[SCCC] Additional link to explanatory message

[Ryan Huggins]

I have a slightly different take.  While I agree that much of this is ill-defined and allows for some serious "gate keeping" and, let's face it, this is one hobby where a lot of people are plenty happy to give you grief if you don't radio the way they radio.  Just look at how many put down QRP users, the "not real radio" modes like FT8, EmComm operators, contestors, award chasers, etc.

I serve on a local real estate association as well as the state's association.  I'm starting my fifth year at the local level and first at the state.  I've had to sign confidentiality agreements as well as conflict of interest disclosures and we have monthly conflict of interest questions before our meetings start.  A CoI is defined for us as any thing where you would receive a direct or indirect benefit, financial or otherwise.  Each year at the local level we go through an all day training on how BoDs (in general, not just real estate related ones) are supposed to operate and I've had this training from four or five different instructors and companies by now.  Each one has stressed that the activities, discussions, and even who votes on what is _confidential_ and does not leave the meeting.  Even to the point in our training earlier this month, where notes taken at the meeting must be turned in and destroyed.  The minutes should only reflect that a motion was made, that it was seconded as well as if it carried, carried unanimously, or failed.  So I personally have no objection to the confidentiality of the meetings or the votes.  That's simply a well-established best practice.


-73
Ryan, KI6BTY


On Sunday, December 31st, 2023 at 10:45 AM, W6PH via SCCC <sccc at contesting.com> wrote:


> I have read the entire text of the proposed bylaw change. I encourage everyone to read through the 18 page proposal. There are a number of sections that I find ill defined. The section on confidentiality is not well defined. In my days on a school board any discussions on policy or debates on budget considerations were not confidential and should not be. Confidentiality was restricted to discussion of personnel issues. The conflict of interest is not well defined. Essentially the the Ethics and Elections Committee has enormous power to determine the eligibility of a potential nominee for a director position. It could blackball any suitably nominated candidate for an undocumented alleged conflict of interest because it didn't like that person's views. The constituency has no recourse. The E and E Committee has the power to call for a censure vote for any director it determines to have an opposing view. It could further go to the point of the director being dismissed from the board and not eligible again for any ARRL position. That director would be replaced with an appointee and not necessarily the vice director. I believe there is a hidden agenda in this document to inhibit or hide debate and discussion of pertinent board matters that would be of interest to the membership. This document flies in the face of a membership driven organization. My not so humble comments.
> 73, Kurt W6PH (Life Member and Maxim Society)
> In a message dated 12/30/2023 7:15:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, n6vi at socal.rr.com writes:
> Re. my previous message, here's a link to a plain-language explanation ofthe proposed ARRL bylaw written by Atlantic Division Director Bob FamiglioK3RF: C:\Users\Bob\Desktop\ATLANTIC Div Message from your Director 12-30-2023.wpd(atldiv.org) https://atldiv.org/motion-messge.pdf Please include this link if you forward the original message. Thanks, Marty N6VI _______________________________________________SCCC mailing listSCCC at contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc