Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can't recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don't understand why we don't release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: "My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment." W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org New England Director cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564 Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Members are notified at the end of the filing period. That seems sufficient to me. We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. Back row .02 Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Colleagues,
I attach a Motion from E&E, v3.
W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait?
K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection:
“My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections.
Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.”
W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate.
K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course.
In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later.
*Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR *
*Six Willarch Road*
*Lincoln, MA 01773*
*781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org <k1vr@arrl.org>*
New England Director
[image: cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564]
Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
<#m_-4536111434211088218_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Thanks Mark for your comments. I agree with Mark on this one. It may stop possible candidates if they know who already has filed. Lynn Nelson – W0ND ARRL Vice Director – Dakota Division From: Mark J Tharp Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 10:48 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:30708] Re: E&E #1 Members are notified at the end of the filing period. That seems sufficient to me. We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. Back row .02 Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote: Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: “My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org New England Director Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ 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
Great comments, Mark. Thanks for opening up the discussion. If you run for city council, alderman, representative, senator, or president -- every single elective post in the public sector, the information becomes public the day you file. I’ve never seen a public office candidate discouraged by the knowledge that someone else has filed. But, in speaking with other members of ODV, I’ve heard about the following scenario: An incumbent director decides that he has had his last go around. He informs his Vice Director (perhaps a Vice Director who was not initially elected, but rather appointed by the President and “approved” by the Director). We’re talking about a process that never saw the light of day until the VD appointment was announced. Members who think the incumbent will run again, shy away from a contested election. The VD (now almost the only person who knows about the intended resignation), files on the last day, with no opposition. As an unopposed candidate, the former VD (who never ran in a contested election the first time, and may have never run in a contested election), now becomes the Dir – still perhaps never having run in a contested election (the power of incumbency), or, if there is a contested election, the non-incumbent has an uphill climb (the power of incumbency). This perpetuates the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership and “passes along” the seats, along with that fantastic perk – two free trips to Windsor, CT and two free ARRL shirts for Dayton, per year. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage contested elections, and discourage quiet transition. I suggest that the danger of power in the election process by being first to file is attenuated when compared to the danger of quiet transitions. Also, I think it in the best interest of the members to prefer noisy transitions to quiet transitions. If a member of ODV does not believe that the scenario outlined above happens, I’ll be happy to name names. For those playing along at home (or, more likely today, from an airport lounge), the process on Sunday will go like this: · E&E #1 will be on the consent agenda (along with a preceding motion to lift it off the table). · The motion to lift off the table succeeds or fails. · If the motion to lift off the table succeeds, the question becomes whether a voting Board member will remove E&E #1 From the consent agenda. · If the motion is not removed from the consent agenda, it will pass with the vote to accept the consent agenda. · If the E&E #1 v3 motion is removed from the consent agenda, it will come up for a vote. -Fred K1VR From: Mark J Tharp [mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:48 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:30707] E&E #1 Members are notified at the end of the filing period. That seems sufficient to me. We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. Back row .02 Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote: Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: “My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org New England Director cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564 Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
As the motion second, I'll provide my thoughts on why I support this when I get situated into Denver in a few hours. I appreciate the arguments, however, there are other sides, including what is best for our membership. 73; Mike W7VO (Mobile 7, enroute to PDX)
On 08/14/2020 9:09 AM Fred Hopengarten <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Great comments, Mark. Thanks for opening up the discussion.
If you run for city council, alderman, representative, senator, or president -- every single elective post in the public sector, the information becomes public the day you file. I’ve never seen a public office candidate discouraged by the knowledge that someone else has filed.
But, in speaking with other members of ODV, I’ve heard about the following scenario:
An incumbent director decides that he has had his last go around. He informs his Vice Director (perhaps a Vice Director who was not initially elected, but rather appointed by the President and “approved” by the Director). We’re talking about a process that never saw the light of day until the VD appointment was announced.
Members who think the incumbent will run again, shy away from a contested election.
The VD (now almost the only person who knows about the intended resignation), files on the last day, with no opposition. As an unopposed candidate, the former VD (who never ran in a contested election the first time, and may have never run in a contested election), now becomes the Dir – still perhaps never having run in a contested election (the power of incumbency), or, if there is a contested election, the non-incumbent has an uphill climb (the power of incumbency).
This perpetuates the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership and “passes along” the seats, along with that fantastic perk – two free trips to Windsor, CT and two free ARRL shirts for Dayton, per year.
The purpose of this amendment is to encourage contested elections, and discourage quiet transition.
I suggest that the danger of power in the election process by being first to file is attenuated when compared to the danger of quiet transitions. Also, I think it in the best interest of the members to prefer noisy transitions to quiet transitions.
If a member of ODV does not believe that the scenario outlined above happens, I’ll be happy to name names.
For those playing along at home (or, more likely today, from an airport lounge), the process on Sunday will go like this:
· E&E #1 will be on the consent agenda (along with a preceding motion to lift it off the table).
· The motion to lift off the table succeeds or fails.
· If the motion to lift off the table succeeds, the question becomes whether a voting Board member will remove E&E #1 From the consent agenda.
· If the motion is not removed from the consent agenda, it will pass with the vote to accept the consent agenda.
· If the E&E #1 v3 motion is removed from the consent agenda, it will come up for a vote.
-Fred K1VR
From: Mark J Tharp [mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:48 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:30707] E&E #1
Members are notified at the end of the filing period.
That seems sufficient to me.
We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted.
I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others.
Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion.
Back row .02
Mark, HDX
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu > wrote:
> >
Colleagues,
I attach a Motion from E&E, v3.
W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait?
K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection:
“My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections.
Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.”
W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate.
K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course.
In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later.
Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR
Six Willarch Road
Lincoln, MA 01773
781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org mailto:k1vr@arrl.org
New England Director
[cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564]
Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT
---------------------------------------------
[Avast logo] https://www.avast.com/antivirus
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Fred, the consent agenda is not anissue. The Board did that in the first session and the E&E #1 motion wasmade and debated on the floor until it was tabled by motion. If someone wants to considerE&E #1 again, they must "take it from the table." That requiresmotion, a second, is not debatable, and requires a majority. If it passes, thenE&E #1 is officially back on the table for discussion and action. There is no need for anything to be done on the consent agenda. If the group does not want to consider E&E#1 again, then nobody should move that it be lifted from the table. In thatevent, it will need to be brought back anew at a later meeting. If the group doesn't want to implement E&E#1 for this election cycle, and that concern was mentioned, then let it die onthe table and bring it back up later, say in January, and renew the motion. 73, Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Fred Hopengarten <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> To: 'Mark J Tharp' <kb7hdx@gmail.com> Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2020 11:09 am Subject: [arrl-odv:30713] Re: E&E #1 #yiv4022980814 #yiv4022980814 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv4022980814 #yiv4022980814 p.yiv4022980814MsoNormal, #yiv4022980814 li.yiv4022980814MsoNormal, #yiv4022980814 div.yiv4022980814MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv4022980814 a:link, #yiv4022980814 span.yiv4022980814MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4022980814 a:visited, #yiv4022980814 span.yiv4022980814MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4022980814 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv4022980814 p.yiv4022980814MsoListParagraph, #yiv4022980814 li.yiv4022980814MsoListParagraph, #yiv4022980814 div.yiv4022980814MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New;}#yiv4022980814 span.yiv4022980814EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4022980814 .yiv4022980814MsoChpDefault {} _filtered {}#yiv4022980814 div.yiv4022980814WordSection1 {}#yiv4022980814 _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv4022980814 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv4022980814 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv4022980814 Great comments, Mark. Thanks for opening up the discussion. If you run for city council, alderman, representative, senator, or president -- every single elective post in the public sector, the information becomes public the day you file. I’ve never seen a public office candidate discouraged by the knowledge that someone else has filed. But, in speaking with other members of ODV, I’ve heard about the following scenario: An incumbent director decides that he has had his last go around. He informs his Vice Director (perhaps a Vice Director who was not initially elected, but rather appointed by the President and “approved” by the Director). We’re talking about a process that never saw the light of day until the VD appointment was announced. Members who think the incumbent will run again, shy away from a contested election. The VD (now almost the only person who knows about the intended resignation), files on the last day, with no opposition. As an unopposed candidate, the former VD (who never ran in a contested election the first time, and may have never run in a contested election), now becomes the Dir – still perhaps never having run in a contested election (the power of incumbency), or, if there is a contested election, the non-incumbent has an uphill climb (the power of incumbency). This perpetuates the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership and “passes along” the seats, along with that fantastic perk – two free trips to Windsor, CT and two free ARRL shirts for Dayton, per year. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage contested elections, and discourage quiet transition. I suggest that the danger of power in the election process by being first to file is attenuated when compared to the danger of quiet transitions. Also, I think it in the best interest of the members to prefer noisy transitions to quiet transitions. If a member of ODV does not believe that the scenario outlined above happens, I’ll be happy to name names. For those playing along at home (or, more likely today, from an airport lounge), the process on Sunday will go like this:· E&E #1 will be on the consent agenda (along with a preceding motion to lift it off the table).· The motion to lift off the table succeeds or fails.· If the motion to lift off the table succeeds, the question becomes whether a voting Board member will remove E&E #1 From the consent agenda.· If the motion is not removed from the consent agenda, it will pass with the vote to accept the consent agenda.· If the E&E #1 v3 motion is removed from the consent agenda, it will come up for a vote. -Fred K1VR From: Mark J Tharp [mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:48 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:30707] E&E #1 Members are notified at the end of the filing period. That seems sufficient to me. We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. Back row .02 Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote: Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: “My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch RoadLincoln, MA 01773781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org New England Director Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT | | This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com | _______________________________________________ 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
Well-argued counsel, as usual. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv On Behalf Of Fred Hopengarten Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 12:09 PM To: 'Mark J Tharp' <kb7hdx@gmail.com> Cc: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30713] Re: E&E #1 Great comments, Mark. Thanks for opening up the discussion. If you run for city council, alderman, representative, senator, or president -- every single elective post in the public sector, the information becomes public the day you file. I’ve never seen a public office candidate discouraged by the knowledge that someone else has filed. But, in speaking with other members of ODV, I’ve heard about the following scenario: An incumbent director decides that he has had his last go around. He informs his Vice Director (perhaps a Vice Director who was not initially elected, but rather appointed by the President and “approved” by the Director). We’re talking about a process that never saw the light of day until the VD appointment was announced. Members who think the incumbent will run again, shy away from a contested election. The VD (now almost the only person who knows about the intended resignation), files on the last day, with no opposition. As an unopposed candidate, the former VD (who never ran in a contested election the first time, and may have never run in a contested election), now becomes the Dir – still perhaps never having run in a contested election (the power of incumbency), or, if there is a contested election, the non-incumbent has an uphill climb (the power of incumbency). This perpetuates the perception of the ARRL Board as an insider’s group that does not truly represent the membership and “passes along” the seats, along with that fantastic perk – two free trips to Windsor, CT and two free ARRL shirts for Dayton, per year. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage contested elections, and discourage quiet transition. I suggest that the danger of power in the election process by being first to file is attenuated when compared to the danger of quiet transitions. Also, I think it in the best interest of the members to prefer noisy transitions to quiet transitions. If a member of ODV does not believe that the scenario outlined above happens, I’ll be happy to name names. For those playing along at home (or, more likely today, from an airport lounge), the process on Sunday will go like this: * E&E #1 will be on the consent agenda (along with a preceding motion to lift it off the table). * The motion to lift off the table succeeds or fails. * If the motion to lift off the table succeeds, the question becomes whether a voting Board member will remove E&E #1 From the consent agenda. * If the motion is not removed from the consent agenda, it will pass with the vote to accept the consent agenda. * If the E&E #1 v3 motion is removed from the consent agenda, it will come up for a vote. -Fred K1VR From: Mark J Tharp [mailto:kb7hdx@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:48 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:30707] E&E #1 Members are notified at the end of the filing period. That seems sufficient to me. We should be encouraging people to run and knowing ahead that an incumbent or another person is running may actually discourage some from submitting the paperwork feeling they can never beat whomever got their name out first. Nothing prevents people from announcing they have submitted the paperwork and nothing prevents them from campaigning prior to being vetted. I also think that would be an unfair advantage to whomever gets in first as they would be announced prior to the others. Having all the names released at the same time is the most fair to all in my opinion. Back row .02 Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu <mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> > wrote: Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: “My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org <mailto:k1vr@arrl.org> New England Director Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT _____ <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
My concern with this is that I believe that it’s up to the candidate to control the flow of information about her/his candidacy, up until the ARRL announces the slate. Taking this control away from the candidate can have real repercussions, especially for those who need to clear our intent to run for Director with our employer but wish to file anyway given the deadlines. I’m interested to hear a counter argument to this. I’m keeping an open mind. Ria N2RJ On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Colleagues,
I attach a Motion from E&E, v3.
W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait?
K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection:
“My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections.
Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.”
W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate.
K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course.
In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later.
*Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR *
*Six Willarch Road <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Willarch+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*Lincoln, MA 01773 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Willarch+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org <k1vr@arrl.org>*
New England Director
[image: cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564]
Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT
------------------------------ [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
<#m_-501403723698811660_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Jim, Mark (and Lynn) and Ria have all voiced valid reasons why this motion has the potential to create problems, rather than improve the election process. Our current Bylaws, Standing Orders and the Director's Workbook (and election procedures) are a patchwork quilt built over decades, with little thought to consistency. The lack of thought is not malice; it is a result, amongst other reasons, of a lack of competent legal advice and oversight. At present the Legal Restructuring Committee intends to commence the reconciliation and rewriting of all of the foregoing; the last effort to bring cohesion to the governing documents took well over six months; as we can observe it did not completely accomplish its intended task. It will take probably close to a year, perhaps a bit longer to rewrite all of this to a standard that the Board will find acceptable. Adopting this proposal, despite Fred's generous suggestion — we can fix it later — merely increases the effort with no short term benefit. Mark's point states a stark reality of Director, Vice Director and SM elections. Running for office, particularly at the Director and Vice Director level is both an intimidating and daunting process. It may once have been the equivalent of a ham club officer election; it ceased having that charm over a decade ago. It is now a very expensive and time consuming effort. We want to encourage participation, but as Mark and Lynn have pointed out that due to the commitment in time and money that running for office requires, permitting anyone to front run the process by filing early creates the very real and substantial risk that the motion, rather than encouraging what its sponsors consider to be "transparency", it will instead serve as a very effective means to discourage both non-incumbents and those with good talents but less political experience from running. The motion offers the opportunity to permit "buying" an election rather than encouraging participation. Ria's point is equally valid and it also goes to encouraging broader participation. Due to the serious effort and expense in time and money and because we want to encourage participation, we should maintain a level playing field and permit the candidates to control the timing and place of their announcements. Another point is that this proposed change cannot be retroactive and apply to any current races; it can only as a matter of due process and fairness be applicable to future races. By that time the Legal Restructuring Committee will be well into its efforts. This motion will just complicate, with no measurable benefits, that process. Respectively, my opposition to the enactment of this motion remains. ______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *______________________________________* On 8/13/20 11:32 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
My concern with this is that I believe that it’s up to the candidate to control the flow of information about her/his candidacy, up until the ARRL announces the slate.
Taking this control away from the candidate can have real repercussions, especially for those who need to clear our intent to run for Director with our employer but wish to file anyway given the deadlines.
I’m interested to hear a counter argument to this. I’m keeping an open mind.
Ria N2RJ
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu <mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> wrote:
Colleagues,
I attach a Motion from E&E, v3.
W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait?
K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection:
“My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections.
Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.”
W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate.
K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course.
In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later.
/Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR /
/Six Willarch Road <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Willarch+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>/
/Lincoln, MA 01773 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Willarch+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>/
/781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org <mailto:k1vr@arrl.org>/
New England Director
cid:a4a12f0b-0468-4a39-b953-31b2a3da8564
Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
<#m_-501403723698811660_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ 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
It will take probably close to a year, perhaps a bit longer to rewrite all of this to a standard that the Board will find acceptable. Agree. It will be an enormous project, more work than one would expect. We reviewed the Standing Orders back in around 2014-15 and Sumner did most of the admin work and it took a hard year. 73,Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2020 10:20 am Subject: [arrl-odv:30711] Re: E&E #1 Jim, Mark (and Lynn) and Ria have all voiced valid reasons why this motion has the potential to create problems, rather than improve the election process. Our current Bylaws, Standing Orders and the Director's Workbook (and election procedures) are a patchwork quilt built over decades, with little thought to consistency. The lack of thought is not malice; it is a result, amongst other reasons, of a lack of competent legal advice and oversight. At present the Legal Restructuring Committee intends to commence the reconciliation and rewriting of all of the foregoing; the last effort to bring cohesion to the governing documents took well over six months; as we can observe it did not completely accomplish its intended task. It will take probably close to a year, perhaps a bit longer to rewrite all of this to a standard that the Board will find acceptable. Adopting this proposal, despite Fred's generous suggestion — we can fix it later — merely increases the effort with no short term benefit. Mark's point states a stark reality of Director, Vice Director and SM elections. Running for office, particularly at the Director and Vice Director level is both an intimidating and daunting process. It may once have been the equivalent of a ham club officer election; it ceased having that charm over a decade ago. It is now a very expensive and time consuming effort. We want to encourage participation, but as Mark and Lynn have pointed out that due to the commitment in time and money that running for office requires, permitting anyone to front run the process by filing early creates the very real and substantial risk that the motion, rather than encouraging what its sponsors consider to be "transparency", it will instead serve as a very effective means to discourage both non-incumbents and those with good talents but less political experience from running. The motion offers the opportunity to permit "buying" an election rather than encouraging participation. Ria's point is equally valid and it also goes to encouraging broader participation. Due to the serious effort and expense in time and money and because we want to encourage participation, we should maintain a level playing field and permit the candidates to control the timing and place of their announcements. Another point is that this proposed change cannot be retroactive and apply to any current races; it can only as a matter of due process and fairness be applicable to future races. By that time the Legal Restructuring Committee will be well into its efforts. This motion will just complicate, with no measurable benefits, that process. Respectively, my opposition to the enactment of this motion remains. #yiv1919417716 #yiv1919417716 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv1919417716 #yiv1919417716 p.yiv1919417716MsoNormal, #yiv1919417716 li.yiv1919417716MsoNormal, #yiv1919417716 div.yiv1919417716MsoNormal {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1919417716 p.yiv1919417716JansonNormal, #yiv1919417716 li.yiv1919417716JansonNormal, #yiv1919417716 div.yiv1919417716JansonNormal {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv1919417716 p.yiv1919417716Janson11, #yiv1919417716 li.yiv1919417716Janson11, #yiv1919417716 div.yiv1919417716Janson11 {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in;text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv1919417716 .yiv1919417716MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;} _filtered {}#yiv1919417716 div.yiv1919417716WordSection1 {}#yiv1919417716 ______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 ______________________________________ On 8/13/20 11:32 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote: My concern with this is that I believe that it’s up to the candidate to control the flow of information about her/his candidacy, up until the ARRL announces the slate. Taking this control away from the candidate can have real repercussions, especially for those who need to clear our intent to run for Director with our employer but wish to file anyway given the deadlines. I’m interested to hear a counter argument to this. I’m keeping an open mind. Ria N2RJ On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:21 PM <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> wrote: Colleagues, I attach a Motion from E&E, v3. W7VO and I think it is a good idea. As does N6AA. I can’t recall, at this moment, hearing from anyone else. As for me, I don’t understand why we don’t release qualified candidate names as soon as they are approved for the ballot. Why wait? K6JAT objects. So as to not mischaracterize, here is his objection: “My recollection is that the concerns were with potential impacts and interactions with other rules, bylaws, procedures and time frames governing elections. Actually, since the Legal Restructuring Committee is going to be reviewing the Bylaws, wouldn't it be best to wait for that effort? I don't think there is any immediate crying need for this amendment.” W7VO and I hold the view that if there is an interaction of which we are not aware, and it becomes visible later, we can fix it later. But in the meantime, the membership has a right to know who has filed papers and is qualified as a candidate. K6JAT may ask that this motion be removed from the Consent Agenda. If so, there will be discussion in the normal course. In the meantime, if you see something that should be changed in this motion, please let me know. Better to bring up issues sooner than later. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 781.259.0088, k1vr@arrl.org New England Director Serving ME, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT | | This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com | _______________________________________________ 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
participants (10)
-
Bob Famiglio, K3RF -
Fred Hopengarten -
hopengarten＠post.harvard.edu
-
James Tiemstra -
John Robert Stratton -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Mark J Tharp -
Michael Ritz -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
W0ND