[SCCC] Report of ARRL 1st VP
Bill Haddon
haddon.bill at gmail.com
Wed Jan 10 18:12:39 EST 2024
Thanks, Kurt, Marty
All interesting, but maybe fails to note the most important aspect of a 501(c)3, namely allowing tax deductibility for contributors.
I’ve been Pres/CEO of an Astronomical Observatory, run by the Lake County Office of Education, for 14 yrs. The previous Board failed to file paperwork and had lost 501(c)3 status. Working with Rep Mike Thompson and a very industrious CFO, it was restored in Feb of whatever year that was. In April of that year one afternoon the phone rang — it was a local attorney dealing with a bequeath — she didn’t ask “what great things can you do with the money to promote student science interest?” - no, the only question was “what is your EIN”. The bequest was an unanticipated 6-figure donation.
See www.friendsoftaylor.org
I’ve assembled a very diverse board which includes
— local Superior Court judge, who was bringing his HS daughters to our public nights - his often diverse opinions have been valuable. He alone spoke up and discouraged us from a scholarship program , noting this was a sub-optimal use of our $’s.
— a local Artist (recognizing the multi-century connection between art and astronomy). We had organized an astronomy evening for Emily’s nieces and nephews from Finland; one of the nieces is pursuing, as a consequence of her evening at Taylor Observatory, a path to become Finland’s first female astronaut
- I encouraged a young Hispanic fellow, who had assisted in his HS years, to become a board member- the first Hispanic to be involved in our 45-year history. Eduardo is now at UC Davis for an advanced degree in Planetary Geology.
— our newest board member is a PhD Psychologist AND a Buddhist Monk. What does that have to with astronomy? Well Dr Nettles was, years ago, a HS assistant at the famous Noble Planetarium in Ft Worth TX.
— The former director of the Southbridge Lighthouse Museum in Kenosha WI — Tom became intensely interested in astrophotography. Pics of the Horsehead and Flame nebula on the website splash pages are his.
ARRL has little, or many none, of this diversity.
73 Bill N6ZFO
(Member PVRC, NCCC and SCCC)
The ARRL is horribly mis-managed — don’t get me started on the CAC/PSC disaster.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 10, 2024, at 1:36 PM, Marty Woll <n6vi at socal.rr.com> wrote:
> In
>
>
> Hi, Kurt.
>
>
>
> Others outside New England have reported that they have not been allowed to join that meeting.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
>
>
> Marty N6VI
>
>
>
>
>
> From: w6ph at aol.com [mailto:w6ph at aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 1:07 PM
> To: n6vi at socal.rr.com; sccc at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [SCCC] Report of ARRL 1st VP
>
>
>
> There is a New England Division Town Hall Meeting scheduled tonight at 7 pm EST. I don't know if it is open to hams outside of New England. It will be AB1OC (NE Director) and K6WX (Pacific Director) hosting it. I think both of them are in favor of adoption. I think there will be a pig in a tuxedo.
>
>
>
> 73, Kurt W6PH
>
>
> In a message dated 1/10/2024 12:45:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, n6vi at socal.rr.com writes:
>
>
>
> Hi, all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is some candid information from the outgoing ARRL First Vice President
>
> Mike Raisbeck K1TWF to give you what I consider an unbiased view of current
>
> ARRL Board issues. Mike has released this for public consumption. It is
>
> lengthy but is worth the read.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marty N6VI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1st Vice President Report to the Board January 2024
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I've been the 1st VP for four years now, and a Vice-Director for
>
> twenty-three years before that - a quarter century in all. The truth of the
>
> matter is that for me the last four years have been quiet. COVID has had a
>
> lot to do with this - hamfests and similar gatherings are only now coming
>
> back into fashion. This inactivity has been a bit disappointing, but reality
>
> is what it is. In any case, this could well be my last 1st VP report, so I
>
> thought I would take up a few more pages than usual to lay out my thoughts,
>
> and to get some discussion going that might, in the long run, help lead the
>
> Board in some more fruitful directions. I have several concerns, all of them
>
> centering on matters of ethics and fairness. These are:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - What is a not-for-profit and what does that mean for the way we conduct
>
> our affairs
>
>
>
> - The highly unethical nature of the "Shadow Board"
>
>
>
> - The meaning and importance of Board transparency
>
>
>
> - Equal representation for our members
>
>
>
> - Restructuring the Ethics and Election Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have also included some hints as to how these problems might be remedied.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I. What it Means to be Not-for-profit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are NOT a for-profit organization, though considerations of long-term
>
> financial viability are hugely important. I applaud those who have been
>
> focusing on our finance-related problems and applying their substantial
>
> business experience. However, I repeat, we are NOT a for-profit
>
> organization. This difference between for-profit and not-for-profit
>
> organizations rests in the goals. To be for-profit defines the primary goal
>
> as optimizing financial payoff to stakeholders. There may be other goals,
>
> but they are secondary to generating ROI. In contrast, to be not-for-profit
>
> defines the primary goal as promoting a particular and generally
>
> non-monetary cause. Financial optimization is an important secondary goal,
>
> but it is only secondary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What does this mean for the League? It means that our primary focus is
>
> promoting Amateur Radio, the people who practice it, and above all, our
>
> members. Increasing interest in the hobby is something we all strive for,
>
> and I personally think we can make progress, even against the demographic
>
> tide that our ageing membership presents. But, contrary to the tenor of much
>
> Board conversation over the last few years, a shrinking membership will not
>
> kill the League. Membership has varied at different times in our history. It
>
> started at zero when the League was founded and has generally, though not
>
> universally, grown over the years. At every step, the League has adjusted to
>
> serve the membership it had. Shrinking membership is only an existential
>
> threat if we fail to manage the organization's size and scope appropriately.
>
> So, let's bring the panic level down a few notches. Let's continue to try to
>
> grow the hobby, and thereby League membership, but let's acknowledge that if
>
> we can't grow the membership, we can simply scale down a bit. The ROI in
>
> financial terms will be smaller, but that is secondary. The ROI in terms of
>
> supporting our members and our hobby will remain sound.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> II. The "Shadow Board" and its Ethical Ramifications
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As all of you are aware, we have, over the last two years or so, developed
>
> what I call a "Shadow Board." Those on the Shadow Board, roughly 10
>
> Directors, apparently meet periodically to discuss Board matters, including
>
> proposed motions and actions. The remaining Directors are excluded along
>
> with the other Board officers. To the best of my knowledge, no formal
>
> reports or minutes of these meetings have been prepared, and certainly not
>
> shared with the rest of the Board. This is highly unethical, and highly
>
> damaging to the Board and to the League. Let me give some background
>
> information, then I will describe why this is unethical. First, I should
>
> describe my own board experience, which will give you an idea of where my
>
> views originate. I have been on several small and modest sized
>
> not-for-profit boards, including everything from the local radio club and a
>
> large charter school to the organization, FEMARA, that runs the New England
>
> Convention. I have also been on numerous municipal boards, both elected and
>
> appointed. A number of the League's Board members, past and present, have
>
> had similar experiences, and I believe some number of you also have
>
> experience on for-profit boards.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am most familiar with the municipal realm in Massachusetts, though I can
>
> assure you that the ethical and legal considerations are identical, or
>
> nearly so, in every state of the Union. Look up "Open Meeting Laws". In the
>
> government regulatory sphere there are very strong ethical and legal
>
> requirements surrounding the holding of unannounced or covert board
>
> meetings. In this context "meeting" generally means any gathering, physical
>
> or virtual (including some serial conversations), of a quorum of a board. If
>
> a town board were to be caught having shadow meetings such as our Board is
>
> doing, the participants would find themselves before a superior court judge
>
> and in very hot water within days and would be the subjects of state ethics
>
> commission investigations. So, what does this have to do with the board of a
>
> not-for-profit? First, let's consider why the rules for municipal boards are
>
> what they are. There is in the public sphere a general public right to know
>
> what the leaders are doing. This is critical if the public is to reasonably
>
> and rationally select, by election or through appointment by elected
>
> officials, those who would govern them. It is this purpose that leads to the
>
> demand for transparency, which I discuss later in this report.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So how does this rationale apply to other boards, not-for-profit or
>
> otherwise? That depends on the nature of the board. For many not-for-profit
>
> organizations, perhaps it does not. Many, the majority I believe, of
>
> not-for-profit boards are self-selecting. The board members choose their
>
> peers and successors, often based on how deep their pockets are. There is no
>
> "public" in the same sense as the term applies to governmental boards. While
>
> in these cases cutting some board members out of board discussions may not
>
> be the best of governance practices, it does not necessarily damage the
>
> process by which the board is selected. This rationale applies as well to
>
> for-profit organizations with private or closed boards. The League does NOT
>
> have this kind of board. Directors are periodically elected by members based
>
> on geographic areas. Our model is very much like that of a governmental
>
> unit, a town, state, or country. Our members pay for their vote with their
>
> dues. And the geographic aspect makes it even more important to include
>
> every Board member fully in the decision-making process. Exclusion of any
>
> Director from discussions is, in effect, disenfranchising the members of
>
> their division.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So how did this "shadow board" come to be? An underlying current has been
>
> the allegation of serious breaches of board confidentiality on the part of
>
> several Directors in the "out" group, and this has been given, implicitly
>
> and explicitly, as a reason for excluding some people. I have heard similar
>
> allegations aimed at Directors in the "in" group. But when I've asked those
>
> involved on either side to give me real details I must say, with perhaps one
>
> notable exception, that very little has been presented that would convince
>
> me we have a problem. Furthermore, to the extent that there have been
>
> breaches, how severe have they been? There are, to be sure, topics that
>
> demand Board confidentiality; personnel matters and certain business
>
> negotiations being at the top of the list, but the vast bulk of what we do
>
> is rather mundane, and assigning undue importance to confidentiality in
>
> these areas is largely an exercise in exaggerated self-importance.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Our "shadow board" involves Directors elected by roughly two thirds of our
>
> membership. Conducting business as it does deprive one third of our
>
> membership of effective representation. Perhaps this is not illegal,
>
> although I'm sure that an enterprising attorney could construct a civil case
>
> that would at least get through the courthouse door. But it utterly fails
>
> the "smell test." It is wrong, it is unethical, it is harmful to the League
>
> and its membership, and it needs to stop. NOW. How might we protect the
>
> league from things like this in the future and make clear to our members
>
> that we take representing them seriously? I would propose something like
>
> this in the standing orders: "Whenever a quorum of the Directors meets, in
>
> person, virtually, or mixed, the meeting shall be announced to the entire
>
> Board and access to the meeting shall be given to all Directors, Vice
>
> Directors, and Officers." This is clear and concise but is far less onerous
>
> than the rules that apply to governmental entities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> III. The Nature of Board Transparency
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One can and should infer from the previous sections that Board transparency
>
> is necessary for a healthy Board elected by the membership. It is, perhaps,
>
> not the kind of transparency that some critics of the League have called
>
> for, such as live broadcasts of Board meetings, though this argument could
>
> certainly be made. The point of transparency is that both League members and
>
> Board members should have sufficient information to carry out their roles. I
>
> see two areas in which our Board is lacking. First, our reporting of major
>
> actions is weak. The Board minutes that we feed to our membership seem
>
> designed to minimize disclosure to a fairly superficial level. Over the
>
> years we have intentionally avoided or minimized details of our
>
> deliberations; we have had specific discussion on this topic at Board
>
> meetings. Furthermore, we have been less than diligent in distributing what
>
> information we do reveal to our members in a timely fashion. In addition, we
>
> don't, as a matter of course, report who voted and how, unless someone
>
> requests a roll call, and when several Directors did start exercising this
>
> power more frequently, the Board voted to change the rules to make roll call
>
> votes more difficult. The rational as I understand it was that the roll
>
> calls were taking too much time. This is as specious an excuse as one could
>
> muster. In fact, why not record votes on every motion? The technology exists
>
> to do this easily and quickly, or it could simply be done by the Secretary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reticence to record votes has far more to do with avoiding embarrassment on
>
> the part of the Directors than with saving time at the meetings. Can we do
>
> anything about this? Of course, and easily. I would propose adding something
>
> like the following to the Standing Orders: "All votes of the Board shall be
>
> recorded, including who voted and how, and, except in the case of votes made
>
> during executive sessions, immediately reported." This brings me back to the
>
> topic of Board confidentiality, already mentioned above in the previous
>
> section. Yes, there are certain things that should not be publicly
>
> disclosed, or should be disclosed only at a high level: personnel matters,
>
> legislative negotiation strategies, and certain sensitive business
>
> negotiations. There is good reason to be careful in these areas. However,
>
> such matters are generally easy to discern. Few of the cases of alleged
>
> breach of confidentiality that have come to my attention have had much
>
> impact in these arenas. So, what is the real reason for the Board's
>
> obsession with secrecy and confidentiality? As mentioned above, it is
>
> clearly the desire to avoid embarrassment (and perhaps even
>
> accountability?). This raises a HUGE RED FLAG. We've all experienced
>
> embarrassment and it isn't pleasant, but fear of embarrassment is also a
>
> very important signal that warns us when we are on a path that is ill
>
> advised, unethical, or worse, and that requires some serious rethinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IV. Equal representation for all members
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are a membership organization with an elected board. As such, each
>
> member's vote should be counted roughly equally. Sadly, and as we all know,
>
> this is far from the case. The following chart reveals the numbers of full
>
> members in each division as of last November with the relative value of a
>
> single member's vote in each division. The disparity is appalling. The vote
>
> of a member in the Southeastern division is worth one-fifth of that of a
>
> member in the Dakota division:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Division Full Members Vote Value Relative to
>
> Average
>
>
>
> Atlantic 11464 0.8
>
>
>
>
>
> Central 9306 1.0
>
>
>
>
>
> Dakota 3052 3.0
>
>
>
> Delta 6676
>
> 1.4
>
>
>
> Great Lakes 11037 0.8
>
>
>
> Hudson 4857 1.9
>
>
>
> Midwest 5991 1.5
>
>
>
> New England 8236 1.1
>
>
>
> Northwest 11317 0.8
>
>
>
> Pacific 8872
>
> 1.0
>
>
>
> Roanoke 11693 0.8
>
>
>
> Rocky Mountain 6990 1.3
>
>
>
> Southeastern 14101 0.6
>
>
>
> Southwestern 10655 0.8
>
>
>
> West Gulf 11043 0.8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> total full members 135290 average division 9019
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There will never be perfection, as division membership numbers change over
>
> time. Nonetheless, considerations of fundamental fairness dictate that the
>
> League do something to level the playing field. Our members all pay the same
>
> dues; they deserve the same rights. The status quo is simply not defensible
>
> on ethical grounds. There are multiple possible solutions to this problem,
>
> all easy to describe but politically difficult to implement. But the problem
>
> must be solved. A good start would be to define boundary goals. Perhaps we
>
> should add something like this to our bylaws: "The number of members
>
> entitled to vote in each division shall be between 80% and 120% of the
>
> number in an average sized division." By this standard, only four divisions
>
> currently pass muster - Central, New England, Pacific, and Southwestern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> V. The Ethics and Elections Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Board has for many years relied on an Ethics and Elections committee as
>
> a mechanism for managing questions of ethics and propriety. Any objective
>
> analysis of its efficacy would conclude that the results have been mixed at
>
> best. On smaller details having to do with the conduct of elections, the
>
> committee has mostly been able to bring order when needed. But on some of
>
> the truly important matters, the Committee has failed, leading to
>
> accusations of weaponization, arbitrariness, and bias. I will note three
>
> situations that have arisen in recent years to illustrate this.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In one, a Director was censured for activities characterized as breach of
>
> confidentiality when, in fact, the underlying "offense" was an encounter
>
> between the Director and a Board Officer at a Board meeting, one that some
>
> Board members found to be unacceptable. The result has fueled anti-League
>
> rhetoric and damaged the reputation and stature of the Board.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In another, a Vice-Director was denied the right to run based on an
>
> interpretation of conflict of interest that can, at best, be characterized
>
> as convoluted and tortured. Much to his credit, that Vice-Director took the
>
> long view and has since returned to the Board as an elected Director. An
>
> interesting side note is that a few years later, a Director candidate found
>
> himself in a very similar situation, and there was no action by the E&E.
>
> Inconsistent results like this damage the League.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the most recent, a Director proposed to publish a book that was in
>
> violation of any reasonable interpretation of conflict of interest. The E&E
>
> gave an initial OK, a decision that in itself was impossible to justify,
>
> then backtracked on that approval claiming that important information had
>
> been withheld, though the proposed publication would have been, with or
>
> without the withheld information and beyond any doubt whatever, a violation
>
> of conflict of interest. The result was a kerfuffle that cast the League in
>
> a most unfavorable light, and which gave the Director plenty of ammunition
>
> to criticize the Board.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In summary, on big issues our Ethics and Elections committee has been an
>
> almost total flop. While it might be tempting to criticize the individual
>
> Directors on that committee, in fact, each of the three E&E committees
>
> involved in the cases above had a different membership. The problem would
>
> seem to have less to do with individuals than with a flawed process. One
>
> important flaw is that the committee makeup changes frequently due to our
>
> rules about who may serve on it. The short terms served on the committee
>
> have led to inconsistency from year to year, inconsistency that from the
>
> outside is perceived as arbitrariness. Another is that information and
>
> history do not seem to pass easily from one E&E to another. We keep trying
>
> to reinvent the wheel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One thing that is not a flaw is the various pieces of Board policy and
>
> Connecticut law that together form our code of conduct. While it is always a
>
> good idea to periodically review and update the code of conduct, the
>
> periodic attempts to "fix" the codification of the code amount to no more
>
> than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and doing so will not fix
>
> the problems with the E&E. Recent history shows that our problems lie not in
>
> the details of that code, but rather in the inconsistency of its
>
> application.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Many boards of all sorts now call upon third-party organizations to vet
>
> ethical issues. We might be well advised to do this, as has been discussed
>
> several times in Board meetings. The following, framed as a bylaw change, is
>
> one way to proceed: "The President, or a committee appointed by the
>
> President, shall find and recommend an outside firm to investigate and
>
> adjudicate matters of Board ethics and election conduct." Another approach
>
> might be to enlist past Directors, Vice-Directors, and Officers, now
>
> presumably detached from the Board nitty-gritty but still familiar with the
>
> general operations, to take on this role. This would be less expensive and
>
> arguably would lead to an E&E better informed about board and election
>
> operation. "The Board shall elect an Ethics and Elections committee made up
>
> of 3 individuals who have served, but are not currently serving, as
>
> Director, Vice-Director, or Board Officer."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VI. Summary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the previous sections I've laid out what I believe to be some of the most
>
> pressing issues challenging the Board today. To reiterate:
>
>
>
> - Balancing our not-for-profit character with the need for sound business
>
> management
>
>
>
> - The threat posed by the "Shadow Board"
>
>
>
> - Living up to our duty of transparency
>
>
>
> - Equal representation for our members
>
>
>
> - Fixing the Ethics and Election Committee process
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> These are challenges not to the body of the League, but to its soul. Things
>
> like cash flow, building up an endowment, or increasing the membership are
>
> more practical problems, and we have on the Board and at the helm of the
>
> League people who are willing, able, and eager to tackle them. I've also
>
> sketched out possible solutions to the problems I've described. These would,
>
> of course, need to be fleshed out and made into motions, but that shouldn't
>
> be too hard to do. I would be happy to assist.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VII. And Now for a Final
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It's time to wrap things up. I've been on this Board for 25 years now. It's
>
> been quite a ride. I've served under five presidents, survived no-code
>
> licensing, battled for antenna rights in the courts, fought in the
>
> "Vice-Director War", and gotten to know some very fine people in the
>
> process, many still with us, a few, sadly, no longer. I could try to name
>
> you all, but the list would be long, and I would no doubt omit someone
>
> important. But I will call out one old friend, no longer with us, whom I
>
> sorely miss. That would be Pacific Division Director Jim Tiemstra. Those who
>
> knew him may recognize some of his ideas in the preceding pages. I am not
>
> yet done with League service, but I may be entering something of a hiatus.
>
> For now, I'll be building up the veggie farm, finally putting my antenna
>
> farm back together, busying myself with town politics, sliding into
>
> professional retirement, and generally looking for new ways to get in
>
> trouble.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 73,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Raisbeck k1twf
>
>
>
> 1st Vice President
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
More information about the SCCC
mailing list