On Thursday, September 28th, I received the message shown at the bottom of this email from ARRL President Roderick. I had heard a rumor of Yvette Vinci's possible departure from the League, and attempted to get in contact with her, both to confirm it, and hear any useful comments or suggestions that she might pass along. I can't say I knew her well, but all my dealings with her on membership issues were handled well and pleasantly. She had been with the League for around 10 or more years, and as a direct report to Mr. Minster, was a high-level League employee. Mr. Berry's email appears to explain the Vinci situation adequately. It is again astounding that to this date, the Board has not been formally notified of Ms. Vinci's departure, given that she was such a high-level staff member. The news about the non-disparagement language clause and the Roderick email appear to explain the Vinci situation. Over the past three years, I have talked with a number of employees that have left the League. The great majority of information they have imparted closely matched what we were all told by Steve Berry. There have been a couple that have been a little deferential to Mr. Minster, similar to Mr. Berry pointing out that he was not calling for Mr. Minster's removal. That is as positive as it gets. I would have expected a friendly conversation with Ms. Vinci, where we would have at least commented on our productive membership-related interactions .  With the imposition of the non-disparagement clause and Ms. Vinci's request, a strong message has been sent that a conversation could not have taken place that would not have been disparaging to Mr. Minster.  Ironically, Mr. Minster's non-disparagement caper appears to have strongly self-disparaged Mr. Minster. Relevance of "Non-disparagement Clauses" to the ARRL Board The most important thing the Board should learn from this is that Mr. Minster has now added non-disparagement suggestions or requirements to the staff, something that the League had not done in its 106 year history, and something that I've never heard of with respect to any employer. And, this clearly appears to impact communication with the Board.  Why? Will such action better enable the Board to serve it oversight responsibilities?  Is this an action related to Mr. Minster's attempted purges of criticism on Amateur Radio web-sites?  Is Mr. Minster's pretty comprehensive program of attempting to hide or attempting to forbid criticism preferable to looking at it and attempting to operate in ways that invite praise such as was done for many years by some of Mr. Minster's predecessors? Legality of  "Non-disparagement Clauses?" Earlier this year, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision about "Non-disparagement Clauses." NLRB Requires Changes to Employee Severance and Other Agreements | White & Case LLP | | | | | | | | | | | NLRB Requires Changes to Employee Severance and Other Agreements | White... Earlier this year, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued its decision and order in McLaren Macomb, ... | | | On the surface, it appears that such clauses are unlawful, unless the disparagement was malicious and false. . Possibly the League needs to upgrade its legal advice in this arena?  I personally find such clauses to be ethically repugnant. I've never heard of such a thing until this, and can't imagine use of them. Effectively managing any employees should result in the employees both producing productively, and also leave the employees with positive feelings about their role and effort. Use of a non-disparagement clause openly admits complete failure with the second part. Dick,. N6AA On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 02:11:43 PM PDT, k5ur@aol.com <k5ur@aol.com> wrote: Hi Dick: David Minster was contacted by Yvette Vinci. She has requested that you stop trying to contact her and she wanted this request communicated to you. I told David that I would pass her request along to you.  Thanks. 73,Rick - K5UR