[SCCC] Additional link to explanatory message

[Steve Harrison]

But make certain that our VICE director also votes against it, in the 
case that he gets to vote in the absence of Dick! Cover all bases, always!

I think what Marty is actually trying to do is to rumble up another 
membership revolt against this proposed "Bylaw 46", which is what 
apparently caused the 2017 motion to be rescinded. After all, if this 
passes, then not even Dick will be able to pass on to we members just 
what happened, unless he resigns (or is forced out)... and even then, if 
he says anything, he could face very expensive legal consequences due to 
breaking confidentiality according to this proposed "Bylaw 46". That, to 
me, seems the greatest danger: once passed, we'll never be able to 
legally find out just what happened, nor fight back against it. Somehow, 
it has to be stopped in its tracks, BEFORE it gains any traction.

Steve, K0XP


On 12/31/2023 3:41 PM, Bruce Horn wrote:
> Marty, thanks for bringing this proposal to our attention, but what action can we take as ARRL members? In this case, it isn't a matter of writing our division director to oppose passage since he will no doubt be voting against it. Thanks.
>
> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM   (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marty Woll"<n6vi at socal.rr.com>
> To: "W6ph"<w6ph at aol.com>
> Cc: "SCCC Reflector"<sccc at contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2023 2:58:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [SCCC] Additional link to explanatory message
>
> Thanks, Kurt.  I think your assessment is spot on.
>
> 73,
>
> Marty N6VI
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SCCC [mailto:sccc-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W6PH via SCCC
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2023 10:46 AM
> To:n6vi at socal.rr.com;sccc at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [SCCC] Additional link to explanatory message
>
> 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 th
>   e 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
-- 
See my QRZ.com page at *https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*