[SCCC] Fwd: Proposed Bylaw 46

Ken Widelitz kwidelitz at gmail.com
Mon Jan 1 15:12:53 EST 2024


This is what I sent to the ARRL President and all directors. You can grab
all the email addresses and send your own thoughts.

73, Ken, K6LA

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ken Widelitz <kwidelitz at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 1:38 PM
Subject: Proposed Bylaw 46
To: <k5ur at arrl.org>, <k3rf at arrl.org>, <k9la at arrl.org>, <ac0w at arrl.org>, <
k5uz at arrl.org>, <n8sy at arrl.org>, <np4h at arrl.org>, <k0aiz at arrl.org>, <
ab1oc at arrl.org>, <w7vo at arrl.org>, <k6wx at arrl.org>, <n2zz at arrl.org>,
k0rm at arrl.org <k0rm at arrl.org>, <n4mb at arrl.org>, Richard J. Norton, N6AA <
n6aa at arrl.org>, <n5aus at n5aus.com>


I have read the proposed bylaw 46. It is a terrible idea with regard to
almost every important clause, with the exception of the Conflict of
Interest clauses.

Apparently the ARRL has a very short term memory. Remember the censure of
N6AA only a few years ago? Remember the membership response to that?
Remember the BoD was virtually forced to repeal that censure? It was all
about the attempt to stifle transparency in the governance of the ARRL. The
proposed bylaw 46 does the same exact thing.

Why does a membership organization again want to prohibit members from
knowing how their elected representative votes? The lack of transparency
only raises questions as to what is really going on in the organization?
What do you want to hide?

After the N6AA censure fiasco, I made it clear the ARRL would not receive
any bequest from me unless it was repealed. If this measure passes,  the
ARRL will not receive any bequest from me.

73, Ken Widelitz, K6LA / VY2TT


More information about the SCCC mailing list