[SECC] SECC Digest, Vol 181, Issue 5

[Michael Zolno]

Nicely said Dave, 

You echo my thoughts perfectly; sadly, the way things have been going, it appears my life membership may now only be good for receipt of QST unless I am censured and it is taken away. A lot of money was spent on a hobby I love and it seems to me there is no reason for these continued actions to garner more secrecy, more power at the top, influence elections by DQing folks running for ridiculous reasons and the end result being less input or control from where power belongs - their members.

73 Mike N4EEV

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 7:43 PM, secc-request at contesting.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