[SCCC] N6NB's message of concern

[Steven Katz]

GREAT LETTER.



Steve WB2WIK



-----Original Message-----
From: SCCC [mailto:sccc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of n6vi at socal.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:48 AM
To: Wayne Overbeck <overbeck6 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Wayne Overbeck via SCCC <sccc at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [SCCC] N6NB's message of concern





Hi, Wayne.



Thank you for writing such an articulate argument for the ARRL Board's need to do the right things.  May I have your permission to repost it?



73,



Marty N6VI/6

Benicia, CA





---- Wayne Overbeck via SCCC <sccc at contesting.com<mailto:sccc at contesting.com>> wrote:

> 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 at contesting.com<mailto:SCCC at contesting.com>

> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc



_______________________________________________

SCCC mailing list

SCCC at contesting.com<mailto:SCCC at contesting.com>

http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc