If the question was truly for CEO Michel it is interesting that you chose to address it on ODV rather than directly with him. Are asking if an ARRL employee is precluded from expressing his or her views in an FCC individual comment to a Rule Making proceeding as a condition of employment or suggesting an ARRL employee may only comment if permitted by the ARRL Board? Jay, KØQB From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of John Robert Stratton Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:51 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org; Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:28047] Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee Howard All Board Members — Directors and Vice-Directors — are prohibited from filing individual comments on FCC petitions filed or supported by the League. To my knowledge, the Board has not authorized employees to make such filings. In light of the foregoing, would you be so kind as to please explain Mr. Fusaro's most recent filing in connection with RM-11828? Thanks. ______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 ______________________________________ --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

My point was two-fold: I believe it is generally better to have the facts first. Secondly, assuming there was a violation of staff policy, though that has not been established, this would be a personnel and administrative matter. If it should subsequently be determined that there is a need for a policy change the Board may desire to act. I believe this approach is consistent with the approach set forth in the Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations previously distributed to all members of the Board. 73, Jay, KØQB From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:14 PM To: jbellows@skypoint.com Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:28049] Re: Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee Generally as a condition of employment in my experience, public statements concerning an employer by employees is restricted as a matter of policy since it could be interpreted as an official statement from the company. It also directly correlated to the position one holds. IIRC, Fusaro’s title is “director of operations.” As such public statements concerning ARRL policy or FCC petitions could be interpreted as being the opinion of the ARRL as it comes from a senior manager with the title “director.” That’s the major problem I have with it. As for the venue, it is what it is. I think bringing this to the board and asking the CEO to address the board on this is entirely appropriate as the comment concerns a public action. 73 Ria N2RJ On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:36 PM <jbellows@skypoint.com <mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com> > wrote: If the question was truly for CEO Michel it is interesting that you chose to address it on ODV rather than directly with him. Are asking if an ARRL employee is precluded from expressing his or her views in an FCC individual comment to a Rule Making proceeding as a condition of employment or suggesting an ARRL employee may only comment if permitted by the ARRL Board? Jay, KØQB From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> > On Behalf Of John Robert Stratton Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:51 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> ; Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org <mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org> > Subject: [arrl-odv:28047] Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee Howard All Board Members — Directors and Vice-Directors — are prohibited from filing individual comments on FCC petitions filed or supported by the League. To my knowledge, the Board has not authorized employees to make such filings. In light of the foregoing, would you be so kind as to please explain Mr. Fusaro's most recent filing in connection with RM-11828? Thanks. ______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director Legislative Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 ______________________________________ <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free. <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org <mailto:n2rj@arrl.org> --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

I didn't really raise the issue of social media, but was more concerned with FCC filings. Regardless, I do agree that those who have substantial authority, are public facing and well known by the public should not be making comments to the FCC in favor of or against ARRL FCC filings. This could be seen as "stacking the deck" for one, and also could be wrongly interpreted as being the position of the league, even if clearly labeled as being personal opinion. So I am glad you addressed this with Mr. Fusaro but I believe that with regard to FCC comments, there needs to be some guidance for senior staff at the league to not make comments on ARRL created or supported petitions. It should probably apply across the board to be fair, but in reality those who are senior and visible have additional responsibility. As far as social media policy is concerned, I really don't believe this to be a problem right now unless an employee was going around unauthorized saying that their position reflects that of the league. This should really be handled on a case by case basis. I really don't see the need for a broad social media restriction, just guidance that if one represents the league that their personal opinion should never be presented to represent the official position of the league, even if it appears so. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 18:38, Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote:

Dear Officers, Directors and Vice Directors,

Several issues have been raised. While they are related, they are not the same.

Regarding Mr. Fusaro's post, I discussed this with him. He thought that, as a ham, he was supporting the ARRL's position and had every right to do so. He was careful to not identity himself as an ARRL employee and he used his personal email, not his arrl.org email. But we also discussed that his position is visible, and could be easily associated with ARRL. I advised him that in his new position he should consider not speaking out.

Regarding the Board authorizing employees to make public statements, there is nothing in our Employee Handbook that prohibits employees from talking and posting opinions on any social media platform, so seeking permission should not be expected.

Regarding the Employee Handbook, it was last modified on March 2017. If the Board wishes to create a social medial policy, staff can assist you in doing so. As Director Jairam has suggested, this policy should take into consideration the grade level of the employee. We might want to directly consider an employee's visibility to the public, for example, staff listed in QST could be a determining factor, or we could look at a grade level or job title. I would suggest that we not have an all encompassing policy, for example, to include interns and part time employees, but that clearly is a Board decision. As a point to note, the employee handbook explicitly states we can, at our sole discretion, modify it at any time and without notice, and nothing contained in the handbook limits ARRL's right as an at will employer.

73, Howard, WB2ITX

On 03/19/2019 4:18 PM, Bellows, Jay, K0QB (Intl Affairs VP) wrote:

My point was two-fold: I believe it is generally better to have the facts first. Secondly, assuming there was a violation of staff policy, though that has not been established, this would be a personnel and administrative matter.

If it should subsequently be determined that there is a need for a policy change the Board may desire to act.

I believe this approach is consistent with the approach set forth in the *Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations* previously distributed to all members of the Board.

73,

Jay, KØQB

*From:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> *On Behalf Of *rjairam@gmail.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:14 PM *To:* jbellows@skypoint.com *Cc:* arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org *Subject:* [arrl-odv:28049] Re: Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Generally as a condition of employment in my experience, public statements concerning an employer by employees is restricted as a matter of policy since it could be interpreted as an official statement from the company.

It also directly correlated to the position one holds. IIRC, Fusaro’s title is “director of operations.” As such public statements concerning ARRL policy or FCC petitions could be interpreted as being the opinion of the ARRL as it comes from a senior manager with the title “director.” That’s the major problem I have with it.

As for the venue, it is what it is. I think bringing this to the board and asking the CEO to address the board on this is entirely appropriate as the comment concerns a public action.

73

Ria

N2RJ

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:36 PM <jbellows@skypoint.com> wrote:

If the question was truly for CEO Michel it is interesting that you chose to address it on ODV rather than directly with him.

Are asking if an ARRL employee is precluded from expressing his or her views in an FCC individual comment to a Rule Making proceeding as a condition of employment or suggesting an ARRL employee may only comment if permitted by the ARRL Board?

Jay, KØQB

*From:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> *On Behalf Of *John Robert Stratton *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:51 PM *To:* arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org; Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) < wb2itx@arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:28047] Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Howard

All Board Members — Directors and Vice-Directors — are prohibited from filing individual comments on FCC petitions filed or supported by the League. To my knowledge, the Board has not authorized employees to make such filings.

In light of the foregoing, would you be so kind as to please explain Mr. Fusaro's most recent filing in connection with RM-11828?

Thanks.

______________________________________

John Robert Stratton

N5AUS

Director

Legislative Director

West Gulf Division

Office: 512-445-6262

Cell: 512-426-2028

P.O. Box 2232

Austin, Texas 78768-2232

*______________________________________*

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

--

Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org

-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org

-- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org

This raises a couple of questions from a newbie, who by admission, is not a lawyer. "I believe this approach is consistent with the approach set forth in the Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations previously distributed to all members of the Board." Mr. Bellows, can you provide a quote from "the book" that is relevant to this discussion? On another subject: I see a notation on Page 103 of "the book" that states: "A corporation will not qualify for a 501(c)3 if it devotes a substantial part of its activities to lobbying, propaganda, or attempting to influence legislation." The ARRL sends proposed changes to the FCC all the time, and it seem a "substantial" legal effort and associated cost was placed on trying to get ARPA through congress. How is this NOT a violation? What is the legal definition of "substantial"? Also, does what Mr. Bellows state above infer that the ARRL Board has agreed to be bound by the Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations for its governance? I don't remember reading that anywhere in the By Laws, but I might have missed it. 73; Mike W7VO

On March 19, 2019 at 1:18 PM jbellows@skypoint.com wrote:

My point was two-fold: I believe it is generally better to have the facts first. Secondly, assuming there was a violation of staff policy, though that has not been established, this would be a personnel and administrative matter.

If it should subsequently be determined that there is a need for a policy change the Board may desire to act.

73,

Jay, KØQB

From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:14 PM To: jbellows@skypoint.com Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:28049] Re: Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Generally as a condition of employment in my experience, public statements concerning an employer by employees is restricted as a matter of policy since it could be interpreted as an official statement from the company.

It also directly correlated to the position one holds. IIRC, Fusaro’s title is “director of operations.” As such public statements concerning ARRL policy or FCC petitions could be interpreted as being the opinion of the ARRL as it comes from a senior manager with the title “director.” That’s the major problem I have with it.

As for the venue, it is what it is. I think bringing this to the board and asking the CEO to address the board on this is entirely appropriate as the comment concerns a public action.

73

Ria

N2RJ

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:36 PM <jbellows@skypoint.com mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com > wrote:

> >

...

If the question was truly for CEO Michel it is interesting that you chose to address it on ODV rather than directly with him.

Are asking if an ARRL employee is precluded from expressing his or her views in an FCC individual comment to a Rule Making proceeding as a condition of employment or suggesting an ARRL employee may only comment if permitted by the ARRL Board?

Jay, KØQB

From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org > On Behalf Of John Robert Stratton Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:51 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org ; Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org > Subject: [arrl-odv:28047] Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Howard

All Board Members — Directors and Vice-Directors — are prohibited from filing individual comments on FCC petitions filed or supported by the League. To my knowledge, the Board has not authorized employees to make such filings.

In light of the foregoing, would you be so kind as to please explain Mr. Fusaro's most recent filing in connection with RM-11828?

Thanks.

______________________________________

John Robert Stratton

N5AUS

Director

Legislative Director

West Gulf Division

Office: 512-445-6262

Cell: 512-426-2028

P.O. Box 2232

Austin, Texas 78768-2232

______________________________________

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...

Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

>

--

Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org mailto:n2rj@arrl.org

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

OK, thanks for the clarification. I didn't suspect that we weren't in compliance. I found that paragraph in the Non-Profit Governace book you gave us at the orientation interesting, as no limits were defined. 73; Mike W7VO

On March 19, 2019 at 4:10 PM "Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO)" <wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote:

Hi Mike,

A quick answer to your second question. Lobbying is defined as attempting to influence legislation (federal, state, or local). It does not include attempts to influence actions of the executive branch. Accounting for lobbying is very complex. It includes direct and indirect efforts, including volunteer efforts. The limits are defined by the IRS in terms of activity and as a fraction of our spending for our tax exempt purpose. We report all of this on the 990. And just as an aside, since I can be personally liable, and others before me, we are well within the limits. ;-)

73, Howard, WB2ITX

On 03/19/2019 6:52 PM, Ritz, Mike, W7VO, (Dir, NW) wrote:

> >

...

This raises a couple of questions from a newbie, who by admission, is not a lawyer.

"I believe this approach is consistent with the approach set forth in the Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations previously distributed to all members of the Board."

Mr. Bellows, can you provide a quote from "the book" that is relevant to this discussion?

On another subject:

I see a notation on Page 103 of "the book" that states: "A corporation will not qualify for a 501(c)3 if it devotes a substantial part of its activities to lobbying, propaganda, or attempting to influence legislation." The ARRL sends proposed changes to the FCC all the time, and it seem a "substantial" legal effort and associated cost was placed on trying to get ARPA through congress. How is this NOT a violation? What is the legal definition of "substantial"?

Also, does what Mr. Bellows state above infer that the ARRL Board has agreed to be bound by the Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations for its governance? I don't remember reading that anywhere in the By Laws, but I might have missed it.

73;

Mike

W7VO

> > > On March 19, 2019 at 1:18 PM jbellows@skypoint.com mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com wrote:

...

My point was two-fold: I believe it is generally better to have the facts first. Secondly, assuming there was a violation of staff policy, though that has not been established, this would be a personnel and administrative matter.

If it should subsequently be determined that there is a need for a policy change the Board may desire to act.

73,

Jay, KØQB

From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com mailto:rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:14 PM To: jbellows@skypoint.com mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:28049] Re: Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Generally as a condition of employment in my experience, public statements concerning an employer by employees is restricted as a matter of policy since it could be interpreted as an official statement from the company.

It also directly correlated to the position one holds. IIRC, Fusaro’s title is “director of operations.” As such public statements concerning ARRL policy or FCC petitions could be interpreted as being the opinion of the ARRL as it comes from a senior manager with the title “director.” That’s the major problem I have with it.

As for the venue, it is what it is. I think bringing this to the board and asking the CEO to address the board on this is entirely appropriate as the comment concerns a public action.

73

Ria

N2RJ

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:36 PM <jbellows@skypoint.com mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com > wrote:

> > > >

...

If the question was truly for CEO Michel it is interesting that you chose to address it on ODV rather than directly with him.

Are asking if an ARRL employee is precluded from expressing his or her views in an FCC individual comment to a Rule Making proceeding as a condition of employment or suggesting an ARRL employee may only comment if permitted by the ARRL Board?

Jay, KØQB

From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org > On Behalf Of John Robert Stratton Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:51 PM To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org ; Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org > Subject: [arrl-odv:28047] Regarding The Filing of Comments to RM-11828 By An ARRL Employee

Howard

All Board Members — Directors and Vice-Directors — are prohibited from filing individual comments on FCC petitions filed or supported by the League. To my knowledge, the Board has not authorized employees to make such filings.

In light of the foregoing, would you be so kind as to please explain Mr. Fusaro's most recent filing in connection with RM-11828?

Thanks.

______________________________________

John Robert Stratton

N5AUS

Director

Legislative Director

West Gulf Division

Office: 512-445-6262

Cell: 512-426-2028

P.O. Box 2232

Austin, Texas 78768-2232

______________________________________

http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...

Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

> > >

--

Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org n2rj@arrl.org mailto:n2rj@arrl.org

> >

> > > _______________________________________________

...

arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

> >

>

-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org mailto:hmichel@arrl.org

_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv