[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Gary J. Ferdinand]

Gollllllly!  Amusing, but save us from the lawyers, please!  And to think I
was about to let this go, figuring I had made my point.  I don't think so.

Perhaps what we all should do from this point on is measure our directors on
their ability to consult with the membership over non-mundane items.  If,
when (re)nomination time comes around, we have a few directors who think
that member involvment is superfluous, one of us in those divisions should
get off our butts and get nominated in opposition.  Doing so would have
nothing to do with who is a friend or who is a nice guy/gal, but rather who
is effective.

Otherwise, you're right, Ward.  All this discussion about how the Board
behaved is just venting and will amount to nothing and we'd all best "cool
down [W0CP]" and polish up our delete keys for any of us left who can't take
the apathy hint.

How about a "Contester and DXer ARRL Political Reform Party?"  With the
internet it shouldn't take up much time to compare notes and keep score on
who's doing a good job involving the membership and who is ignoring us or
treating us with distain.  The ARRL is our (only) organization; perhaps it's
time we devoted some serious ergs to taking it back.

Or maybe we're all too busy contesting, DXing and running our daily lives
(very probably).

73/Gary W2CS








> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cq-contest at contesting.com
> [mailto:owner-cq-contest at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Ford Peterson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:29 PM
> To: cq-Contest at contesting.com
> 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