[arrl-odv:27771] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi all: I have only heard from two Directors requesting a specialboard meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi Jim: Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states: Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted. We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more. 73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making Dear Rick: As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations: 1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting. 2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January. 3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018. 4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday. 5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected. 6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40). 7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act. 8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument. 9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests. The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio. Sincerely, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director _______________________________________________ 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
I follow Director Tiemstra's request for a special meeting with my request. I also request that the meeting be held on or after January 2, 2019, to reflect that the ARRL is appropriately responding to the clear message recently sent by the membership. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 10:19 PM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
*Article 4: ...... *Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying *existing Board policy* to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
*Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT* *Pacific Division Director*
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I follow Director Tiemstra's request for a special meeting with my request. I also request that the meeting be held on or after January 2, 2019, to reflect that the ARRL is appropriately responding to the clear message recently sent by the membership. 73, Tom – W3TOM From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 1:19 AM To: k6jat@comcast.net Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:27771] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi all: I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net> > Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi Jim: Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states: Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted. We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net> > To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com <mailto:k5ur@aol.com> > Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making Dear Rick: As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations: 1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting. 2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January. 3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018. 4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday. 5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected. 6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40). 7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act. 8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument. 9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests. The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio. Sincerely, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
The board needs to be careful about calling the recent election results a “clear message”. The races were so close that if the winners consider their election a clear message for change, they risk having the split in the vote go the other way in the next election. Think things through thoroughly before implementing major changes. Bonnie AB7ZQ From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of w3tom@verizon.net Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:23 AM To: k5ur@aol.com; 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:27774] Re: Draft petition for rule making I follow Director Tiemstra's request for a special meeting with my request. I also request that the meeting be held on or after January 2, 2019, to reflect that the ARRL is appropriately responding to the clear message recently sent by the membership. 73, Tom – W3TOM From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> > On Behalf Of Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 1:19 AM To: k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:27771] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi all: I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net> > Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making Hi Jim: Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states: Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted. We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more. 73 Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net> > To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com <mailto:k5ur@aol.com> > Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making Dear Rick: As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations: 1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting. 2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January. 3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018. 4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday. 5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected. 6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40). 7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act. 8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument. 9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests. The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio. Sincerely, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Good morning, Rick, Thanks for the update, but I see that there are now four Directors in favor of the Special Meeting. I do believe that this decision is properly within the province of the Board, not the EC, and should be delayed to allow for a more considered approach. In any event, and in accordance with Howard Michel's email disseminating the draft petition, I have attached extensive revisions and comments to the document (shown as track changes in red and blue) which were limited in scope by the short time frame available for review and should be subjected to further refinement. In sum, please note that the attached draft reflects the overwhelming preference of the leadership of the Pacific Division that any further legislative effort or request for rule making return to the original language of PRB-1 as approved by the Board. Therefore, the revisions simplify the language of the proposed regulation while adding a necessary enforcement provision. All references to the specifics of the prior legislative effort as well as the failed compromise with the CAI have been eliminated. Also, I have taken the opportunity to recharacterize the argument in support, where possible, to eliminate hyperbole, exaggeration, speculation, redundancies and other matters that may detract from the accuracy and force of the argument. Respectfully submitted, Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
On December 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM k5ur@aol.com wrote:
Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Part II, para 10, line 2. I think you mean "far more than a hobby". Also, even though I am a Vice Director and not entitled to vote (and I have no objection to that prohibition, for the record), I hope the comments I am about to send will be taken in the spirit they are intended, i.e., the furtherance of the Amateur radio service in the U.S., and ONLY that.
On December 17, 2018 at 11:33 AM James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> wrote:
Good morning, Rick,
Thanks for the update, but I see that there are now four Directors in favor of the Special Meeting. I do believe that this decision is properly within the province of the Board, not the EC, and should be delayed to allow for a more considered approach.
In any event, and in accordance with Howard Michel's email disseminating the draft petition, I have attached extensive revisions and comments to the document (shown as track changes in red and blue) which were limited in scope by the short time frame available for review and should be subjected to further refinement.
In sum, please note that the attached draft reflects the overwhelming preference of the leadership of the Pacific Division that any further legislative effort or request for rule making return to the original language of PRB-1 as approved by the Board. Therefore, the revisions simplify the language of the proposed regulation while adding a necessary enforcement provision. All references to the specifics of the prior legislative effort as well as the failed compromise with the CAI have been eliminated. Also, I have taken the opportunity to recharacterize the argument in support, where possible, to eliminate hyperbole, exaggeration, speculation, redundancies and other matters that may detract from the accuracy and force of the argument.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT
Pacific Division Director
> > On December 16, 2018 at 10:18 PM k5ur@aol.com wrote:
Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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
Hi all: I've been tied up all day in client training and am on a break before going back in. ODV has been active! Looks like we have only four Directors requesting a special meeting. Accordingly, Chris is making final revisions from input today and will file the petition. Thanks to everyone for the feedback and discussion. Rick Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:18 AM, <k5ur@aol.com> <k5ur@aol.com> wrote:
Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
_______________________________________________ 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
Although my comments are unlikely to alter the outcome and what I believe will be a tragedy will be implemented, I want to be on record. I absolutely, without reservation, oppose the filing of the proposed petition — whether amended or not. The previous comments, arguments and objections of my learned colleagues, the Honorable Jim Tiemstra and Honorable Fred Hopengarten, are meritorious and should be heeded. Those comments notwithstanding, the reasons against the filing of a petition containing the requested rulings are legion and have been previously covered extensively by the experts in this area, but a detailed presentation of those reasons would do little to halt what bears the indicia of an almost blind religious race toward the edge of the precipice. Were the outcome not so potentially damaging to Amateur Radio, our Members and this League, I would just buy some popcorn, pour a quality single malt, sit back and enjoy the debacle. But, it is and I can't and I won't. IF, IF, initiating a rule making petition had merit, it would have merit on January 18, 2019. However, the pell-mell rush to file a poorly drafted, almost incoherent, antagonistic, misleading and frankly, a professionally substandard petition — just 15 days before a newly elected Board takes office — and 32 days before a Board meeting — is a cogent argument that the proposal cannot, and would not, stand the sunlight of independent examination. Many, not on this Board, will consider the frantic filing to be a foolish, ego-driven, vindictive end run around a historical change in Board direction. Whether any who read this email are offended by such a view is immaterial, because that may be the conclusion of many and that conclusion could rival the outpouring of dissent we experienced both a year ago and in the recent election. It is both a conclusion and a level of unnecessary dissent that can be easily avoided — and that I believe we should avoid. We can avoid an unnecessarily negative outcome by waiting and permitting both sides the opportunity to argue their case in the open in front of fresh eyes. Regardless of which side of this debate would prevail, both the Members and the public would accept that the final case and course of action would have been made and chosen fairly, with mature examination and with input from all sides. Merit is not an asset that is diminished by the passage of time or thoughtful examination. I fear this filing will be perceived as an end run and may be interpreted by those in DC to be another example of the immaturity of this organization and its unfitness to represent Amateur Radio. It could serve as further support for those who harbor a desire to deregulate Amateur Radio. Not the filing of a petition per se, but the filing of an obviously poorly drafted petition in a perceived rush to avoid the judgment of a new Board and a perceived outcry from a substantial number of Members for at least a modicum of reflection. I am concerned that this filing, founded on what can be argued to be unproven, if not meritless, grounds and authorized by a committee arguably without the authority to do so, may be a Rubicon that should not be crossed. However, the future is not guaranteed. Although all of us see it clearly through the prism of our respective biases and wisdom, history will prove some of us are viewing false images. Perhaps, I am one whose prism is distorted; perhaps I am not. But, if Amateur Radio is to be tossed onto the dust pile of history by ill-conceived actions, I do not wish to be counted with those who history will record as having shouted "Heave Ho!!!" I respectfully oppose the proposed filing of the petition. 73 _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________*** On 12/17/18 2:23 PM, Rick Roderick via arrl-odv wrote:
Hi all:
I've been tied up all day in client training and am on a break before going back in. ODV has been active!
Looks like we have only four Directors requesting a special meeting. Accordingly, Chris is making final revisions from input today and will file the petition.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback and discussion.
Rick
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:18 AM, <k5ur@aol.com <mailto:k5ur@aol.com>> <k5ur@aol.com <mailto:k5ur@aol.com>> wrote:
Hi all: I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please. 73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> To: k6jat <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net>> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
*Article 4: ...... *Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra <k6jat@comcast.net <mailto:k6jat@comcast.net>> To: Rick Roderick <k5ur@aol.com <mailto:k5ur@aol.com>> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying /existing Board policy/ to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
*/Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT/* */Pacific Division Director/*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto: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
Your comments in paragraph 7 are patently absurd. But, just for comparison, please send petitions for rulemaking that you have submitted to the Commission.
On December 17, 2018 at 6:33 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Although my comments are unlikely to alter the outcome and what I believe will be a tragedy will be implemented, I want to be on record.
I absolutely, without reservation, oppose the filing of the proposed petition — whether amended or not.
The previous comments, arguments and objections of my learned colleagues, the Honorable Jim Tiemstra and Honorable Fred Hopengarten, are meritorious and should be heeded.
Those comments notwithstanding, the reasons against the filing of a petition containing the requested rulings are legion and have been previously covered extensively by the experts in this area, but a detailed presentation of those reasons would do little to halt what bears the indicia of an almost blind religious race toward the edge of the precipice. Were the outcome not so potentially damaging to Amateur Radio, our Members and this League, I would just buy some popcorn, pour a quality single malt, sit back and enjoy the debacle.
But, it is and I can't and I won't.
IF, IF, initiating a rule making petition had merit, it would have merit on January 18, 2019.
However, the pell-mell rush to file a poorly drafted, almost incoherent, antagonistic, misleading and frankly, a professionally substandard petition — just 15 days before a newly elected Board takes office — and 32 days before a Board meeting — is a cogent argument that the proposal cannot, and would not, stand the sunlight of independent examination.
Many, not on this Board, will consider the frantic filing to be a foolish, ego-driven, vindictive end run around a historical change in Board direction. Whether any who read this email are offended by such a view is immaterial, because that may be the conclusion of many and that conclusion could rival the outpouring of dissent we experienced both a year ago and in the recent election. It is both a conclusion and a level of unnecessary dissent that can be easily avoided — and that I believe we should avoid.
We can avoid an unnecessarily negative outcome by waiting and permitting both sides the opportunity to argue their case in the open in front of fresh eyes. Regardless of which side of this debate would prevail, both the Members and the public would accept that the final case and course of action would have been made and chosen fairly, with mature examination and with input from all sides. Merit is not an asset that is diminished by the passage of time or thoughtful examination.
I fear this filing will be perceived as an end run and may be interpreted by those in DC to be another example of the immaturity of this organization and its unfitness to represent Amateur Radio. It could serve as further support for those who harbor a desire to deregulate Amateur Radio. Not the filing of a petition per se, but the filing of an obviously poorly drafted petition in a perceived rush to avoid the judgment of a new Board and a perceived outcry from a substantial number of Members for at least a modicum of reflection.
I am concerned that this filing, founded on what can be argued to be unproven, if not meritless, grounds and authorized by a committee arguably without the authority to do so, may be a Rubicon that should not be crossed. However, the future is not guaranteed. Although all of us see it clearly through the prism of our respective biases and wisdom, history will prove some of us are viewing false images. Perhaps, I am one whose prism is distorted; perhaps I am not.
But, if Amateur Radio is to be tossed onto the dust pile of history by ill-conceived actions, I do not wish to be counted with those who history will record as having shouted "Heave Ho!!!"
I respectfully oppose the proposed filing of the petition.
73 _______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Vice Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
_______________________________________ On 12/17/18 2:23 PM, Rick Roderick via arrl-odv wrote:
> > Hi all:
I've been tied up all day in client training and am on a break before going back in. ODV has been active!
Looks like we have only four Directors requesting a special meeting. Accordingly, Chris is making final revisions from input today and will file the petition.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback and discussion.
Rick
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2018, at 12:18 AM, < k5ur@aol.com mailto:k5ur@aol.com > < k5ur@aol.com mailto:k5ur@aol.com > wrote:
> > > Hi all:
I have only heard from two Directors requesting a special board meeting. Anyone else? If so, speak now, please.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > To: k6jat < k6jat@comcast.net mailto:k6jat@comcast.net > Cc: arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 1:01 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:27764] Re: Draft petition for rule making
Hi Jim:
Regarding a Special Board Meeting, a provision in Article 4 states:
Article 4: ...... Special meetings of the Board shall be called by the President upon written request of a least one half of the membership of the Board as then constituted.
We will need 8 Directors to provide such a request, so counting yours, we will need 7 more.
73 Rick - K5UR
-----Original Message----- From: James Tiemstra < k6jat@comcast.net mailto:k6jat@comcast.net > To: Rick Roderick < k5ur@aol.com mailto:k5ur@aol.com > Cc: arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 11:57 am Subject: [arrl-odv:27763] Draft petition for rule making
Dear Rick:
As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:
1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.
2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.
3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.
4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.
5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.
6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).
7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.
8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.
9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.
The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.
Sincerely,
Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Pacific Division Director
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> >
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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
participants (8)
-
bonniealtus＠onlinemac.com -
James Tiemstra -
John Robert Stratton -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Richard J. Norton -
Rick Roderick
-
RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH -
w3tom＠verizon.net