Good Morning Fellow Hams,
See N6NB letter at bottom. Have you sent YOUR! letter?
It's not good enough that your club sent a letter.
Let ALL the directors know how YOU feel.
Email list below. Just copy and paste into To block of your email.
ARRL board meets in one week. Do it NOW! before it's too late.
73,
Hank, W6SX
w3tom@arrl.org,
w9xa@arrl.org,
k0bbc@arrl.org <ka0ldg@arrl.org>,
k5uz@arrl.org,
wa8efk@arrl.org,
n2ybb@arrl.org,
k0das@arrl.org,
k1ki@arrl.org,
k7cex@arrl.org,
w6rgg@arrl.org,
N2ZZ@arrl.org,
wy7fd@arrl.org,
gsarratt@arrl.org,
n6aa@arrl.org,
k5rav@arrl.org,
k6jat@arrl.org,
ny2rf@arrl.org
<ny2rf@arrl.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Overbeck via SCCC <sccc@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:54 AM
Subject: [SCCC] N6NB's message of concern
To: sccc@contesting.com
Members of the Board of Directors
ARRL, the National Association for Amateur Radio
Newington, CT 06111
Dear Members of the Board:
As a former four-term vice director and ARRL member since 1957, I never
before
considered submitting a letter like this to the Board of Directors.
However, the
board now faces the most serious threat to its credibility since the
incentive licensing
controversy 50 years ago. In fact, the current crisis is more serious
because so
many of those who are concerned about recent and proposed board actions are
prominent and highly respected leaders of amateur radio.
I believe the board must act quickly to reaffirm its commitment to
democratic principles
if it is to avoid long-term damage to ARRL's effectiveness and its
endowment.
The new code of conduct, which is widely perceived as a gag rule to silence
directors
who may disagree with ARRL policy, must be abolished. It cannot be saved by
wordsmithing or spin-doctoring. Directors must be free to express their
views on
all matters to the members who elected them, even if what they say could be
deemed
to disparage ARRL itself. Their primary loyalty must be to the membership.
The code
of conduct is fundamentally at odds with that principle.
Moreover, the board needs to reaffirm its commitment to free elections. No
committee
should be allowed to disqualify board candidates who meet the written
qualifications for
the position. The membership must be free to elect any legally qualified
candidate,
regardless of his or her stance on any issue or any undefined "conflict of
interest."
A committee that can remove candidates from the ballot with seeming
arbitrariness
reminds a lot of us of a "guardian council" that disqualifies potential
candidates for their
lack of ideological purity in some countries. It has no place in a
democratic organization.
Equally undemocratic is the proposal to allow ARRL memberships to be
arbitrarily
revoked. That could also be used to undercut free elections. And the
recent proposal
to dilute elected directors' votes by giving a board vote to persons not
elected by the
members is still another action that would undermine ARRL's status as a
democratic
organization.
Above all, the board must bring sunshine to its governance process.
Frankly, during
the many board meetings I attended, too many things happened that would
never
withstand public scrutiny. The minutes rarely provided a complete picture
of what
really happened at those meetings. The best solution is to open board
meetings to
any member who wishes to attend. When ARRL was established and its
governing
documents were written to allow closed board meetings, sunshine laws were
rare
even for government agencies. The federal Freedom of Information Act was
not
enacted until 1967 and the Government in the Sunshine Act came even later.
Now we live in a different time. Today the public and ARRL members expect
even
private membership associations to be far more open and transparent than
they did
when ARRL was founded.
In short, I believe the board must work to restore public confidence by
recognizing
full freedom of speech for directors, assuring free elections and opening
board meetings
to members. It's been very heartening to see the huge outpouring of
support for an
open and democratic ARRL. Now the board needs to address these issues.
In addition, the board should reconsider the recent censure of director
Norton. His
alleged offense was nothing more than making members aware of the existence
of the
new code of conduct. After hearing him discuss this issue in two venues, I
believe
his presentations were not only accurate but also very much in the best
interests of
ARRL and its members. He deserves praise, not censure, for supporting
members'
right to know.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne Overbeck, N6NB
Life member and former vice director
(Circulated Jan. 10, 2018)
_______________________________________________
SCCC mailing list
SCCC@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|