[arrl-odv:27000] 2018 ARRL BOD Meeting Minutes — N5AUS Revisions
Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed: (1) a redline Word document (2) a PDF of the redline Word document (3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline. The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional. Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc". As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy. All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board. The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion. The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs: ¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation] ¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000] ¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning] ¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.] ¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.] I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent. Thanks Dan. _______________________________________ 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 *_______________________________________***
John, Quite an extensive edit and hopefully make the minutes a bit easier to read and comprehend by the members. I did jot down some corrections as I read through the pdf copy: p. 3, K0AIZ is the Midwest Division Vice-Director p. 7, item 17 - the comma after "... Mr. Williams 10...." should be a period p. 8, item 23 - "...no questions of comments..." should be "....no questions *or* comments...." p. 8, item 23 - It appears the intent is to list the reports that were not lifted from the agenda. There were other reports not lifted besides the "other officer reports". Perhaps just list all the reports submitted with those "lifted" so noted. p. 8, item 24 - I recall no board action regarding the lack of a CEO report. The fact that Mr. Gallagher was not present is obvious from the roll call at the beginning and the election of Mr. Shelly as CEO. I think item 24 should *not* be in the minutes. p. 9, item 27 - delete "...Receipt of General Counsel's Report" p .10, item 30 - The original text of the amendment to the amendment should remain: "to add a maximum of $30,000 to fund the Discovery and Strategy phase of the Life Long Learning Initiative Project...." The same comment also applies to the last paragraph of item 30. 73's, Rod, K0DAS On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:41 PM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed:
(1) a redline Word document
(2) a PDF of the redline Word document
(3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline.
The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional.
Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc".
As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy.
All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board.
The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion.
The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs:
¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation]
¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000]
¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning]
¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.]
¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.]
I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent.
Thanks Dan.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Vice Director
Legislative Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262 <(512)%20445-6262>
Cell: 512-426-2028 <(512)%20426-2028>
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
The minutes after incorporating Rod and John's edits look good to me. Jim K6JAT
On January 29, 2018 at 8:45 AM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Quite an extensive edit and hopefully make the minutes a bit easier to read and comprehend by the members.
I did jot down some corrections as I read through the pdf copy:
p. 3, K0AIZ is the Midwest Division Vice-Director
p. 7, item 17 - the comma after "... Mr. Williams 10...." should be a period
p. 8, item 23 - "...no questions of comments..." should be "....no questions or comments...."
p. 8, item 23 - It appears the intent is to list the reports that were not lifted from the agenda. There were other reports not lifted besides the "other officer reports". Perhaps just list all the reports submitted with those "lifted" so noted.
p. 8, item 24 - I recall no board action regarding the lack of a CEO report. The fact that Mr. Gallagher was not present is obvious from the roll call at the beginning and the election of Mr. Shelly as CEO. I think item 24 should not be in the minutes.
p. 9, item 27 - delete "...Receipt of General Counsel's Report"
p .10, item 30 - The original text of the amendment to the amendment should remain: "to add a maximum of $30,000 to fund the Discovery and Strategy phase of the Life Long Learning Initiative Project...." The same comment also applies to the last paragraph of item 30.
73's, Rod, K0DAS
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:41 PM, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com > wrote:
> > Enclosed are the revised minutes, per my notes and memory. There are 3 documents enclosed:
(1) a redline Word document
(2) a PDF of the redline Word document
(3) a clean, non-redline PDF that shows the document as it would appear to the public and the Board if published without a redline.
The format has been changed to make the Minutes more readable to the public as well as the Board by adding section and sub-paragraph headings that track the Agenda. The full Agenda was listed in the beginning, again to make it clearer to the Members what the Board was doing. In light of the controversy over the past month, our final Minutes will be intensely scrutinized with the intent to find "secrecy", "concealment" and "sharp dealing" — clarity serves us better than obfuscation, even if the obfuscation is unintentional.
Although not required by Robert's Rules of Order and although our past Minutes have not had sections and sub-paragraphs, I respectfully suggest making this meeting's Minutes easy to read and follow; it would do much to blunt any accusation of "secrecy, etc".
As to the inclusion of motions that were withdrawn, again since these Motions were known by the Members to have been filed with the Board for the purpose of passage by the Board, were posted on multiple Directors' websites with commentary on how the subject motions would or should be interpreted — the failure to address the treatment of those motions could be interpreted as a "trick" or "concealment." I do not believe it is worth taking that hit, so this draft addresses all the pre-Board meeting motions that attracted controversy.
All who drafted and submitted motions did so in the belief that their efforts were just and they did not hide their support for their motions when the public came to complain. We as a Board should not hide either; setting forth in the Minutes what actually occurred does much to defeat the rancorous charges leveled against the Board.
The majority of the changes visible in the Redline versions are: • formatting changes — the addition of sections and sub-paragraphs to track the Agenda • typographical corrections • standardization of the language used, e.g, "ADOPTED" instead of a mix of "adopted" and "ADOPTED" or "Directors" instead of a mix of "directors" and "Directors" • standardization of the language used to describe consideration and passage of a motion.
The additions to Mr. Henderson's original draft appear in the following paragraphs:
¶ 24 [stating that Mr. Gallagher was not at the meeting due to his resignation]
¶ 30 [clarifying the two step amendment by Mr. Niswander to the original Plan Motion by clarifying that the initial amendment proposal to authorize $428,000 for the Lifetime Learning Project was reduced by the Board, after discussion, to just $30,000]
¶ 34-35 [Mr. Allen's IARU Motion section remains the same, but the non-motion language was cleared up to reflect consideration of the Motion was continued to the next morning]
¶ 53 [Adds the consideration of the Motion identified as Abernethy-1; the Paragraph adds in the introduction of the Motion, the statement Mr. Abernethy read into the record and asked be included in the Minutes and the manner and conditions under which it was withdrawn.]
¶ 56 [Addresses Mr. Lisenco's withdrawal of his 7 motions. Since these Motions were published prior to the Meeting, were filed timely with the Board for consideration and were actually publicly discussed by some Directors as to how the Motions would be treated at the Meeting, I am concerned it would smack of a sleight of hand to make no reference to the disposition of the Motions. That would not be our intent and certainly it would not be Mike's, but in the current charged environment, going the extra mile by addressing the disposition of the 7 Motions in the Minutes will disarm some of our critics. Mr. Lisenco was not ashamed of his Motions; neither should the Minutes be.]
I want to thank Dan Henderson for his yeoman efforts to produce a set of Minutes in a compressed time period. It was difficult work and he is to be commended for his efforts. Dan didn't sign up to be a court reporter, but we have tasked him with doing almost the equivalent.
Thanks Dan.
_______________________________________
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
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv 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 (3)
-
John Robert Stratton -
k6jat -
Rod Blocksome