perhaps have inadvertently overlooked, including the extent to which Board members and vice directors can or should disclose information concerning Board or Executive Committee deliberation of issues, and the effect of such disclosures on the ability of Board or Executive Committee members to freely discuss issues without fear of public dissemination of those deliberations. There are also inherent in the discussion some issues of law pertaining to the fiduciary duty of Board members to the corporation that bear some explanation in a more full discussion of corporate governance. The matter is now, however, as I understand it, before the Ethics and Elections Committee of the Board which will have its recommendations for the Board in due course. 73, Chris W3KD On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Richard J. Norton < richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
To follow up on this tread -
1) Regarding Vice-president Widen's concern that if CAI ever found out that a single ARRL director might feel that the compromise went beyond what that director approved of, it might decide that the ARRL cannot be trusted, and that CAI might opt out of the agreement is simply beyond rational belief. As mentioned previously, all CAI might do is feel smug that they have negotiated a good deal for their side.
The comment that legislators might reach similar conclusions is equally fanciful.
VP Widen's arguments are at best, unconvincing.
General Consul Imlay's criticisms are similarly far-fetched. If anything, the cited action benefits his cause.
2) This certainly should not detract from the pride that Consul Imlay and Director Lisenco should have with respect to the HOA legislation. The bills have already gone farther than I imagined, and regardless of the eventual outcome, their work has been beneficial to Amateur Radio.
3) However, this thread has brought out a strong candidate for the most disturbing post I've ever seen on the ODV reflector. Vice President Bellows stretch of a clause in the Director's Workbook to interpret communication to members as being communication with government is at best unwarranted. His attempt at browbeating or bullying a director into groupthink is antithetical to my sense of our purpose.
Elected directors or legislators owe their allegiance to the voters that they represent. If they disagree with a decision of their body, they have every right to express their opinions.
Review of elected official's dissent in significantly more important bodies than the ARRL, such as the United States government, can be found by reading almost any newspaper.
ARRL directors routinely express dissenting opinions in roll-call votes, which are documented in the minutes. Directors also are able to request to be "recorded as voting in opposition."
The specific compromise issue discussed here was never discussed at a board meeting. There was no chance to have a director's opinions shown to the League members through published minutes or with a recorded vote.
Although I'm personally not upset with the language in the compromise, I support the right of every director to express his opinion, and I'll stand up to defend his right.
4) It was pointed out that the distribution of this thread included some staff members. I have deliberately included them in this reply. Two attorneys connected with the League aggressively besmirched a director (Ironically, the director with the most experience on the board in legislative matters) to both the board and the employees.
This memo should let both the board and employees know that the opinions transmitted were not shared by the entire board. Note also that I've communicated with other board members (emphasis on plural), and they agree with me.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM, G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> wrote:
Dick, Until a compromise is embodied in something permanent, it remains fragile. If CAI were to feel that ARRL is not committed to the compromise, it might decide that it cannot be trusted, and opt out of the agreement. Legislators becoming aware of dissension might reach similar conclusions. Those operating on behalf of the Parity Act have enough to do without fighting a rear-guard operation created by ourselves.
This is not to say that there should never be disagreement within the Board, just that it needs to remain "in the family," as Chris has pointed out. 73, Greg, K0GW
On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Huh?
I don't understand.
If the goal of the ARRL is to get CAI and legislators to accept the "compromise," it would appear to me that being able to say, "We have compromised so much that an ARRL director has been openly critical, and some members are complaining," would be helpful in convincing CAI and legislators that they should believe that the ARRL has indeed compromised enough, and the requested legislation is fair, and should pass.
What am I missing? Why are some of you upset?
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> wrote:
Memo to the Executive Committee and to the Elections and Ethics Committee members attached.
73, Chris W3KD
-- 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
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- 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
participants (2)
-
Christopher Imlay -
Richard J. Norton