Without addressing the myriad of inaccurate statements, false characterizations, and defamatory remarks contained in this latest, last-second-before-the-Board-Meeting diatribe from Director Norton, I reiterate: Which Board Committee or Board motion tasked Mr Norton with conducting this independent investigation, if any? Mr. Norton either knows or should know that there was appointed an ad hoc committee to address ARRL trademark policy and to make policy recommendations to the Board. Why was the information derived from Mr. Norton's independent investigation not provided to the Committee that was appointed? From whence did this one Director derive the authority to conduct an independent investigation? Was the motivation anything other than the continuation of a personal attack? This is yet another instance in which Mr. Norton has made affirmative misrepresentations concerning me, my law firm and my prior law firm. I would urge the Ethics and Elections Committee to please take necessary steps to address the hostile environment created by Mr. Norton, and to cause him to stop his attack-motivated independent investigations and other repeated violations of the Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors, before it becomes necessary to pursue remedies available to me outside the framework of this organization. The Board allowed Mr. Norton to bully CDO Mary Hobart into resigning, using precisely the same disturbing tactics he is now employing against me and others. This really needs to stop now. Chris On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com

wrote:

*Executive Summary*

After the President and CEO were advised of possible shortcomings in ARRL trademarks, over $17,000 was spent only to confirm that there are indeed shortcomings. Had that $17,000 instead been spent to correct the shortcomings, the issue might likely be nearly closed.

*Board Involvement*

The ARRL Director's Workbook says -

[General] Counsel shall be selected by and report to the Board of Directors. It is the Board who employs the Counsel and it is to the Board that the Counsel is responsible.

The Board selects the CEO, who has authority to employ specialized counsels.

*Sources of Information*

On September 19, 2017, the undersigned received copies of certain legal bills paid by the League during 2016 and in 2017, up to that date .

*Initial Trademark Report*

In July 2015, former Atlantic Division Vice-Director Bob Famiglio, an experienced attorney practicing for 38 years as a patent and trademark specialist, provided his director with a report which was then forwarded to CEO Gallagher and President Roderick. The report with can be summarized with four main assertions:

1) There are problems with a number of the League's trademarks. 2) The problems can be corrected. 3) Some of the problems appear to be a result of poor legal work in the trademark applications, and in some cases so deficient that the actions possibly represent legal malpractice. 4) A 25-page report listed the status of each the trademarks and what could be done to bring them up to current standards.

Mr. Famiglio performed the work without cost to the League.

*Trademark Acquisition Background*

Much of the League's trademark work appears to have been performed by Cary Tepper, who until recently was part of the firm Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, PC. Recently, Mr. Tepper has submitted his legal bills through Tepper Law Firm, LLC.

As many of the trademarks were procured through the Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper P.C. organization, any possible malpractice claim or claim for refunds of fees paid might be directed at that organization.

*ARRL's Management Response*

No questions were apparently asked of Mr. Famiglio concerning the report, such as

1) What would be the estimated cost to repair some or all of the trademarks? 2) Would Mr. Famiglio have suggestions about what could be done, or even volunteer to repair any for free?

Instead, the Famiglio report was apparently given to Mr. Imlay, with unreported instructions. Mr. Imlay appears to have contracted the firm Day Pitney LLP for an evaluation. It is not clear if a complete copy of the Famiglio report was ever provided to Day Pitney, or if they received only excerpts and/or other instructions.

*Day Pitney Evaluation*

Day Pitney concluded:

1) There are problems with some of the League's trademarks. 2) The problems can be corrected. 3) For additional money, Day Pitney would be able to do additional work. 4) Trademarks are often unimportant.

The Day Pitney report was apparently received in March 2017, but was withheld from the ARRL Directors until after the July 2017 Board meeting in spite of requests to see it. It is unclear if the Day Pitney report the Board saw was the original report or a revised version after a first release in March?

*2017 Legal Firm Costs Related to Reported Trademark Shortcomings up to September 2017*

Famiglio and Associates - $0 Day Pitney LLP - $12,601.50 (in March 2017 only) Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC - $4420 (from January 17 to July 14, 2017) Tepper Law Firm - $227.50

*Trademark Committee Established at March 2017 Executive Committee Meeting*

President Roderick created an ad hoc committee of officers and directors to review trademark issues and make recommendations. Six months later, it was reported that the committee 1) identified all the existing trademarks and 2) created a list of items that perhaps should be trademarked, which appears to be something that could have been extracted from the Famiglio memo in a few minutes.

Also, this information could have been extracted from an item whose existence was shown below on a line of a Tepper Law Firm bill:

* 5/31/2017 Prepare updated status list of all granted and pending trademarks. E-mail same to CDI. - $87.50*

*Result of Trademark Activities?*

The League has spent over $17,000 to confirm what Mr. Famiglio's original memo claimed. Had this money been spent on bringing the trademarks up to suggested standards, it seems that much if not all of the important corrective work could have been accomplished.

After having received a suggestion that substandard trademark work should be corrected at the expense of the Booth, Freret & Imlay law firm or its malpractice insurance carrier, instead Mr. Imlay received at least $4420 additional income from work regarding the assertion. Mr. Tepper received an additional $227.50.

Do the actions taken by the League President and management appear to have been directed at benefiting the ARRL and/or its membership, or do the actions appear to have been taken to obfuscate or defend someone's actions?

*Unreported $7000 "NTS" Trademark Activity*

In 2016 and up to July 2017, the League was billed for $7094 by Tepper Law Firm, LLC for activity related to an unsuccessful attempt to trademark "National Traffic System," and "NTS."

No mention of even the existence of this activity appears to be in any reports to the Board. No mention of any analysis of why the application failed appears to be in any reports to the Board.

73,

Dick Norton, N6AA

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

-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG