Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:36:33 -0500
From: EC Luzerne County ARES <ec@w3luz.org>
Disclaimer - I have cleaned up this message by removing the Yahoo Advertising and some of the extraneous email headers. The remainder of the content is how I received it.
I would really rather be wishing you Glad Tidings of Joy but this arrived in my inbox from the Traffic Handlers forum. Seems to me that it is time we start letting our Directors know how they should vote. If the members want it then Fiduciary Responsibility be damned. Last time I checked the ARRL was an organization for its members and not for financial profit.
Summary - below is a notification that came from the Traffic Handlers forum. It is about a proposed change to the ARRL Articles of Association and Bylaws. As stated by Mr. Lisenco in his comments it is to give voting privileges to ARRL President and Vice Presidents. Note that the ARRL President and Vice Presidents are not elected by the members. They are Directors who are elected to their offices by the Board of Directors. Currently, the President, and 3 Vice-Presidents do NOT have voting privileges. Mr. Lisenco, in his motions, desires to give "Directorships" to the holders of these positions.
As detailed below this unbalances the representation of the ARRL Board of Directors among the Divisions.
In my opinion - the motions by Mr. Lisenco are nothing more than an effort to move the control of the ARRL away from the members and more into the hands of those who have too much control already. I urge you to contact your Division Director, indicate that you want him as your elected representative to vote no on these motions and that you want a recorded vote on the motions so that you know how your Director voted.
And personally, I think that Mr. Lisenco's doing this in the December time frame when we are all focused on the Holiday smacks of the political maneuvering that we abhor in Washington. It is about time he stops writing these motions that will do nothing more than power consolidation and start writing a motion to rescind the Board's Standards of Governance and have a version written that will respect the members.
And one more 'and'. We got this way because of the apathy of the membership about what goes on in Newington. Either we change now or forget the ARRL ever being a membership organization again.
And a very Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Seasons Greetings, and a Happy Holidays to all of you.
73,
WT Jones
WN3LIF
ARRL Amateur Radio Emergency Service��
Section Emergency Coordinator - Eastern PA ARRL Section
District Emergency Coordinator - EPA District 3
Emergency Coordinator - Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
http://www.w3luz.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bob Wilson, N6TV via Chat <chat@ncdxc.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:17 PM
Subject: [NCDXC Chat] Major Change to ARRL By Laws proposed by Hudson Div. Director N2YBB
To: NCCC Reflector <nccc@contesting.com>, NCCC BoD Plus <nccc-bod-plus@nccc.cc>, MLDXCC Reflector <mldxcc@contesting.com>, NCDXC Reflector <chat@ncdxc.org>, Jim Tiemstra <k6jat@arrl.net>
"ARRL is a representative democracy � its members control its pollicies through the power of the ballot."
Source: http://www.arrl.org/organization-structure
This could change quickly.
ARRL Hudson Division Director Mike Lisenco, N2YBB, the same Director who negotiated the flawed Amateur Radio Parity Act, is now proposing a major change to the longstanding voting rules of the ARRL Board of Directors. Instead of 15 Directors having sole voting privileges, one per ARRL Division, he is proposing to give additional voting privileges to the ARRL President (K5UR) and the three (3) ARRL Vice Presidents (K0GW, N5ZGT, K0QB), none of whom are elected directly by the membership. Effectively, the Dakota Division (ND, SD, and MN) would get 15.8% of the voting power (3 out of 19 votes) even though they represent less than 3% of the ARRL membership. It also means that even if all five Directors up for election this summer are replaced, instead of a potential 8 to 7 majority in favor of more BoD openness, they would now represent an 8 to 11 minority.
To review, these five directors (including N2YBB) all supported the revised Amateur Radio Parity Act, they all voted in favor of the flawed Code of Conduct, and they all voted in favor of the censuring of N6AA.
I've published N2YBB's proposed changes to the ARRL By-Laws as a single PDF file here:
https://bit.ly/N2YBBmotions
I hereby urge our Director, W6RGG, and all ARRL Directors, to vote AGAINST this proposal. It's an obvious move to put more power into the hands of those who already have it, instead of into the hands the ARRL membership where it belongs.
Feel free to forward these messages
73,
Bob, N6TV
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Here are some proposed changes to the ARRL Articles of Association and By-Laws that have been submitted by the Hudson Division Director. Note that he has given permission to talk to anyone about it as shown in the note now at the top.
---------------------------------------------------�
From:� Mike Lisenco <n2ybb@arrl.org>As far as I know you can talk about it to anyone. Also, why would you think the cover text is confidential. I also have no problem attaching my name especially since I wrote the damn thing.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------
The Secretary has received the attached seven changes to the Articles of Association and By-Laws than Director Lisenco will be making at the January board meeting.� They have been received and circulated more than 30-days before the January 19th meeting.
Mike has asked that we include his brief statement (below) as part of this notification.
I am introducing a number of amendments to the Articles of Association and the By-Laws that are designed to grant voting privileges to the President and the three Vice-Presidents.� They would have voting equality with the Directors on all matters with one notable exception.� They would not be able to vote in elections for the officer positions.
I believe that this is long overdue.� We look to elect from the Board those who we feel would be the best leaders of the Board, yet we take their vote away as the price of admission.� That diminishes their authority and their ability to lead.� It also makes the potential officer talent pool smaller as, perhaps, the best person for the job won���t run for an officer position because they lose their vote.
It doesn���t make sense to me to continue this practice.� Let���s get away from the ���that���s how we always have done it��� mentality.
It make sense that we allow the officers the right to vote.� Yes, it does change the political landscape but I think it���s for the better and it will make the Board stronger.
I���d be interested in what you think on the matter.� We have over a month to come to a consensus.
Thank you.
73 de Mike N2YBB