[SECC] ARRL Censure of N6AA and By Laws Changes

[Kevan Nason]

Well written Dave. Thank you for refreshing my memory about the details of
K4AC. My reason for bringing this up in the first place is no, it no longer
seems like a single event. Too many people sit by and let things happen.
We've a local club meeting Tuesday night and I intend to ensure they hear
about it too.

Kevan
N4XL

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Dave Moss <mossdj at hotmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
>
> I normally stay clear of such politics, but since you asked . . .
>
>
> I would support SECC sending a strong message of disapproval of both the
> censure of N6AA and the proposed changes to bylaws. These efforts to
> stifle differing views and to impede open and candid communication between
> directors and the members who elected them should be condemned.  I would
> go as far as to express continued condemnation of the disqualification
> of Doug K4AC in the most recent SE division director election.  This caused
> enough concern for me that for the first time ever I considered dropping
> ARRL membership instead of renewing in 2017.  I managed to convince myself
> that this was an isolated event--a "one off".  It appears I was wrong in
> thinking this.
>
>
> I have nothing against Greg W4OKZ--I think he has done well as director,
> and I voted for him the last time we actually got to vote.  But I think
> the dues-paying membership's privilege to select the director of their
> choice is far more important than that my preferred candidate won.  K4AC
> was clearly the membership's choice, and he was excluded from reelection on
> what appears to me to be pretty shady circumstances, with the board being
> far from forthright on the details of precisely why the election should be
> decided by the board rather than the SE division members,  or the basis in
> current bylaws for making such a decision.  I fear that the board is about
> to do the same thing to another director, simply because he also has
> differing opinions and is open and honest enough (unlike much of the rest
> of the board) to share them with the membership who elected him.
>
>
> The facts surrounding the recent censure and the basis for the proposed
> changes in the bylaws are far from clear to me.  This, I would insist, is
> the fault of the board, and not members like me.  But based on what little
> has been shared, this recent swing towards demanding allegiance towards the
> party line seems completely at odds with the original intent and long
> history of having regional directors selected by the members in their
> region (not by board actions), and answerable to those members rather than
> to other directors.  In addition, the board seems to rather arbitrarily
> pick and choose the "facts" to support their position, neither seeks nor
> allows input from membership when making such decisions, and avoids full
> disclosure to members of the facts and circumstances  and basis for the
> decisions.  These behaviors hardly justify continued support from
> dues-paying members.
>
>
> I can assure you that the next election in which I am denied the ability
> to vote for the director of my choice will be my last as an ARRL member.
>
>
> If we are going to make a change to ARRL governance, I would prefer to see
> a change to the *ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members
> of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors *to eliminate provisions
> barring complete openness and candor of Directors with the members who
> elect them. How are we, the members, to influence change to undesirable
> board decisions if we aren't allowed to know if OUR elected director was
> part of the problem, or likely to be part of the solution?  We must and
> should be aware of the individual directors' views when we vote. Any policy
> or provision prohibiting that is not in the best interest of the members.
>
>
> Very respectfully,
>
> Dave Moss KE4UW
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* SECC <secc-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of John Laney <
> k4bai at att.net>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 7, 2018 11:38 AM
> *To:* secc at contesting.com
> *Subject:* [SECC] ARRL Censure of N6AA and By Laws Changes
>
> K2SX and N4GG, members of SECC, have suggested that SECC should take a
> position as a club opposing the changes and proposed changes at ARRL,
> such as NCCC and other clubs have done.
>
> I am not in a position due to my job to try to influence any concerted
> activity since it is unethical for me to use my position to try to
> influence others.  But, if everyone wants SECC to take a position, we
> might be able to submit it without the president's signature or with the
> signature of other officers or members.
>
> Please post your response to the reflector and we'll see what the
> consensus is.
>
>
> 73, John, K4BAI.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
> SECC Info Page - Contesting
> <http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc>
> lists.contesting.com
> To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the SECC
> Archives. Using SECC: To post a message to all the list members, send email
> to ...
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SECC mailing list
> SECC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/secc/attachments/20180107/59260470/attachment-0001.html>