The following paragraph appears in the ARRL's January 2017 ad-Hoc Legislative Advocacy Committee Report: "We need to spend a good amount of time and effort in strengthening our grass-roots effort in Florida to create political pressure on Mr. Nelson. *Unfortunately we received no support from ARRL Southeastern leadership the past two years*. I expect that to change dramatically this year. We will need to reach out to the various Florida Section Managers to rally the troops. And we need to them to find those members in Florida who have access to Senator Nelson." (emphasis added) At the meeting, I questioned the veracity of the bolded sentence. The committee chair strongly defended the statement as being true, saying that it was necessary to have Newington do the job. As a courtesy to the committee chair, I dropped discussion of the subject, and since then have made an effort to validate his claim. However, as the facts below illustrate, the evidence shows that the claim of "no support" in the report remains untrue. *Measures of Director Support and Its Effectiveness* Four measures are reviewed: 1) Reaction from a major target of the lobbying effort, Senator Nelson 2) Percentage of Division members participating in the letter writing campaign 3) Number of Director E-mailings to division members 4) Visits to Congressional offices *1) Senator Nelson's Staff Reaction* In arrl-odv:26082, Mr Gallagher reported that Senator Nelson's staff had communicated the fact that Nelson was receiving large amounts of critical mail from Florida amateur radio operators chastising Nelson for holding up the Parity Act last Fall, and that they would work with ARRL on it right away. The success of the effort certainly is not evidence of "no support". *2) Number and **Percentage of Division Members Sending Letters* The number and percentage of letters requesting legislative support, to each of a state's US Senators, compared to the state's ARRL membership is shown below for the larger states. State Letters Members %Letters/Members CA 3,165 16,205 20% FL 2,253 9,074 25% TX 1,565 10,935 14% NY 1,295 6,794 19% VA 1,285 5,152 25% IL 1,174 4,983 24% AZ 1,059 4,171 25% ... ND 100 304 33% all national average 17% Florida produced the second highest number and was tied for second in the highest percentage of letters from hams to their senators of all the states, and interestingly, substantially ahead of New York. Florida hams were indeed motivated. This is evidence of the opposite of "no support." *3) Director E-mailings to Members* The log of e-mails sent to division members by directors is shown on the ODV portion of the ARRL.org web-site. If an E-mail's title seemed related to the legislative effort, it was counted in the following compilation. The titles alone of the E-mails were used to compile the following information. The contents were not reviewed. The highest number of division E-mailings was 68, made by the Hudson Division director. 17 of these appeared to be duplicates, all sent on August 07, 2015, leaving an apparent total of 51 actually sent. The second highest raw total was 15, for the New England division, but 6 appeared to be duplicates, all sent on November 30, leaving a total of 9. The third highest total was the Southeastern Division, with 14. One of the 14 was sent by Newington, leaving 13 sent by the then Southeastern Division director, which after correcting for duplicates becomes the second highest number. Clearly the previous Southeastern Division director's total of 13, the second highest number of all, does not represent "no support." *4) Congressional Office Visits* Mr Rehman was one of only six ARRL directors who visited congressional offices, albeit his visits took place in 2014. Note that another director reported that Mr Imlay and Mr Lisenco were not interested in that director's assistance in talking to congressman, even though he was in Washington at the time. In spite of congressional visits apparently being repelled at times, Mr Rehman did conduct one. This is not evidence of "no support." *Conclusion* The report did not say that the committee failed to receive as much support as was humanly possible or as much might have been desired. The report said that the committee received "no support," and its chairman affirmed that statement orally at the meeting. Not only is the above-cited statement untrue, it appears that the opposite is the case. The support given by Messrs. Rehman and Lee was clearly significant when compared with that of most other board members. Why would we allow such false assertions, which would be superfluous to the report even if they were accurate, to remain in the Board’s official records? 73, Dick Norton, N6AA