[arrl-odv:29117] Two Motions
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________***
John, There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board: 1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ? 2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads: *Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.* 4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this? 5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this. 73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hi Rod, “Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.” The problem I have with the current system is that for candidates, is that it provides no mechanism for candidates themselves to witness the ballot counts unless they collect 10 signatures. Candidates at the very least should be entitled to witness their own ballot counting. It would seem that incumbents are entitled to do so because sitting directors don’t have to ask permission. 40 people? That would be an extraordinary circumstance. We had 6 seats contested (5 plus one Vice Director) last year but that was only because of a significant effort. I really doubt that it would be duplicated on a regular basis. Certainly not every election. But what is stopping people now from collecting 10 signatures now at a club meeting and taking a bus trip to HQ? Again, this would be an extraordinary circumstance. We could easily have 200 people up there under the current system. “ Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers” Easy fix: (g) Attendance by any candidate <b>or designated representative</b> at the counting of the ballots for the candidate’s race will be at the sole expense of the candidate <b> or designated representative</b> But again. The current by laws don’t address this either. So I go back to the bus trip scenario. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board:
1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ?
2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads:
*Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.*
4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this?
5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers
Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.
73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org 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
Hi Ria, Thanks for your thoughts and comments, I think the present process for candidates to witness ballot counting is *not biased* relative to the candidate being an incumbent or challenger. Both must gather the 10 signatures of members. That doesn't seem unreasonable - remember they each had to do that to become candidates on the ballot. A incumbent director is not allowed to "drop in" the ballot counting room. I refer you to Standing Order 84-1.44 which spells out details of the ballot counting process. One might ponder why the third paragraph of bylaw 20 require the 10 signatures and a deadline some 6 months ahead of ballot counting as requirements for an observer. It seems to me the reason is to make sure the individual is serious about attending AND to give HQ staff adequate time to make the necessary preparations to accommodate the vetted observers. My thoughts - 73's, Rod, K0DAS On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rod,
“Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.”
The problem I have with the current system is that for candidates, is that it provides no mechanism for candidates themselves to witness the ballot counts unless they collect 10 signatures.
Candidates at the very least should be entitled to witness their own ballot counting. It would seem that incumbents are entitled to do so because sitting directors don’t have to ask permission.
40 people? That would be an extraordinary circumstance. We had 6 seats contested (5 plus one Vice Director) last year but that was only because of a significant effort. I really doubt that it would be duplicated on a regular basis. Certainly not every election.
But what is stopping people now from collecting 10 signatures now at a club meeting and taking a bus trip to HQ? Again, this would be an extraordinary circumstance. We could easily have 200 people up there under the current system.
“ Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers”
Easy fix:
(g) Attendance by any candidate <b>or designated representative</b> at the counting of the ballots for the candidate’s race will be at the sole expense of the candidate <b> or designated representative</b>
But again. The current by laws don’t address this either. So I go back to the bus trip scenario.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board:
1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ?
2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads:
*Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.*
4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this?
5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers
Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.
73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org 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
Rod, did you mean 6 weeks rather than 6 months? snip- Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on *or before the first day of October *of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so. endsnip- ? Mark, HDX On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:58 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ria,
Thanks for your thoughts and comments,
I think the present process for candidates to witness ballot counting is *not biased* relative to the candidate being an incumbent or challenger. Both must gather the 10 signatures of members. That doesn't seem unreasonable - remember they each had to do that to become candidates on the ballot. A incumbent director is not allowed to "drop in" the ballot counting room. I refer you to Standing Order 84-1.44 which spells out details of the ballot counting process.
One might ponder why the third paragraph of bylaw 20 require the 10 signatures and a deadline some 6 months ahead of ballot counting as requirements for an observer. It seems to me the reason is to make sure the individual is serious about attending AND to give HQ staff adequate time to make the necessary preparations to accommodate the vetted observers.
My thoughts - 73's, Rod, K0DAS
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rod,
“Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.”
The problem I have with the current system is that for candidates, is that it provides no mechanism for candidates themselves to witness the ballot counts unless they collect 10 signatures.
Candidates at the very least should be entitled to witness their own ballot counting. It would seem that incumbents are entitled to do so because sitting directors don’t have to ask permission.
40 people? That would be an extraordinary circumstance. We had 6 seats contested (5 plus one Vice Director) last year but that was only because of a significant effort. I really doubt that it would be duplicated on a regular basis. Certainly not every election.
But what is stopping people now from collecting 10 signatures now at a club meeting and taking a bus trip to HQ? Again, this would be an extraordinary circumstance. We could easily have 200 people up there under the current system.
“ Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers”
Easy fix:
(g) Attendance by any candidate <b>or designated representative</b> at the counting of the ballots for the candidate’s race will be at the sole expense of the candidate <b> or designated representative</b>
But again. The current by laws don’t address this either. So I go back to the bus trip scenario.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board:
1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ?
2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads:
*Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.*
4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this?
5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers
Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.
73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org 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
Thanks for catching that error Mark. Yes, it should read "6 Weeks" 73, Rod On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:35 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Rod, did you mean 6 weeks rather than 6 months?
snip- Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on *or before the first day of October *of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so. endsnip-
? Mark, HDX
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 8:58 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ria,
Thanks for your thoughts and comments,
I think the present process for candidates to witness ballot counting is *not biased* relative to the candidate being an incumbent or challenger. Both must gather the 10 signatures of members. That doesn't seem unreasonable - remember they each had to do that to become candidates on the ballot. A incumbent director is not allowed to "drop in" the ballot counting room. I refer you to Standing Order 84-1.44 which spells out details of the ballot counting process.
One might ponder why the third paragraph of bylaw 20 require the 10 signatures and a deadline some 6 months ahead of ballot counting as requirements for an observer. It seems to me the reason is to make sure the individual is serious about attending AND to give HQ staff adequate time to make the necessary preparations to accommodate the vetted observers.
My thoughts - 73's, Rod, K0DAS
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rod,
“Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.”
The problem I have with the current system is that for candidates, is that it provides no mechanism for candidates themselves to witness the ballot counts unless they collect 10 signatures.
Candidates at the very least should be entitled to witness their own ballot counting. It would seem that incumbents are entitled to do so because sitting directors don’t have to ask permission.
40 people? That would be an extraordinary circumstance. We had 6 seats contested (5 plus one Vice Director) last year but that was only because of a significant effort. I really doubt that it would be duplicated on a regular basis. Certainly not every election.
But what is stopping people now from collecting 10 signatures now at a club meeting and taking a bus trip to HQ? Again, this would be an extraordinary circumstance. We could easily have 200 people up there under the current system.
“ Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers”
Easy fix:
(g) Attendance by any candidate <b>or designated representative</b> at the counting of the ballots for the candidate’s race will be at the sole expense of the candidate <b> or designated representative</b>
But again. The current by laws don’t address this either. So I go back to the bus trip scenario.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board:
1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ?
2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads:
*Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.*
4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this?
5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers
Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.
73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org 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
John, With regard to your Open Meeting motion, I believe there are better ways to accomplish your objectives. Members desire to know not only what resolutions are passed during a Board meeting, but also to understand some of the reasoning and dialog that accompanied the discussion. In fact, many of us as Board members have been frustrated by the sparse nature of the minutes when trying to understand the reasoning of the Board after the fact. Though the current form of the minutes follows the guidance of Robert’s Rules of Order, this format is not serving us well—Board and members. The Committee on Communications has discussed this issue and agreed to propose a change in the form of our Board minutes. Essentially, this would change the “motion-only” format we now use to one which records salient points made during the Board’s discussion, usually with attribution to the person making the comments. This format would provide the reasoning behind motions while avoiding having to accommodate spectators. Most importantly, it would retain the ability of the Board to discuss items in a manner that, while not requiring a committee of the whole, would preserve the Board’s ability to engage in significant give-and-take during the Board meeting. The presence of observers would likely reduce or eliminate some of that dialog. The Committee on Communications will offer a motion to change the Board minutes as described above, including examples contrasting the current format with that proposed. The committee believes that this format will be the least disruptive to Board functioning, while providing useful information to members. I note as well that this change, if adopted, would not require an amendment to the Articles. 73, Greg, K0GW On Monday, December 16, 2019, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________*
I am not really opposed to members observing our meetings but I feel that allowing any and everyone to be physically present could lead to disruption. I don’t really think I can be on board with this. I will support streaming or audio recordings on the website accessible to members only. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:08 AM G Widin <gpwidin@comcast.net> wrote:
John, With regard to your Open Meeting motion, I believe there are better ways to accomplish your objectives.
Members desire to know not only what resolutions are passed during a Board meeting, but also to understand some of the reasoning and dialog that accompanied the discussion. In fact, many of us as Board members have been frustrated by the sparse nature of the minutes when trying to understand the reasoning of the Board after the fact. Though the current form of the minutes follows the guidance of Robert’s Rules of Order, this format is not serving us well—Board and members.
The Committee on Communications has discussed this issue and agreed to propose a change in the form of our Board minutes. Essentially, this would change the “motion-only” format we now use to one which records salient points made during the Board’s discussion, usually with attribution to the person making the comments. This format would provide the reasoning behind motions while avoiding having to accommodate spectators. Most importantly, it would retain the ability of the Board to discuss items in a manner that, while not requiring a committee of the whole, would preserve the Board’s ability to engage in significant give-and-take during the Board meeting. The presence of observers would likely reduce or eliminate some of that dialog.
The Committee on Communications will offer a motion to change the Board minutes as described above, including examples contrasting the current format with that proposed. The committee believes that this format will be the least disruptive to Board functioning, while providing useful information to members. I note as well that this change, if adopted, would not require an amendment to the Articles. 73, Greg, K0GW
On Monday, December 16, 2019, John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
John & ODV, Regarding your proposed motion "Open Meetings - 1", I have a few observations, concerns, and questions for the board to consider. 1 - Bylaw 25 sets parameters for two regularly scheduled board meetings - the annual meeting and the second meeting. Yet your proposed changes only addresses member attendance to the annual meeting. Was this an oversight and if not, what is the reason? 2 - I'm curious as to the rationale behind requiring 180-days of ARRL membership to be qualified to attend? 3 - My real concern with this motion is the very real potential for unintended consequences. Sections 4.4 & 4.5 of the Director's Workbook provide guidance in the handling of confidential matters within ODV. But would these guidelines apply to members sitting in on board meetings? If not, then I can see much more board work being done in a committee of the whole. Which, in turn, will not only frustrate the member observers but all of our members who read the minutes of the board meetings. The end result will easily be less transparency rather than more. I'm a firm believer that the best decisions to come out of a board depends greatly on the ability to have free, healthy, and candid debates and discussions. To open the board meetings up to live audio or video streaming and/or large numbers of member observers is going to severely hinder these debates and discussion and hence our ability to accomplish work. I do believe we should try to capture in the official minutes the important points presented during the discussion of the motion as much as possible without giving away details of plans, strategy, personnel issues, financial & business issues, etc. and always following the confidentiality guidelines in The Director's Workbook sections 4.4 & 4.5. This would give members more insight than the usual "Moved, Seconded, Discussed, Motion passes" minutes required by Robert's Rules of Order. Perhaps there are other ways to keep members better informed without impinging on the ability of the board to make informed and deliberative decisions? Over .... and Merry Christmas, Rod, K0DAS On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Dear Rod, John, ODV, ARRL is not the only member association that wrestles with the concept of open Board meetings. I've attached an article written by a Fellow of the ASAE, and a lawyer who specialty appears to be association related topics. I've previously shared this article with Greg's Committee on Communications. It offers some good insights and suggestions along the lines of what Greg talked about regarding meeting minutes. 73, Howard, WB2ITX On 12/19/2019 5:07 PM, Rod Blocksome wrote: John & ODV, Regarding your proposed motion "Open Meetings - 1", I have a few observations, concerns, and questions for the board to consider. 1 - Bylaw 25 sets parameters for two regularly scheduled board meetings - the annual meeting and the second meeting. Yet your proposed changes only addresses member attendance to the annual meeting. Was this an oversight and if not, what is the reason? 2 - I'm curious as to the rationale behind requiring 180-days of ARRL membership to be qualified to attend? 3 - My real concern with this motion is the very real potential for unintended consequences. Sections 4.4 & 4.5 of the Director's Workbook provide guidance in the handling of confidential matters within ODV. But would these guidelines apply to members sitting in on board meetings? If not, then I can see much more board work being done in a committee of the whole. Which, in turn, will not only frustrate the member observers but all of our members who read the minutes of the board meetings. The end result will easily be less transparency rather than more. I'm a firm believer that the best decisions to come out of a board depends greatly on the ability to have free, healthy, and candid debates and discussions. To open the board meetings up to live audio or video streaming and/or large numbers of member observers is going to severely hinder these debates and discussion and hence our ability to accomplish work. I do believe we should try to capture in the official minutes the important points presented during the discussion of the motion as much as possible without giving away details of plans, strategy, personnel issues, financial & business issues, etc. and always following the confidentiality guidelines in The Director's Workbook sections 4.4 & 4.5. This would give members more insight than the usual "Moved, Seconded, Discussed, Motion passes" minutes required by Robert's Rules of Order. Perhaps there are other ways to keep members better informed without impinging on the ability of the board to make informed and deliberative decisions? Over .... and Merry Christmas, Rod, K0DAS On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com<mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com>> wrote: Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org>
Howard, That's an excellent article - Thanks for posting it. There is a lot of good information that will give the board some good ideas on handling this tricky issue. Regards, Rod On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:31 PM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) < wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote:
Dear Rod, John, ODV,
ARRL is not the only member association that wrestles with the concept of open Board meetings. I've attached an article written by a Fellow of the ASAE, and a lawyer who specialty appears to be association related topics.
I've previously shared this article with Greg's Committee on Communications. It offers some good insights and suggestions along the lines of what Greg talked about regarding meeting minutes.
73, Howard, WB2ITX On 12/19/2019 5:07 PM, Rod Blocksome wrote:
John & ODV,
Regarding your proposed motion "Open Meetings - 1", I have a few observations, concerns, and questions for the board to consider.
1 - Bylaw 25 sets parameters for two regularly scheduled board meetings - the annual meeting and the second meeting. Yet your proposed changes only addresses member attendance to the annual meeting. Was this an oversight and if not, what is the reason?
2 - I'm curious as to the rationale behind requiring 180-days of ARRL membership to be qualified to attend?
3 - My real concern with this motion is the very real potential for unintended consequences. Sections 4.4 & 4.5 of the Director's Workbook provide guidance in the handling of confidential matters within ODV. But would these guidelines apply to members sitting in on board meetings? If not, then I can see much more board work being done in a committee of the whole. Which, in turn, will not only frustrate the member observers but all of our members who read the minutes of the board meetings. The end result will easily be less transparency rather than more.
I'm a firm believer that the best decisions to come out of a board depends greatly on the ability to have free, healthy, and candid debates and discussions. To open the board meetings up to live audio or video streaming and/or large numbers of member observers is going to severely hinder these debates and discussion and hence our ability to accomplish work.
I do believe we should try to capture in the official minutes the important points presented during the discussion of the motion as much as possible without giving away details of plans, strategy, personnel issues, financial & business issues, etc. and always following the confidentiality guidelines in The Director's Workbook sections 4.4 & 4.5. This would give members more insight than the usual "Moved, Seconded, Discussed, Motion passes" minutes required by Robert's Rules of Order.
Perhaps there are other ways to keep members better informed without impinging on the ability of the board to make informed and deliberative decisions? Over .... and Merry Christmas, Rod, K0DAS
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org
Leadership team, Those of you who study management know exactly why organizations thrive, stagnate or even die - culture. Organizational culture drives everything else. Organizational culture is simply the way that everyone, collectively views the organization. I'm proud to be a part of the great tradition of the ARRL, a 105 year old organization. I'm proud of our traditions. BUT - to grow and attract new members, we must change our CULTURE to more resemble a technology organization. *Comments on By-Law 20 - Candidate Rights* Paper ballot voting is one of the indicators of a culture of the 20th century. If we want to change the organizational culture, this is a good place to start. I've heard the arguments, I saw what happened in the very low apparent turnouts in 2013, we can all find the election results to verify them. But the procedure was complicated and flawed. Quite honestly, I thought at the time that the League was in trouble if this is the best system they could implement. There are a number of organizations that will handle the entire process and deliver audited results, likely for a similar cost of our mailing ballots - two thirds of which are obviously discarded. Mr. Stratton, I believe that the procedure that you create in your bylaw proposal would work fine. Honestly, during my recent election, I told those members who asked that I trusted the process and thought that the folks counting the ballots (and my opponent) were inherently honest people. Perhaps I'm foolish, but I expect integrity in the process until it is demonstrated otherwise. To conclude, I believe that a online vendor with experience in nonprofit boards of organizations our size should be solicited to deliver proposals by the July meeting and we should modify the bylaws to accommodate electronic voting ONLY with provision for authenticated telephone or other ADA accommodation for our disabled members. *Therefore, I request that this proposal be amended to consider electronic voting only as the future of our election process.* My logic is that we must change the culture to RECOGNIZE that we ARE a TECHNOLOGY organization and step out of the 20th century. *Comments on By-Law 25, Open Meetings* The "average" amateur radio operator who is not within commuting distance to the Newington, CT, would need to travel to attend these meetings as proposed. Over time, this would result in a lack of diversity of attendees - personal attendees would likely be local people, or people who can take time off work to attend. Building a gallery of observers of the well heeled, perhaps those with business interests in amateur radio in anathema to my constituents desire to make the ARRL and amateur radio more diverse by attracting Technicians and beginners to be involved. *Therefore I am opposed to the open meetings as proposed, basically because of this and the obvious capacity and logistic issues anticipated in the language of the proposal itself. * *However, I would support video or audio live viewing and recording. This is not nearly as complex as it was a few years ago.* I realize that this may seem radical to some of you, but I assure you that it is easily and inexpensively done and ALL members could view the meetings. 73, Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (7)
-
G Widin -
John Robert Stratton -
Mark J Tharp -
Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) -
Mickey Baker -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
Rod Blocksome