[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Guy Olinger, K2AV]

Unfortunately it's not a dead horse. Just some of the public becoming
tired of the same headlines.

I have spent my time in the ARRL. Both Gary and I put in the time as
the Section Manager of ENY. So it's not the ignorant outsider calling
the professional insider dirty names.

Go ahead and laugh it off, but what Gary is complaining about is the
same thing that has been wrong for all these years, save the bright
time when W4KFC was president, and some of this in-crowd stuff began
to abate.

Alas, the transformation he would have accomplished was cut off by his
untimely death, and things reverted to "normal".

The problem is that the Board thinks that they are supposed to decide
themselves, and overall do a terrible job of really involving the
membership in directions, etc. ("Professional" polls notwithstanding.)
Having a procedure on paper is not the same thing as having the pulse
of the people. There are individual bright spots (WARC, etc), not a
bright corporate attitude.

After stomping around in that ARRL barnyard for 40+ years, and paying
my dues money & otherwise, I'm not impressed when someone takes a
dried out horse patty, pours molasses on it and offers it as a
pancake.

I am absolutely sure, that without all the ruckus, the contesting
community was getting horse and molasses. The ruckus is what will give
us the good solution sifted from the junk. It is also quite clear,
coming back by more channels than the reflectors, that there are those
up there who are really peeved that we got involved. We will do OK
now, as long as we don't let those who are tired of the subject keep
us from pursuing this to a good conclusion. There are some really good
ideas involving a revised internet/magazine mix.

If the only way to get the ARRL to respond is with a court case that
will somehow get past insider objections, it's as good as dead long
term.

Truth be, vitriol ala Gary is sometimes the only way to get their
attention.

Rock on, Gary. You earned it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Peterson" <ford at cmgate.com>
To: <cq-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did



I would guess that this comment garnered a lot of credibility and
support for
our cause...

>...  IT'S THE BOARD'S PROCESS, STUPID!
>

> It appears to me ...

I object your honor.  This is a hostile witness entering conjecture as
evidence.

Sustained.  The witness will limit discussion to the facts.
Continue...

>...that, had this Admin/Finance report and proposal not leaked out,

I object your honor.  This is hearsay evidence.  Sustained.

The witness to restrain their comments to nothing but facts.
Continue...

> there would have been the usual affirmative vote from the Board and
> some form of the proposal, perhaps the exact recommendation,  would
have
> been enacted.

I object your honor.  The witness is imputing actions that never
occurred.
Sustained.

The witness is instructed to present evidence or stand down.
Continue.

> Enacted without any membership input whatsoever.  On a major item
dealing
with our
> organization's Journal.

I object your honor.  The witness has no ability to measure the
defendants
ability to weigh the desires of his constituents.  Further, the
witness is
using inflammatory mannerisms "whatsoever" to sway the jury's
judgement on
the matter.

Sustained.  Under the circumstances, I must issue a final warning to
the
witness.  Further abuses and this court will have no option but to
hold the
witness in contempt.  Continue.

> To you and the Board this appears to be merely a "balance the
numbers"
> exercise.  To me, it has become a fundamental question of whether
this
Board
> can distinguish ahead of time which issues are mundane and which are
of
> substance - and act accordingly.  Why wasn't the report and its
> recommendation posted on the web site with a suitable (like a month)
period
> of time for the affected communities to discuss it and any
alternatives,
and
> then get with their directors?  Why wasn't this, or a similar
process,
used?

I object your honor.  The witness is implying from his testimony that
the
defendant has acted in a manner inconsistent with his obligations.
What the
witness has attempted to do is needlessly biasing the jury into
thinking the
defendant has acted outside of his purview of authority, when in fact,
the
defendant's first obligation to the membership he serves is to
"balance the
numbers."  Further, the witness is attempting to bias the jury into
believing that the outcome of the defendants actions were in some way
inconsistent with this witnesses own desires.  The board acted to
delay
final decisions for 6 months instead of the witnesses recommendation
of 30
days.

WHAM!

I hold this witness in contempt.  Will the bailiff please escort this
witness from this room immediately.  If he resists, remove him in
chains...

This court will take a short recess before the next witness is called.

**************************

Go ahead guys.  I got the delete key all warmed up and ready for the
hate
mail.  Hans, just to set the record straight, this is not a slam
against
Gary.  Rather, please interpret this as one ham hoping that this dead
horse
has been kicked for the last time.

Ford-N0FP
ford at cmgate.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com