[arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct?
Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you haveexperienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listeningpolitely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and goodgovernance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the HarvardWireless Club, W1AF. It was anoutstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, andour own Tom Gallagher. The attendees werean articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than isusually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me totalk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code isexcellent. Outstanding, in fact, and Iwhole-heartedly support it. In fact, allof it is outstanding. The problem isthat there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membershiporganization such as ours. I suspect(more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codesof Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between amembership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closedboard. I believe we can resolve thiseasily, with a few tweaks. But before Imake suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that mayillustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my pollingplace, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire toa booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a countingmachine. Nothing on the ballot indicatedthat it is mine. No one knows how Ivoted except me. I cannot be. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate,states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state,and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be anyaccountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she isdoing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go onin the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up,it is public knowledge. If I’m enough ofa masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on astump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator froma coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate hasenacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with aself-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization likeours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to positionourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a majorchange. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for aparticular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’tthink of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposedto a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should notundermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid aDirector from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intentionis of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of theBoard, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be toadd a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall beinterpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressingopposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or shedoes not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoonsun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code ofConduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these otherCodes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such asours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code ofConduct. Does anyone know if they haveone? And are there other similarorganizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with yourideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net
Fixed minor omission in the 4th paragraph. Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Apr 30, 2017 10:22 am Subject: [arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you haveexperienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listeningpolitely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and goodgovernance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the HarvardWireless Club, W1AF. It was anoutstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, andour own Tom Gallagher. The attendees werean articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than isusually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me totalk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code isexcellent. Outstanding, in fact, and Iwhole-heartedly support it. In fact, allof it is outstanding. The problem isthat there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membershiporganization such as ours. I suspect(more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codesof Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between amembership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closedboard. I believe we can resolve thiseasily, with a few tweaks. But before Imake suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that mayillustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my pollingplace, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire toa booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a countingmachine. Nothing on the ballot indicatedthat it is mine. No one knows how Ivoted except me. I cannot be punished for my vote. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate,states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state,and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be anyaccountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she isdoing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go onin the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up,it is public knowledge. If I’m enough ofa masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on astump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator froma coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate hasenacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with aself-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization likeours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to positionourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a majorchange. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for aparticular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’tthink of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposedto a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should notundermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid aDirector from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intentionis of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of theBoard, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be toadd a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall beinterpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressingopposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or shedoes not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoonsun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code ofConduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these otherCodes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such asours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code ofConduct. Does anyone know if they haveone? And are there other similarorganizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with yourideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Thanks Mike. Well thought out and due consideration. 73, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Raisbeck" <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> To: vze18vwgu@verizon.net, arrl-odv@arrl.org Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 7:31:48 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:26413] Re: A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Fixed minor omission in the 4th paragraph. Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Apr 30, 2017 10:22 am Subject: [arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you have experienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listening politely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and good governance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the Harvard Wireless Club, W1AF. It was an outstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, and our own Tom Gallagher. The attendees were an articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than is usually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me to talk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code is excellent. Outstanding, in fact, and I whole-heartedly support it. In fact, all of it is outstanding. The problem is that there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membership organization such as ours. I suspect (more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codes of Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between a membership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closed board. I believe we can resolve this easily, with a few tweaks. But before I make suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that may illustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my polling place, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire to a booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a counting machine. Nothing on the ballot indicated that it is mine. No one knows how I voted except me. I cannot be punished for my vote. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate, states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state, and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be any accountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she is doing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go on in the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up, it is public knowledge. If I’m enough of a masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on a stump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator from a coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the S enate has enacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with a self-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization like ours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to position ourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a major change. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for a particular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’t think of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposed to a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should not undermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid a Director from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intention is of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of the Board, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be to add a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of C onduct shall be interpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressing opposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or she does not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoon sun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code of Conduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these other Codes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such as ours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code of Conduct. Does anyone know if they have one? And are there other similar organizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with your ideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck , K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks for taking a thorough look at this Mike. I have to agree that our membership needs to know how we vote and your suggestions bear serious consideration. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 4/30/2017 10:31 AM, Mike Raisbeck wrote:
Fixed minor omission in the 4th paragraph.
Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net>
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Apr 30, 2017 10:22 am Subject: [arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct?
Hello folks,
Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you have experienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct.Initially, I responded to these by listening politely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and good governance.
Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the Harvard Wireless Club, W1AF.It was an outstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, and our own Tom Gallagher.The attendees were an articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than is usually the case at your average hamfest.During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me to talk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it.This time I paid better attention.I should have done so much earlier.
First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code is excellent.Outstanding, in fact, and I whole-heartedly support it.In fact, all of it is outstanding.The problem is that there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membership organization such as ours.I suspect (more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codes of Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between a membership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closed board.I believe we can resolve this easily, with a few tweaks.But before I make suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that may illustrate the issue. -----------------------------
When election day comes along, I cruise down to my polling place, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire to a booth where I fill out the ballot in private.I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a counting machine.Nothing on the ballot indicated that it is mine.No one knows how I voted except me.I cannot be punished for my vote. And so, a senator gets elected.
Now my senator goes to Washington.She stands up on the floor of the senate, states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state, and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote.All of this is public.It has to be if there is to be any accountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she is doing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again.I’m not privy to the conversations that go on in the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?)but when the formal debate and vote come up, it is public knowledge.If I’m enough of a masochist, I can watch it on Cspan.
Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on a stump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator from a coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate has enacted.
-----------------------------
The ARRL Board is not the US Senate.But it is also not an organization with a self-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda.Insofar as the form of an organization like ours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to position ourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I.Disclosure of votes
Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a major change.We could do one of two things a.Eliminate the paragraph entirely b.Allow suppression of voting information for a particular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work.Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’t think of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II.Support of Board decisions
We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposed to a Board action in a respectful way.Respecting the final decision of the Board *must not* be equated with agreeing with that decision.While I would agree that Directors should not undermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid a Director from expressing opposition to it.Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that.It is unclear to me what the real intention is of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of the Board, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views.One way to clear this up, I hope, would be to add a section 8.g:
g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall be interpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressing opposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or she does not hinder its implementation
A few more notes.Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoon sun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code of Conduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes.He named several examples.Of course, he is correct.I would ask, however, how many of these other Codes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such as ours?One good example to investigate might be the IEEE.I have not yet found their Board Code of Conduct.Does anyone know if they have one?And are there other similar organizations we might look to?
Jay and Chris, any thoughts?I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct.Do these suggested changes align with your ideas?
Any other thoughts or criticisms?
Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto: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
Mike: I have been a proud member of the IEEE since an electrical engineering student in 1973. Their latest code of conduct is attached. Very simple. They are a membership organization as we are. They have a code of ethics published as well found at http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html Tom Abernathy and I have received pushback from Atlantic Division members on the subject as you have experienced. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Raisbeck Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:23 AM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you have experienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listening politely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and good governance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the Harvard Wireless Club, W1AF. It was an outstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, and our own Tom Gallagher. The attendees were an articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than is usually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me to talk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code is excellent. Outstanding, in fact, and I whole-heartedly support it. In fact, all of it is outstanding. The problem is that there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membership organization such as ours. I suspect (more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codes of Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between a membership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closed board. I believe we can resolve this easily, with a few tweaks. But before I make suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that may illustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my polling place, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire to a booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a counting machine. Nothing on the ballot indicated that it is mine. No one knows how I voted except me. I cannot be. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate, states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state, and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be any accountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she is doing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go on in the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up, it is public knowledge. If I’m enough of a masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on a stump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator from a coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate has enacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with a self-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization like ours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to position ourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a major change. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for a particular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’t think of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposed to a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should not undermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid a Director from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intention is of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of the Board, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be to add a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall be interpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressing opposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or she does not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoon sun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code of Conduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these other Codes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such as ours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code of Conduct. Does anyone know if they have one? And are there other similar organizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with your ideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net
Bob, This appears to be aimed at the general membership and not the Board of IEEE. ASCE and every state Professional Engineer Licensing board has a similar code of conduct for all members. I've had some questions from Delta Division members as well but not the huge push back some seem to be experiencing. There is only one area our members down here are concerned about and that is exactly what Mike has pointed out earlier today. Otherwise, they think the Code is totally acceptable and some have stated wonder at why this wasn't in place already. Overall I think the Code is an outstanding document and I support it as well as the concept behind it. I'm in the same camp as Director Pace since there usually is room and reason for adjustment to most policies going forward. It is not, nor should it ever be construed that anyone on the Board is trying to stifle debate or the ability make needed changes to any ARRL policy when deemed necessary. Perhaps a small tweak is needed here to allow constructive criticism while working for a change on any given matter while prohibiting deleterious, untrue, derogatory or defaming remarks, impeding policy implementation or outright sabotage of a duly passed Board measures or policy. The Board always has the option to make changes in policy and I may well offer something in regards to some amended language specific to the subject at hand. I will be discussing this with my fellow Directors, EC members and Officers over the next several days. We all get input. TU ES 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Bob Famiglio, K3RF Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 3:04 PM To: 'Mike Raisbeck' <vze18vwgu@verizon.net>; arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26415] Re: A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Mike: I have been a proud member of the IEEE since an electrical engineering student in 1973. Their latest code of conduct is attached. Very simple. They are a membership organization as we are. They have a code of ethics published as well found at <http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html> http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html Tom Abernathy and I have received pushback from Atlantic Division members on the subject as you have experienced. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 <http://www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF> www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv [ <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Raisbeck Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:23 AM To: <mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26412] A tweak or two for the Code of Conduct? Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you have experienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listening politely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and good governance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the Harvard Wireless Club, W1AF. It was an outstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, and our own Tom Gallagher. The attendees were an articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than is usually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me to talk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code is excellent. Outstanding, in fact, and I whole-heartedly support it. In fact, all of it is outstanding. The problem is that there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membership organization such as ours. I suspect (more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codes of Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between a membership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closed board. I believe we can resolve this easily, with a few tweaks. But before I make suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that may illustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my polling place, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire to a booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a counting machine. Nothing on the ballot indicated that it is mine. No one knows how I voted except me. I cannot be. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate, states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state, and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be any accountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she is doing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go on in the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up, it is public knowledge. If I’m enough of a masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on a stump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator from a coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate has enacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with a self-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization like ours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to position ourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a major change. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for a particular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’t think of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposed to a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should not undermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid a Director from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intention is of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of the Board, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be to add a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall be interpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressing opposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or she does not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoon sun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code of Conduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these other Codes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such as ours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code of Conduct. Does anyone know if they have one? And are there other similar organizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with your ideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> k1twf@arrl.net < <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net> mailto:k1twf@arrl.net>
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } I was dropped during Mike Raisback's sexond comments and have not been allowed to rejoin #yiv3510622314 #yiv3510622314 -- _filtered #yiv3510622314 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3510622314 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3510622314 #yiv3510622314 p.yiv3510622314MsoNormal, #yiv3510622314 li.yiv3510622314MsoNormal, #yiv3510622314 div.yiv3510622314MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv3510622314 a:link, #yiv3510622314 span.yiv3510622314MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3510622314 a:visited, #yiv3510622314 span.yiv3510622314MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3510622314 p.yiv3510622314MsoPlainText, #yiv3510622314 li.yiv3510622314MsoPlainText, #yiv3510622314 div.yiv3510622314MsoPlainText {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv3510622314 span.yiv3510622314PlainTextChar {}#yiv3510622314 .yiv3510622314MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv3510622314 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3510622314 div.yiv3510622314WordSection1 {}#yiv3510622314 -Kermit W9XA
That’s because you have to be over 18 to hear his sexond comments From: Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:35 PM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26436] WAS DROPPED I was dropped during Mike Raisback's sexond comments and have not been allowed to rejoin -Kermit W9XA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hello Mike - .. Thats what I get for typing on a phonekeyboard that had 6 keys under a single finger....the dial-up did answer and accepted the accesscode but then told me to wait.... and wait... 73, Kermit From: Mike Lisenco N2YBB <n2ybb@arrl.org> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com>; arrl-odv@arrl.org Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 8:48 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:26437] Re: WAS DROPPED That’s because you have to be over 18 to hear his sexond comments From: Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 9:35 PMTo: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26436] WAS DROPPED I was dropped during Mike Raisback's sexond comments and have not been allowed to rejoin #yiv0662485864 -- filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv0662485864 filtered {font-family:calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0662485864 p.yiv0662485864msonormal, #yiv0662485864 li.yiv0662485864msonormal, #yiv0662485864 div.yiv0662485864msonormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0662485864 a:link, #yiv0662485864 span.yiv0662485864msohyperlink {color:#0563c1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0662485864 a:visited, #yiv0662485864 span.yiv0662485864msohyperlinkfollowed {color:#954f72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0662485864 p.yiv0662485864msoplaintext, #yiv0662485864 li.yiv0662485864msoplaintext, #yiv0662485864 div.yiv0662485864msoplaintext {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0662485864 span.yiv0662485864plaintextchar {}#yiv0662485864 .yiv0662485864msochpdefault {}#yiv0662485864 filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0662485864 div.yiv0662485864wordsection1 {}#yiv0662485864 -Kermit W9XA_______________________________________________ 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
I saw your name among the list of those whose hands were raised to speak a second time. Then, all of a sudden, you had disappeared from view. I don't know what happened, but I can assure you that it was not anything that I had done. 73, Greg, K0GW On Monday, May 1, 2017, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I was dropped during Mike Raisback's sexond comments and have not been allowed to rejoin
-Kermit W9XA
Hello Greg; I saw about the same thing - a message appeared that the feed was low-speed, then a message that the audio portion had beenlost, followed by a loss of the "panel" ... oh well. I would have liked tocomment but I can write a few pages for odv. For some reason thedial-in did not work for me as an alternative. Thank you for running the conference ! 73, Kermit From: G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> To: Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org" <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 9:02 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:26439] Re: WAS DROPPED I saw your name among the list of those whose hands were raised to speak a second time. Then, all of a sudden, you had disappeared from view. I don't know what happened, but I can assure you that it was not anything that I had done.73, Greg, K0GW On Monday, May 1, 2017, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: I was dropped during Mike Raisback's sexond comments and have not been allowed to rejoin -Kermit W9XA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (8)
-
Bob Famiglio, K3RF -
Dale Williams -
David Norris -
G Widin -
Kermit Carlson -
Mike Lisenco N2YBB -
Mike Raisbeck -
Northwestern Division Director