---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:28 PM Subject: Issue Involving League Travel Expenses and Alcohol Policy To: David Norris <david.norris.k5uz@gmail.com>, Rod Blocksome K0DAS < rod.blocksome@gmail.com>, Dale Williams WA8EFK <dale.wms1@frontier.com> While reviewing Mr. Imlay's invoices and travel expense reimbursement forms, I was not pleased to see what is described below. Particularly when we have recently had inquisitions and trials where Imlay's drinking buddies serve simultaneously as prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors. Then, it is found out that Mr. Imlay is paying for their drinks, or at least giving them the impression that he is paying for them. I prepared the following E-mail for ODV, but have not sent it out. As I found the behavior not to conform to my ethical standards, the questions are intended to be provocative. Have you any opinion about sending it? 73, Dick ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by a League contractor in connection with his attendance at a March 12, 2016 Executive Committee meeting shows expenses of $75.87 on 03/11/2016 and $40.15 on 03/12/2016, identified as "Bar tab for EC members." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by the League contractor in connection with his attendance at a July 2016 Board meeting shows an expense of $24.74 on 07/14/2016, identified as "Bar tab evening 7/14." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. A Travel Expense Reimbursement Form submitted by the League contractor in connection with his attendance at an October 22, 2016 Executive Committee meeting shows expenses of $235.26 on 10/21/2016 and $44.76 on 10/22/2016, identified as "Bar tab with EC members." No specific persons are listed in the Explanation section of the report. These $421 expenses for alcohol seem to possibly not be in concordance with the League policy of having all directors and officers pay for their own drinks before and during the group dinners held during Board meetings. In addition to the question of compliance with League policies, this type of expense brings up the question of possible improper influence on Board members when they are or will be acting on issues involving the contractor. To stimulate your thinking on the matter, here are some questions that I hope you will possibly find provocative in that they may emphasize viewpoints that you may not have considered otherwise. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- *□ Agree □ Disagree *The expense report's explanation should have identified the drink's recipients. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All the recipients of the drinks were aware that the contractor was later reimbursed by the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree** T*hose who pay for their drinks before and during group dinners can simply report these costs on their expense forms and get reimbursed for them. *□ Agree □ Disagree* It is acceptable for the League to pay for drinks at all times. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Although it is not present policy,* t*he League should start paying for drinks before and during dinner. *□ Agree □ Disagree* It is acceptable for the League to pay for drinks if costs are laundered through a contractor. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is absolutely no ethical issue involved with a contractor appearing to absorb these expenses. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is absolutely no ethical issue involved with the contractor submitting these costs for reimbursement. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All board members and officers are entitled to have alcoholic beverage expenses reimbursed by the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree* If alcoholic drinks were paid for by the individuals who consumed them, and the costs were identified as alcohol and included on the individual expense forms, they would have been reimbursed. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Whereas having the League openly fund alcohol before dinners is unwise, after dinner there is no problem. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All persons who accepted drinks paid for by the contractor should identify themselves. *□ Agree □ Disagree* All persons who accepted drinks should reimburse the contractor, and the contractor should reimburse the League. *□ Agree □ Disagree* There is no problem with accepting drinks from someone and then serving as a juror in a case involving that person. *□ Agree □ Disagree* Persons who accepted drinks paid for by a contractor and then served as a juror in a case involving the contractor would have no problem if the league membership were made aware of these actions. *□ Agree □ Disagree *Paying for drinks would have no impact on voting for, or against, innovative treatment of a professional contractor, such as voting to indemnify him from costs that would conventionally be covered by malpractice insurance. *□ Agree □ Disagree* If certain Board members have found and are using a method to have their drinks paid for by the League, other Board members have no business even knowing about it or questioning it. *□ Agree □ Disagree* The director asking these questions should be censured or removed from office for "conducting an investigation."