[SCCC] Additional link to explanatory message

[B Anderson]

Marty,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I am STRONGLY opposed to the measure as I recall the problems created in
2017

Bryce
K6TI

On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 12:03 PM Ryan Huggins via SCCC <sccc at contesting.com>
wrote:

> I've also reached out to my section manager to see what, if anything, we
> can do to voice our dislike of this.  Will inform when I hear anything.
>
>
>
> -73
> Ryan, KI6BTY
>
>
> On Sunday, December 31st, 2023 at 3:41 PM, Bruce Horn <
> bhorn at hornucopia.com> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCCC mailing list
> SCCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sccc
>


-- 
B Anderson
K 6 TI