What kind of 1800's thinking is this code? How do they become so elite as to not have to tell the members what truly is going on. I believe that the concept of freedom of speech is indeed gone in the BOD for ARRL. Do we really not want to contest this?
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:jay@west.net] Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017 6:10 PM To: Darryl Widman; Dorothy Oksner K6DSO; Tom Saunders N6YX; Levi Maaia K6LCM; Theo Howe KK6YYZ; Michael Taylor K6RQV; brian@k6bpm.com; Bob Muller K6CTX Cc: Rod Fritz WB9KMO (rod@sbatv.org); Jay Hennigan WB6RDV; Marvin Johnston KE6HTS; Rick Whitaker KG6VLM; Ron Fugate N6ANF; Al Soenke; Bill Talanian W1UUQ; List, SBARC Subject: Re: Action against Dick Norton, N6AA
On 12/1/17 1:40 AM, Darryl Widman wrote:
My Dear Friends, Is this something we might want to comment upon at our next gathering? Dick Norton, N6AA, Director of the ARRL Southwestern Division has been a friend of SBARC for many years, albeit not to the extent of previous Directors, ie. Art Goddard, W6XD, or Fried Heyn, WA6WZO. The action of the ARRL Board of Directors against him gives one pause and makes us wonder if we ought consider another to run for his seat when his term expires.
In my opinion, absolutely not, and we should donate to his re-election campaign. Long opinion follows. Summary is that ARRL has put him in a Catch-22.
Research the details. Here's the timeline from what I can find in public documentation:
January 2017: ARRL adopted a document titled "ARRL POLICY ON BOARD GOVERNANCE AND CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND VICE DIRECTORS" aka "Code of conduct". It is mostly reasonable and standard language, but there are some issues regarding "loyalty" and "confidentiality" that are concerning. Example is section 6c which prohibits a board member from discussing how board members voted on an issue, including how the member himself voted. Contrast this with SBARC and most non-profits where the board meetings are open to the membership and even the public. All of section 8 is particularly onerous. A board member's constituency may request an issue be brought before the board. The member argues in favor of his or her constituency and gets voted down. That member can't acknowledge that he tried. He can't say how he voted. He must go back to those who elected him and lie that he favors the actions of the Board against those that elected him, or at least pretend that he supports the Board.
In my opinion, this stinks to high heaven. How can we as the members make an informed choice to elect representatives if they are barred from telling us how they represent us and how they vote and are forced to pretend that all is rosy in Newington? Full text here: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/ARRL%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf
April 2017: DX convention was held in Visalia where there was an ARRL forum. Dick Norton attended and mentioned the existence of the new code and how it impacted his ability to communicate with members. He said (as required by the code, whether true or not) that he fully supported the code. Audience member Mark Weiss K6FG questioned the wisdom of the ARRL code of conduct and said that it stunk. He got a standing ovation. The rest of the audience agreed with him. This is as reported here: http://www.kb6nu.com/heck-arrl-board-thinking/
November 20, 2017: ARRL censures Dick Norton cryptically with no detail or offer of evidence. As per the new code, we as members are prohibited from knowing how our representatives voted.
As far as I can tell, Dick's only crime was letting his constituents know that this egregious policy existed and how it limited his ability to communicate, all while claiming that he fully supported it.
I certainly hope that this results in a major Streisand Effect problem for the League.
See also:
https://sites.google.com/site/hamsforabetterarrl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/7fboef/what_the_heck_is_the_a...
Further, if as Darryl suggests, someone were to run for Dick's position and campaign on a platform of overturning the current code of ethics, if that person were even allowed in the ballot by ARRL "Ethics and Elections Committee", he would be barred from communicating to those who elected him as to how he or anyone else voted.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV