Reading through this leaves a lasting stench of equine fecal matter on things ARRL.
Since when is it proper to stifle and silence dissenting opinions? Hams are diverse, so are their opinions. All should be presented for transparency and clarity of any situation. At this, the ARRL sucks, not even covering any discussion let alone dissenting opinions (even if no one cares to follow the drivel). Since meetings are closed or online, members are excluded and held in ignorance. Fog and obfuscation are their tools. Now one wonders how much is filtered (excluded) from minutes or written reports.
Just because a voice is contrary doesn’t mean it needs to be stifled. Listening doesn’t require agreement.
This is yet another reason (of too many) to be saddened that the ARRL is the only group voice available to represent our interests. I’m a member only for that (a failing hope), DXCC awards and the DX bureau and nothing else. The ARRL continues to disappoint in all other arenas primarily because of a stiff necked (dare say East Coast) attitude; heaven forbid a contrary opinion was offered.
I don’t goose-step, ever. As a member I will maintain my own opinions and voice even if it isn’t the party line. If they’re upset, I’m a already over it.
Remove section 8 of the policy and rescind the charge and resolution on any dissenters. It demands accepting fiat. Otherwise that’s ruling by fear. Let the winds of dissent clear away the fog. A united front is nice but statistically improbable in a group this large and diverse.
Well Dave, if you've been living in a cave,
it's been a crowded one, I think many of us were surprised a month
or so ago. Trying to reconstruct what happened has been hard,
records of BoD and EC committee meetings can be a bit obscure.
Here's a quick summary:
At last January's BoD meeting, the Board passed [with 3 NAY's] a
resolution adopting a code of conduct for directors and vice
directors. It's at #17 in the Board Minutes, and it's pretty
harsh. Once the BoD takes an action, ALL directors are required
to support that action publicly in word and action. They are
prohibited from communicating anything regarding any discussion,
and may not disclose their vote [or anyone elses']. That last is
a little puzzling, roll call votes are published in the Board
Minutes. They are further prohibited from expressing any opinion
they may have on the issue that differs from "The Company Line."
So far, the Ethics and Elections Committee has apparently
"investigated" two supposed violations of this policy, the last
being Dick Norton, N6AA, Southwestern Division Director. In both
cases, they were charged, tried, and convicted of what amounts to
"Crimes Against The State," a transgression more commonly found in
countries such as P5 or BY. There may have been others, as I
said, tracking this all down to the facts is pretty time
consuming, and the BoD and officers aren't saying anything of
course.
You can find the Articles of Association, Bylaws, and the Code of
Conduct in links at the bottom of the short text block at About
ARRL-->Organization Structure. You can find Board and other
minutes by searching on "meeting minutes" in the keyword field.
The Ethics and Elections Committee reports annually, but it
doesn't say much except that a matter was discussed.
While the initial reaction of many [which included me for an hour
or so until I thought about it] was/is to fire off a strong email
and quit their membership, I really hope that doesn't happen. The
only way to correct this is by voting, and only members get to
vote.
Hope this helps, if you can't find something you're looking for,
drop me a note, I've been archiving a lot of it and may have what
you're looking for.
73,
Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County
On 11/29/2017 8:39 PM, w6de wrote:
This is the second message
of concern about happenings at the ARRL.I must be living in a
cave because I have no idea what the heck is going on and
what these ARRL actions are.Does somebody care to enlighten those of us in the
dark?