[Nodxa] FW: [BVARC] FW: ARRL update

Tue Jan 16 09:31:31 EST 2018

Hi All,

Please take the time to read this, following the links and gleaning more
information.  If you agree, please send a copy of the below email to our
Director & Vice Director.   You may even want to add a paragraph or two to
the email to personally state your feelings.

Thanks for the bandwidth,

73 de Jim - KE8G

  _____  

From: BVARC [mailto:bvarc-bounces at bvarc.org] On Behalf Of Allen Brier N5XZ
via BVARC
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:25 AM
To: tdxs-list at tdxs.net; 'BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB';
nars at mailman.qth.net; ctdxcc at kkn.net
Cc: Allen Brier N5XZ; 'Ted Rappaport N9NB'
Subject: [BVARC] FW: ARRL update

Please distribute (if you agree) and send your own letter(s) to BOD members.

73,

Allen R. Brier N5XZ

1515 Windloch Lane

Richmond, Texas 77406-2553

(281) 342-1882 (Home)

(713) 705-4801 (Cell)

From: Ted Rappaport N9NB [mailto:tsrwvcomm at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:52 AM
To: tsr at nyu.edu; ab2ra at htva.net
Cc: 'Theodore Rappaport' <tr51 at nyu.edu>; mjmarcus at marcus-spectrum.com; 'Don
Greenbaum N1DG' <don at aurumtel.com>; 'Joe Subich, W4TV' <w4tv at subich.com>;
'Ron Kolarik' <rkolarik at neb.rr.com>; 'Allen Brier N5XZ'
<n5xz at earthlink.net>; 'Sam Leslie - W4PK' <w4pk at arrl.net>; 'Jeff AC0C'
<keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>; W4OC at aol.com; 'Dan White' <hdwhite at charter.net>;
'Richard Thorne' <rthorne at rthorne.net>; 'Mark Sihlanick'
<n2qt.va at gmail.com>; awillard69 at yahoo.com; 'Jim McDonald' <jim at n7us.net>;
'Tom Morrison' <k5tm at morrisons.us>; 'Zoya Popovic' <zoya at colorado.edu>;
'Terry Gerdes Cell' <ab5k at hotmail.com>; 'Ed Muns' <ed at w0yk.com>;
k2xx at swva.net; 'Dick Hanson K5AND' <dick at dkhanson.com>; 'Scott Yost'
<nm8rmedic at rocketmail.com>; 'Jim George' <n3bb at mindspring.com>; 'Paul
Stroud' <aa4xx at bellsouth.net>; 'Dick Hanson K5AND' <dick at lazyh.me>;
k0acp at k0acp.com; n9nc at earthlink.net; n9nb at arrl.net
Subject: Re: Arrl update

Well, the ARRL President is ignoring the plea of membership:

http://www.arrl.org/news/a-note-to-members-from-arrl-president-rick-roderick
-k5ur

Please respond rapidly with a clear succinct letter to the BOD. Only 2 days
to go to the Board meeting....Here is a sample of something close to what I
sent:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Director X:

The open letter that ARRL president  Roderick distributed on Jan. 15, 2018,
using ARRL resources on the ARRL website, perpetuates a clear lack of
consideration to legitimate member concerns, and reveals his lack of
interest in addressing the concerns of membership.

Mr. Roderick's open letter shows that his attitudes do not comply with
member wishes, making him ill-suited to serve as President for the
member-driven ARRL.  Never once did Mr. Roderick identify any specific
"misinformation" or "mischaracterizations" by unnamed source in his open
letter, and he never addressed membership concerns about how/why/what
motivations were/are at work to censure N6AA, and why the board has secretly
disqualified many well-meaning members from running for the office of
director, and why, specifically, the Ethics committee is so adamant about
enforcing and bolstering its gag order and policies of secrecy and power
through recent proposed amendments of articles and by-laws.  Mr. Roderick's
letter never turned away from CEO Gallagher's statements, recently reported
in CQ, that claimed no member should ever see proposed amendments before a
board meeting. These are the problems that membership needs its leaders to
address, but Mr. Roderick's open letter completely ignored the member's
demands.

For the above reasons, I urge you to vote NO for K5UR's election to remain
President of ARRL at your upcoming board meeting.

Also, I urge you to NOT support the upcoming motions proffered by Directors
Norris and Linesco (and amendments made thereto) which are so disruptive to
the League's future, and have never been needed in the past 100 years of the
League. I urge you to ensure that all Vice Directors may attend board
meetings, and ensure that all directors motions are made public to the
membership well before any board meeting, that voting records by each board
member are made public, that directors can openly discuss League matters
with their constituency, and that there are no changes that give any
non-elected members voting rights on the board. The board should also
disclose any bequeaths or financial motivations that causes it to take
certain positions with regard to its policies.  Finally, I urge you to
consider and share with other directors these very thoughtful and reasoned
positions on the current proposed amendments that have been published:
<https://www.myarrlvoice.org/positions-of-myarrlvoice-org/>
https://www.myarrlvoice.org/positions-of-myarrlvoice-org/ .  I ask you to
support the grass roots, member supported positions of this link.
<https://www.myarrlvoice.org/positions-of-myarrlvoice-org/>
https://www.myarrlvoice.org/positions-of-myarrlvoice-org/

Please hear my concerns and many other member's concerns.  Please see how
Mr. Roderick's open letter, using ARRL resources, fails to address any of
the legitimate concerns raised by membership. Please repel this flawed
attitude and do not reelect him as President, and undo the censure of N6AA,
and turn back from the recent actions that attempt to empower non-elected
people by giving them voting power on the board, and please turn back from
the efforts that have already caused the board to punish or eliminate
would-be directors or members, by mere fancy.  The great country we live in
was not built on the principles that are being espoused by leadership, and
as you can see by these words by Hiram Percy Maxim, neither was the ARRL.

Please take the time to read this -- particularly the last paragraph! Let
the board be governed by these words of our founding president:

  <https://www.myarrlvoice.org/hiram-percy-maxim-september-1927/>
https://www.myarrlvoice.org/hiram-percy-maxim-september-1927/. After reading
that last paragraph, how can any of these recent activities (the censure of
N6AA, the disqualification of many willing candidates for director, the
Ethics committee "secret" activities, the Code of Conduct (e.g. gag order),
the proposed by-laws and articles changes aiming to consolidate power, and
now President Roderick's letter that perpetuates more of the same) be 100%
for the public good!?  It's not!

Very 73, and thanks in advance for moving the ARRL to a more democratic
place than where it is now. You must turn us back from the wrong activities
and attitudes that have prevailed and harmed the ARRL in the past year.
Please make your positions clear and public, so we may follow your progress
in enacting the needs and desires of the membership.

Sincerely

From: Ted Rappaport N9NB <mailto:tsrwvcomm at aol.com>  

Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:00 PM

To: tsr at nyu.edu ; ab2ra at htva.net 

Cc: 'Theodore Rappaport' <mailto:tr51 at nyu.edu>  ;
mjmarcus at marcus-spectrum.com ; 'Don Greenbaum <mailto:don at aurumtel.com>
N1DG' ; 'Joe <mailto:w4tv at subich.com>  Subich, W4TV' ; 'Ron Kolarik'
<mailto:rkolarik at neb.rr.com>  ; 'Allen Brier N5XZ'
<mailto:n5xz at earthlink.net>  ; 'Sam Leslie - W4PK' <mailto:w4pk at arrl.net>  ;
'Jeff <mailto:keepwalking188 at ac0c.com>  AC0C' ; W4OC at aol.com ; 'Dan White'
<mailto:hdwhite at charter.net>  ; 'Richard <mailto:rthorne at rthorne.net>
Thorne' ; 'Mark <mailto:n2qt.va at gmail.com>  Sihlanick' ;
awillard69 at yahoo.com ; 'Jim McDonald' <mailto:jim at n7us.net>  ; 'Tom
Morrison' <mailto:k5tm at morrisons.us>  ; 'Zoya Popovic'
<mailto:zoya at colorado.edu>  ; 'Terry Gerdes Cell' <mailto:ab5k at hotmail.com>
; 'Ed Muns' <mailto:ed at w0yk.com>  ; k2xx at swva.net ; 'Dick Hanson K5AND'
<mailto:dick at dkhanson.com>  ; 'Scott <mailto:nm8rmedic at rocketmail.com>
Yost' ; 'Jim <mailto:n3bb at mindspring.com>  George' ; 'Paul
<mailto:aa4xx at bellsouth.net>  Stroud' ; 'Dick Hanson <mailto:dick at lazyh.me>
K5AND' ; k0acp at k0acp.com ; n9nc at earthlink.net ; n9nb at arrl.net 

Subject: Arrl update

Dear all: Here is my last email on the topic, as you are now armed with
information from the previous note and links.

Here is a brilliantly crafted letter by Bob Teitel W3IDT, just sent to ARRL.
It is very well put together ,and gets to the heart of things in detail.  

Very 73, and thanks for getting the word out. 

Ted n9nb

-----Original Message-----

On Behalf Of Bob, W3IDT

Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 7:43 PM

To: pvrc REFLECTOR

Subject: [PVRC] W3IDT: Memorandum to ARRL Leaders.

DATE:   2018 January 4

TO:     ARRL Board of Directors, Officers, and CEO

FROM:   Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT, Life Member

RE:    Current turmoil regarding ARRL decisions and actions.

This is a very long, very detailed, and very tempered communication.

I hope you will take the time to read it, to reflect upon it, and to respond
to it.

1. I have been an ARRL member for maybe 55 years - have had a 50 year 

pin for perhaps 5 years. And a Life Member for who knows how many years. 

Signed up daughter Miriam, K3MIM then KA3UBJ, as a Family Life Member 

when she was about 10 years old many, many years ago.

I have subscribed to NCJ and QEX for decades, and have more Handbooks, 

Antenna Books, Compendiums, and other League published material than my 

wife thinks is reasonable. And have been able to make occasional Diamond 

Club contributions including this past year.

I have been "in the right place at the right time" to further the 

League's interest in several Legislative, Public Relations, and spectrum 

preservation / interference efforts, the details of which are not 

directly relevant to this memorandum, except to reinforce that I have 

been an active supporter of the ARRL for many decades.

2. I have regrettably, in hindsight, avoided getting into ARRL politics, 

other than regularly voting for elected representatives. That means I 

have not raised my voice, until now, on the following range of issues:

a. The FCC RM-11708, et al, filings and the resulting NPRM 16-96,

b. The HR-555 / S-1534 Home Owners Association "compromise" bill,

c. The NTS / FEMA / ARRL relationship issue (removal of Mr Joe Ames, 

W3JY, as Chairman of NTS Eastern Area and as EPA Section Manager),

d. The Code of Conduct (aka "ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct

of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors"),

e. The censure of Mr Dick Horton, N6AA, based on the Code of Conduct, and

f. Organization Structure; proposed Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws 

changes.

I've taken the time to read many of the statements, emails, filings, 

comments, etc, on the older issues ('a' and 'b'), and also many of the 

emails, white papers, letters, petition, etc., on the more recent issues 

('c' through 'f').

3. It seems to me that:

On A and B (regulatory and legislative actions): While these two items 

are very different issues, they seem to have in common positions taken 

by the ARRL apparently without adequate input by ARRL members who have 

specific expertise in the relevant subject areas leading to their 

subsequent strong opposition.

The clear message from ARRL members who are technical experts in analog 

and digital modulation techniques, incompatibility of and interference 

between narrow band and wide band signals, and the possible use of non 

CFR 97.309(A) messaging codes is that RM-11308, which led to the current 

NPRM 16-96, will have serious consequences, especially for the 

development and use of narrow band amateur communication.

Similarly, I find it stunning that Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, and Jim 

Talens, N3JT, two well regarded attorneys, and long time major ARRL 

supporters, have both expressed their serious misgivings about HR-555 / 

S-1534. In fact, they oppose it.

On C (Joe Ames, W3JY): While a court has declared that the ARRL stated 

"truths" in its description of reasons for the removal of Mr Ames, W3JY, 

as the (elected) Chairman of the NTS Eastern Area - as an affirmative 

defense in a defamation suit - that does not necessarily mean that his 

removal was the correct action at the time.

First, as a FEMA official initially contacted Mr Ames directly in his 

role in the NTS, his subsequent removal from that position - for 

whatever reason - must have appeared strange to FEMA. The whole episode 

probably could have been handled in a more prudent manner.

Second, I do not understand, nor have I seen any justification, why W3JY 

was also removed as the elected EPA Section Manager. He did not appear 

to have done anything untoward in that position. Without an 

extraordinary reason for removal, the ARRL members of the EPA section 

should have been given the opportunity to decide his fate as Section 

Manager in a forthcoming election.

On D (Code of Conduct): The real impact of the Code of Conduct (aka 

"ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of 

Directors and Vice Directors") seems to be more than a bit murky or is 

otherwise egregious.

First, as a single example, what does the heading of section (8), 

"Support of Board  Decisions: A Board member must accept and publicly 

support Board decisions",

coupled with the text of item (F) therein, "A Board member may not 

publicly oppose a Board action prior to the effective date of his or her 

resignation from the Board." really mean?

I read and comprehend the English language fairly well. To me, those two 

lines say that a Director cannot express to those members he/she 

represents that 1) he/she, in fact, objected to - voted against - some 

Board action, and 2) why he/she objected to that action, unless such 

Director first resigns from the Board.

That is an egregious diminution of the very concept of a membership 

organization with elected representative leadership!

If those lines mean something other than my simple reading, please let 

me know.

Second, the Northern California Contest Club (NCCC), in their recent 

public letter to ARRL Directors and Officers, raised an interesting 

question regarding the censure of Mr Horton, N6AA, as follows: Does the 

Code of Conduct actually prevent the Directors from describing the 

details of, and rationale for, their action against N6AA? (See more 

below as item E.)

Third, I grant that some Board issues - for example, those relating to 

ARRL paid staff personnel matters - could be considered "confidential" 

and not to be discussed outside Board meetings.

But surely the League has in place such rules? However, though there are 

entire sections on, (6 "Confidentiality") and (9 "Relations with staff") 

in the Code of Conduct, the confidentiality of paid staff personnel 

matters seem nowhere explicitly addressed.

On E (censure of Dick Norton, N6AA): This action was apparently based on 

some behavior / words uttered at the Visalia 2017 ARRL Forum. Two well 

known ARRL members [K6FG, K3LR] have written public letters stating, in 

essence, that N6AA did absolutely nothing nefarious.

First, the NCCC has written a formal letter to ARRL officials. This 

letter quotes from a letter sent by Hudson Division Director Mike 

Lisenco, N2YBB, to his constituents, ". there were individual witnesses 

who attended the forum in Visalia who came to us with a different story 

than those released by Mr. Norton's supporters. . I will not discuss the 

specific reasons enumerated as they are of a personnel [sic] nature and 

not appropriate for discussion .".

Note: Un-named "individual witnesses" and "I will not discuss the 

specific reasons ..."

The NCCC letter concludes, "Essentially, he [N2YBB] is saying the Board 

censured Director Norton [N6AA] based upon 'secret' facts".

Second, as noted above, and surmised in the NCCC letter, it appears that 

the Code of Conduct actually prevents Directors from telling us the 

reasons for their action against N6AA.

On F (Structure; Articles of Incorporation / Bylaws revision):

First, a Google search on "ARRL Structure" results in a reference to an 

ARRL web page, www.arrl.org/organization-structure, and includes the 

following snippet: "[The] ARRL is a representative democracy - its 

members control its policies through the power of the ballot. The ARRL 

Articles of Association and By-laws give direct responsibility to set 

ARRL policy to an elected Board of Directors."

That's a very good start, except that, as noted in a CQ Magazine "White 

Paper" on ARRL Secrecy and Censure (Dec 12, 2017), "(Interestingly, 

it has been pointed out to us that a majority of the current League 

board members have not actually been elected, but rather have been 

either appointed to fill a vacancy or put into/kept in office by virtue 

of potential opponents being disqualified from running, sometimes on 

very questionable grounds and, again, shrouded in secrecy.)"

[Disclosure: I've subscribed to CQ Magazine for 50 or so years.]

So, how can the "... members control its policies... [through] an 

elected Board of Directors" when the current set of contentious actions 

and policies (my items 'c' through 'f') have been executed or proposed 

by a Board of Directors a majority of whom have not been elected?

Second, I've read the proposed changes to the ARRL Articles of 

Incorporation ("AoI") and to the Bylaws, but don't want to spend the 

time to go through each one individually and, thus, will present only a 

few examples. Some changes, to me as a non-lawyer, seem almost silly or, 

charitably, sloppy; some are major changes to the organization; while 

others seem simply irrational. All surely have some (important?) legal 

reasoning behind them - reasoning, however, not conveyed to us, the members.

I haven't found any document(s) explaining the purpose or rationale for 

any of the proposed changes to the AoI or to the Bylaws.

Example (1) : Paragraph '2.' in the "Members" section of the Bylaws is 

to be amended by adding the sentence, "Membership may be revoked for 

cause by a majority vote of the Board of Directors after affording the 

member an opportunity to respond in writing."

However, Article 11 of the (existing) AoI already states, "Nothing 

herein contained shall preclude the Board of Directors from expelling a 

member upon good cause shown and after notice and an opportunity to be 

heard."

Why the additional sentence in the Bylaws?

In effect,

Changing "to be heard" to "to respond"?

Changing "expelling" to  "revoked"?

Changing "upon good cause shown" to "for cause"?  Wrong direction!

Adding "majority vote"?

Better would be "two-thirds" or even "three-fourths" for such a drastic 

action.

Is there some good legal reason for the additional sentence?

Much of the email / internet chatter about the proposed AoI and Bylaws 

changes have been regarding this Bylaws addition; for instance, a) "So, 

can the Board really revoke membership (even Life Membership) from 

someone they don't like?", or b) "They can remove an elected Director 

simply by revoking his/her membership?".

How about an explanation or justification for the additional sentence in 

the Bylaws, and what the words or construction of that new sentence 

really intends to convey?

Example (2): The penultimate sentence of Article 10 of the (existing) 

AoI states, "By-Laws may be amended by a three-fourths vote of all 

Directors, or, provided due notice of the proposed amendment shall be 

mailed to each Director at least thirty days in advance, by a two-thirds 

vote of all Directors."

The last sentence of that same Article 10 currently states, "Notices 

shall be sent by First-Class mail or electronic mail to the last known 

address to each Director."

The second occurrence of the word "to" is awkward, reasonably replaced 

with "of".

Instead the entire sentence is proposed to be rewritten as, "Notices 

shall be sent to the last known address of each Director by First-Class 

mail or electronic mail."

Am I missing something in terms of meaning? Why the complete rewrite?

Furthermore, the sentence starts, "Notices shall ...". What Notices?

The prior, unchanged sentence states, "... provided due notice of the 

proposed amendment ...".

OK, so "Notices shall ..." (note plural) in the last sentence refers to 

the "... due notice ..." (note singular) of the prior sentence.

Maybe in a language cleanup that should have been fixed.

And, "... shall be mailed to each Director ..." in the retained sentence,

and  "... by First-Class mail or electronic mail" in the proposed sentence.

Sloppy at best.

There's more, though. Note the "... due notice of the proposed amendment 

shall ..." in the retained sentence.

Maybe I'm a stickler of the meaning of words, but "amendment" to me 

means one, single amendment, not a wholesale restructuring of the 

governing documents of the organization.

Amendment / Amendments,

Notice / Notices, and

Mailed / First-Class mail or electronic mail.

More than sloppy.

Example (3): More silliness, yours and mine: The revisions of Article 12 

of the AoI changes the list of persons subject to "no person shall be 

eligible for the office of ..."

from "Director, Vice Director, President, Vice President, or Treasurer 

who ..."

to "Director, President, Vice President, Treasurer or Vice Director, who 

..."

in the first instance of the list; but in the second rendering of the list

to "Director, President, Vice President  Treasurer or Vice Director, 

unless..."

Me thinks there are more than a few errors in the use of commas 

(especially the lack thereof in the second list) unless, of course, I'm 

missing some important legal issue. [I prefer the Oxford comma, by-the-way.]

Why the proposed change in the order?  What is its real intended effect?

The proposed revision of this Article includes the requirement of full 

compliance to Code of Conduct by the list of persons above, and adds, 

"Directors, Vice Directors and Officers may be subject to removal or 

other appropriate sanctions for cause by vote of the Board of Directors 

as provided in the Bylaws."

How about at least "good cause shown"?

And maybe "by two-thirds vote" or "by three-fourths vote"?

How about dropping that outrageous concept altogether?

Example (4): I think I have an inkling of what new AoI Articles 15 and 

16 try to do. Limit personal liability exposure of directors (small 'd') 

in 15 to their compensation (elsewhere stated to be 'none') unless a 

long list of exceptions, but neither Vice Directors nor Officers appear 

to be included. And, in 16, pay the legal expenses of, in this case, 

directors and officers (small 'd' and 'o') who are sued unless, again, a 

long list of exceptions; Vice Directors again appear to be excluded.

Please, someone tell me I don't understand these articles.

And then explain them so that I do understand them.

Example (5): The proposed revision to Bylaws paragraph '9.' under Life 

Membership

stipulates (by deletion of the positive text) that Life Membership is no 

longer transferable to an eligible (Family Member, Licensed) Spouse.

I'll leave it to the lawyers to sort this out. Me thinks that current 

couples (Life Member + Family Member / Licensed) are probably 

"grandfathered".

Would be nice to know why this was done.

Ah, the cost saving of not having to send out copies of QST to the spouse?

(almost final) Example (6): New section 46 of the Bylaws, parts (a) and (b).

Part (a) contains provisions for the removal from office AND termination 

of membership of an Officer, Director, or Vice Director, for "cause" - 

not even "good cause".

Absolutely appalling!

Why are there to be three disparate clauses "to expel", "to revoke", and 

"termination" (regarding membership) sprinkled in the text of the AoI 

and Bylaws? (See AoI Article 2 and Bylaws Article 11 as discussed in my 

example 1, and this new Bylaws section 46.)

And why are there, as proposed, two disparate clauses to remove an 

Officer, Director, or Vice Director from office?  (AoI article 12 and 

this new Bylaws section 46)

Part (b) provides for the reprimanding or censuring of an Officer, 

Director, or Vice Director without any warning or opportunity to be heard.

"... without any warning or opportunity to be heard."

WOW. What happened between "ARRL ... representative democracy . " and 

this clause?

What, if any, is the effect of reprimanding or censuring?

If "none", then why is it proposed at all?

(really final) Example (7): The proposed amendments by Mr Lisenko, 

N2YBB, seem to be a utter mishmash of adding persons to the Board, to 

the Executive Committee, and to Standing Committees: One President here, 

three Vice Presidents there, or maybe just one Vice President with 

voting rights and two without. And a occasional Vice Director gets a 

seat at the table.

"The ARRL Articles of Association and By-laws give direct responsibility 

to set ARRL policy to an elected Board of Directors."

Seems to me to be a pretty good structure for a membership organization.

What is this mess trying to do? In plain English, please?

So, where are we?

I'm tired of writing, you're tired of reading.

START OVER.

FIX WHAT IS POSSIBLE TO FIX.

>From my original list of items to be discussed:

a. The FCC RM-11708, et al, filings and the resulting NPRM 16-96:

FIND A WAY TO ASK THE FCC FOR A "DO-OVER" -  ACCEPT YOU MADE A BAD MISTAKE.

GET INPUT FROM OUR EXPERTS ON THE TECHNICAL BANDWIDTH ISSUES.

b. The HR-555 / S-1534 Home Owners Association "compromise" bill:

FIND A WAY TO PULL THE BILL (Yes, I know, throws some politicians under 

the bus)

OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, GET IT AMENDED.

AGAIN, LISTEN TO OUR EXPERTS ON ZONING AND REAL ESTATE ISSUES.

c. The NTS / FEMA / ARRL relationship issue (removal of Mr Joe Ames, 

W3JY, as Chairman of NTS Eastern Area and as EPA Section Manager):

AT LEAST LET EPA SECTION MEMBERS DECIDE HIS TENURE AS EPA SECTION MANAGER.

d. The Code of Conduct (aka "ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct

of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors"),

START OVER.

MAKE CLEAR THAT DIRECTORS AND VICE DIRECTORS (and Section Managers, as 

well) HAVE A DUTY TO COMMUNICATE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN 

THEY DISAGREE WITH SOME BOARD ACTION. (It is the prerogative of their 

constituents, suitably informed, to re-elect or not.)

e. The censure of Mr Dick Horton, N6AA, based on the Code of Conduct.

WITHDRAW WITH APOLOGY.

OR CITE VERY CLEARLY AND VERY PUBLICLY

(1) What Articles of Incorporation and/or Bylaws provide for "Censure", and

(2) What action or speech was reprehensible enough to warrant such censure.

f. Organization Structure; proposed Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws 

changes.

START OVER.

STATE PUBLICLY - in plain English - WHAT EACH PROPOSED AMENDMENT INTENDS 

TO ACCOMPLISH.

ACCEPT INPUT FROM MEMBERS.

Done.

I would greatly appreciate a thoughtful response from the Board of 

Directors, Officers, or CEO in such form that I can share with other 

interested amateur radio operators.

/S/

Robert F. Teitel, W3IDT

ARRL Life Member

w3idt at arrl.net

w3idt at comcast.net

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00020.txt
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/nodxa/attachments/20180116/4bca6fd0/attachment-0001.txt>