UPDATE 11/28/17: The official name for the “Code of Conduct” referred to below is the “ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors.” Where appropriate, I’ve changed how I refer to this document and use the official name.
I also corrected the paragraph where I said that I couldn’t figure out when the policy was adopted. It was pointed out to me that it was adopted at the January 2017 board meeting. I missed that because I was looking for Code of Conduct instead of ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors.
On Monday, I got an email from the ARRL. Attached were minutes of a Special Board Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors held by teleconference on Tuesday, November 14, 2017. At first, I didn’t think much of it, but after reading the minutes, I thought to myself, “What heck are these guys thinking?”
What the minutes document is the censure of Dick Norton, N6AA, for “criticizing publicly the collective action of the Board of Directors adopting said Code of Conduct[sic] and drawing the Board’s collective decision making into disrepute.” Here’s the entire section from the minutes:
4. Mr. Carlson, moved, seconded by Mr. Lisenco that:
Whereas, Mr. Richard Norton, N6AA, publicly criticized the ARRL Code of Conduct for Board members at a public Amateur Radio gathering by virtue of his characterizations thereof, thus criticizing publicly the collective action of the Board of Directors adopting said Code of Conduct and drawing the Board’s collective decision making into disrepute, in violation of multiple portions of the Code of Conduct, including but not limited to Sections 1.b. and 8.a, 8.b., 8.d; and 8.f; and
Whereas, Mr. Norton has been cautioned by Board members that his actions and his manner in the above respects are not acceptable and cannot continue, with no notable change in his behavior since that time; and
Whereas, Mr. Norton has been given a copy of the Recommendation of the Ethics and Elections Committee dated September 7, 2017, and has responded to it and tendered to the Board of Directors four statements of ARRL members in support of his response;
Now, therefore, the Board of Directors having considered the recommendation of the Ethics and Elections Committee at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors duly called for the purpose of considering the actions of Mr. Norton and an appropriate remedy therefor, and in view of the information before it and taking into account Mr. Norton’s response and his submissions in response thereto, finds that there exists sufficient cause (i.e. a material violation of the ARRL Code of Conduct that has caused harm to the League) to publicly censure Mr. Norton for his unacceptable behavior as an ARRL Board Member, and Mr. Norton is admonished by the Board that no further, similar behavior will be tolerated. That action is so ordered.
After discussion and a roll call vote being requested, the motion was ADOPTED by a vote of 11 Aye, 3 Nay and 1 abstention with Directors Carlson, Olson, Norris, Williams, Lisenco, Blocksome, Frenaye, Pace, Boehner, Allen and Sarratt voting aye, Directors Abernethy, Norton and Woolweaver voting nay, and Director Vallio abstaining.
So, what is this ARRL Code of Conduct? It’s official name is the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors, and was adopted at the January 20-21, 2017 board meeting.
To be fair, this document does include some good things, such as acting responsibly when it comes to ARRL financial matters and treating ARRL staff with respect. What seems to be questionable, and the reason for N6AA’s censure, however, is Section 8 Support of Board Decisions. It reads:
8. SUPPORT OF BOARD DECISIONS: A Board member must accept and publicly support Board decisions.
a. A Board member, as a leader in Amateur Radio, is encouraged to be an ambassador and an advocate for ARRL and, subject to the Confidentiality Standard of this Code of Conduct, to publicly promote the activities and actions of the organization with the ARRL membership. In doing so, a Board member must act at all times faithfully to the intent of the Board as expressed in its official statements, and should not reinterpret or re-characterize the Board’s actions to reflect his/her own view or the views of any other Board Member.
b. While having the right and responsibility to exercise independent judgment and to express dissenting opinions during Board deliberations, a Board member also has the obligation outside the Boardroom to respect and support final decisions of the Board, ven when the Board member dissented from the majority view.
c. A Board member who does not support a Board decision may express his/her opposition within the Board in an appropriate manner.
d. A Board member must not take actions publicly or with respect to the ARRL membership that have the purpose or effect of undermining or discrediting the decisions or actions of the Board.
e. If a Board member is ultimately unable to accept a Board decision and is unable to influence a change, the Board member should consider voluntarily resigning his/her position on the Board.
f. A Board member may not publicly oppose a Board action prior to the effective date of his or her resignation from the Board.
In effect, this is a gag order on a director if he disagrees with a Board decision. Not only that, this section seems to say that once someone gets elected to the Board, his allegiance to the Board is more important than the views of the amateur radio operators he represents.
One of my Twitter followers put it this way, “Where else can those ostensibly in a position of representation of the organization’s members be punished for publicly criticizing the organization’s rules? US Congress? Parliament of the UK? No, and no. @arrl board is looking more like North Korea than a representative body.” Seriously, can you imagine if the U.S. Congress had such a policy in place?
Not only that, as I read the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors, this censure is just a slap on the wrist, anyway. It does not say that a board member can be removed from office. All it says is “e. If a Board member is ultimately unable to accept a Board decision and is unable to influence a change, the Board member should consider voluntarily resigning his/her position on the Board.” I say that Mr. Norton should stay and continue to bring issues like this to the membership.
The minutes say, “Mr. Norton is admonished by the Board that no further, similar behavior will be tolerated.” What does that mean exactly? Would the board go so far as to attempt to remove him from office and deprive the Southwest Division of their duly-elected director? Can they do that and under what authority?
What did Norton actually do?
I emailed Norton to find out what he said exactly to bring on this censure. Understandably, he was a little hesitant to speak to me directly. I then asked if I could see the supporting statements.
I then received two emails. The first was from Mark Weiss, K6FG. His email contained the text of an email he sent to the ARRL Board of Directors:
November 9, 2017
Dear ********,
This email is sent to you in response Director Dick Norton’s request that I provide you with my recollection of some events that took place at the ARRL Forum during the 2017 International DX Convention in Visalia, California.
I don’t recall the identity of all of the members of the Visalia ARRL Forum’s panel, but Dick Norton appeared to be the primary speaker.
One of the topics addressed was the new Code of Conduct.
Dick Norton began the program by stating that he, as a Director, fully supports the actions of the Board of Directors. He covered some points of the new code that impact his relationship with the membership. Dick then inquired of those present if there were any questions or comments from the floor.
In response to Dick’s inquiry, several of us raised our hands and were recognized.
When I spoke, I was very direct in my strong opposition to enactment of the confidentiality provisions contained in the Code of Conduct. My expressed thoughts included, but were not limited to the following:
- I acknowledged that Board member loyalty and commitment to the League was properly mandated; but the gag order contained in the Code of Conduct is clearly contrary to my sense of serving the best interests of the ARRL members.
- I stated that contrary to the view expressed by the current ARRL administration, ARRL is a representative organization. That is, our districts elect directors and vice-directors to create and implement policies and rules that best represent the interests of amateur radio in general, AND THE INTERESTS OF OUR DISTRICT IN PARTICULAR.
- It is my understanding that directors and vice-directors are precluded from informing their district members of the various (and conflicting) views expressed by the directors during the legislative process. If my observation is correct, I fear following will occur:
A. I may never be provided with information upon which I can evaluate the propriety of the Board’s action.
B. I will never know the positions advocated or supported by my director at the Board meeting.
C. I will never know if my elected director acted in furtherance of the best interests of the hobby in general, or in the best interests my district in particular.
D. I will have no factual basis upon which to support or oppose my director’s bid for reelection when his or her current term ends.Much to my surprise, as I was sitting down after I finished delivering my brief remarks, there was unanimous and very loud applause. I was shocked because I had not intended to stir up widespread opposition to the ARRL leadership’s action; it was my intention to simply express the reasons for my opposition to the Code of Conduct.
It was immediately apparent to me that my remarks resonated with nearly everyone in the room. In fact, at the conclusion of discussion of the issue, the call for a vote in support or opposition to the Code of Conduct resulted in an overwhelming condemnation of the Code.
The Code of Conduct has been discussed at meetings I attended this year at our local radio clubs. The consensus among the club members was always consistent with the reaction to my comments at the Visalia ARRL Forum.
It is my fear that the League is heading down the path of becoming a secret “Star Chamber” organization without the transparency to which our membership is entitled.
Please do not form the impression that I believe Board disclosure to the membership is absolute. I indeed recognize the need to maintain confidentiality of proceedings in appropriate circumstances.
The Code of Conduct is already generating adverse consequences to the League. I personally know of valuable bequests that have been withdrawn as a result of the new disclosure rules. If this action is a trend, the League will definitely be harmed.
It is my opinion that the League’s leadership made a major mistake in adopting the Code of Conduct. Please do what you can to cause the Board to revisit the Code of Conduct legislation. Please remove the “gag order” provisions. Please freshen the air the surrounds the ARRL leadership.
Thank you & 73,
MARK A. WEISS, K6FG
There was also an email from Tim Duffy, K3LR:
Dear Officers and Directors of the American Radio Relay League, Inc.;
I attended the ARRL Forum held at the April 2017 International DX Convention in Visalia, California, as I do every year. Dick Norton, N6AA has asked me to report on two of my observations during the ARRL forum.
One item discussed at the ARRL forum was the new ARRL code of conduct for ARRL Directors. Dick Norton covered items contained in the code of conduct. It was clear that the audience was not happy about what was being told to them. A number of forum audience participants spoke in strong opposition to certain aspects of the code. My own personal attorney (and ARRL volunteer counsel) K3LA was surprised by what N6AA presented. K3LA is also opposed to the code and seeing the audience was clearly upset by Dick’s presentation concerning the code, he walked out of the room. The opposition came from the upset audience, not from Dick Norton. Norton specifically pointed out that he supports the board’s positions. I have previously discussed this code and other ARRL topics with Dick. I was not surprised by the audience’s strong negative response to the code. Their reaction also mirrors my own feelings.
Second, I have been asked to report that there were many other topics covered at the forum. That is true. The code of conduct was only a part of the agenda that Dick discussed at the ARRL forum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have questions.
Very 73,
Tim Duffy K3LR
ARRL Maxim Society & ARRL Diamond Club Member
ARRL Life Member
So, I go back to my original question. What the heck is the ARRL Board thinking, first in passing this draconian ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors, and second in using it to censure a director, who, according to several accounts, didn’t commit the infraction in the first place? Are they so insecure in their decision-making that they have to resort to gag orders like this? Don’t they see that taking actions like this brings them more “disrepute” than an honest dissenting opinion?
This whole situation really baffles me. I’d invite anyone representing the ARRL to shed more light on this.
Frank Howell says
I too read these minutes. And came to a similar conclusion. What I’d like to see is the ARRL’s charter filed with the SOS Office in CT. What have they said to the sos as to how they plan to operate as a nonprofit in CT? Are these new rules consistent? If not, they could have some jeopardy here.
But, on a practical basis, the new leadership comes from the corporate finance industry where it’s a top-down mum’s the word world. That just isn’t how an effective non-profit operates from a manage,ent point of view.
I heard one comment said in jest on 75 meters a few months ago. Baseball has both American and National Leagues…to keep up competition originally. These ragchewers kinda laughed that it might be time for a National Radio League!
RickB KA8BMA says
This smells of CYA and I doubt it would survive a Freedom of Information inquiry.
Ron 04 says
Why would a private, non-governmental agency be obligated to respond to a FOIA request? They are not.
okto says
One of many reasons for a country’s amateur radio governing body to be a tax-funded or at least governmentally-defined entity. ;)
Michael Montgomery says
Uh, no. The government already has the FCC. Keep those bureaucrats out of the governance of amateur radio operations. As it is, the membership can take action if necessary to correct the operations of the ARRL. Government bureaucrats would end amateur radio.
Bob, KG6AF says
If I understand this correctly, those who oppose the new Code of Conduct provisions and want to elect directors who will overturn them have no way of ascertaining from sitting directors whether or not they’re willing to do so. But candidates running against those sitting directors can speak freely. If I were a director, this would concern me.
Bobby Burns says
I fully concur with your comments!
73s DR wa5cev
Jay says
They really can’t speak freely as candidates as they need to be vetted by the “Ethics and Elections Committee” who can refuse to put them on the ballot due to some excuse or no excuse at all because those decisions are secret.
Steve says
I first heard of this matter by reading about it on the ARRL web site main page. I went to the link of the minutes of the special board meeting as well as the link to read the code of conduct. To say it raised my eyebrows is an understatement.
When a head of state of a particular Asian nation on the northern border of a war zone does anything at all; his generals are obliged to stand, applaud, smile broadly and cheer. The slightest indication of displeasure most certainly results in “censure”. This to me is the definition of tyrannical control. As it is applied to the League it is a means of keeping who ever they identify as the rogue directors in line through intimidation.
There should be no secrets when it comes to League governance. We are not a corporation protecting our trade secrets. If the board was discussing the formula for Coca Cola or the Colonel’s secret blend of 11 herbs and spices then I would understand keeping some information close to the vest.
I won’t even get into the League’s instance on total PIO control of the release of statements to the media, which is almost as bad.
I was wondering if I was the only one so offended by these actions. I’m glad to know I’m not alone.
Steve, K8BZ
ARRL Life Member since 1976
Marty, N6VI says
To my fellow SCCC members,
On Monday, November 20, the ARRL posted an article on its Web page entitled, “ARRL Board of Directors Publicly Censures Southwestern Division Director”. Yes, they’re referring to our own N6AA, who has served as our elected representative to the ARRL Board for over twelve years, longer than most of the other Directors and Vice Directors have been in the Boardroom.
You can read the story and related minutes of the special meeting for yourself, but what these documents omit is that the allegation on which the censure was likely based appears to be untrue. During the 2017 International DX Convention in Visalia, at the ARRL Forum, Dick factually described the Code of Conduct adopted four months earlier at the ARRL Board’s annual meeting. He made no statement against the Code, but members in attendance almost unanimously voiced their objections to it. That Code, which only three Directors (Norton, Woolweaver and Abernethy) voted against, shifts a League Director’s primary duty of loyalty from members (and, by extension, Amateur Radio in general) to the corporation. It further prevents a Director from expressing publicly any reservations as to any decision, wise or unwise, made by the Board majority and from disclosing any Director’s vote, including his or her own. This is a fundamental and significant change for what had been a member-driven organization for over a century, and I fear there are more such changes to come. Frankly, the events foreshadowing this change were a major factor in my decision last year not to seek re-election as Vice Director.
I find it ironic that this public censure was orchestrated by the Board’s Ethics and Elections Committee, in the face of substantial contrary evidence offered by respected and reliable sources such as K6FG and K3LR, against someone who has consistently shown the highest level of ethics in and outside the Boardroom.
I expect more detail to be shared soon, and we will have opportunities for in-person discussions on this whole matter over the coming months. I will gladly participate in those discussions. Feel free to pass this message on to other interested parties.
73,
Marty N6VI
N0LSD says
One wonders of the ARRL Board has ever heard of the Streisand Effect. Yeah….
Dan KB6NU says
I have to admit that I have never heard this phenomenon called the Streisand Effect. Here’s how it’s defined on Wikipedia:
James Wades says
Hi Dan: Let’s not forget that absolutely no one in the Amateur Radio “press” or blogosphere would dare offer Joe Ames or the NTS leadership an opportunity to offer their side of the story after the ARRL published it’s false and misleading press release. Of course, the same people were more than willing to circulate that press release Worldwide via the Internet, thereby destroying a man’s reputation and causing harm to an entire group of radio amateurs. The so called “news sources” serving the Amateur Radio community are equally at fault for allowing this situation to develop due to their naivete or simple moral derangement. Ham radio is becoming a mean-spirited hobby of insecure egotists devoid of humility or common decency. It’s time to put a stop to this trend.
Dan KB6NU says
You know, Jim, I’m sorry that I didn’t follow up on that story. There really is only so much that I can do, however.
Fred Laun, K3ZO says
Dan:
I was also at the Visalia ARRL Forum and to the best of my recollections, K6FG’s account is correct. The matter was only one of a number of subjects discussed
and at the time it didn’t seem such a big deal so at my advanced age I don’t
recall filing away any particular facts in my head to be mulled over later.
I would note that if I recall correctly, New England Division Director K1KI was also present at the ARRL Forum, so his recollections may have trumped those of K6FG and K3LR as far as the Board was concerned.
Dick’s transgression as far as the Board was concerned was probably to call public attention to the matter at all. They are obviously defensive about their ridiculous stance and would prefer to keep the matter from being brought up at all at public events.
I have been an ARRL member officially for 40 years, and before that in my 65 years as a ham was a member most of the time but as I worked overseas during much of the time in my younger years, my membership was briefly interrupted on a couple of occasions. To me this recalls the sad days of ARRL’s GM Budlong which I had thought were long behind us. He had a light complexion and when angry his face turned bright red, and when he appeared at ARRL forums it was clear just by looking at him that he felt some questions had no business being raised.
It is true that for-profit public corporations have non-disclosure rules, but they do hold annual meetings which all stockholders are invited to attend, during which anyone can raise matters with the CEO or other officers and expect an honest, factual reply.
73, Fred Laun, K3ZO
Ray says
“I would note that if I recall correctly, New England Division Director K1KI was also present at the ARRL Forum, so his recollections may have trumped those of K6FG and K3LR as far as the Board was concerned.”
The New England Director who is also Chairman of the E&E committee is a probable suspect and the trump card that ARRL is protecting. If they are going to ignore the testimony of 2 honorable hams, then that leaves Mr Frenaye as a suspect. ARRL claims to listen to the membership and they do “listen”. However, the word of one of their own will destroy the opinion of any member. It makes sense that they protect Mr Frenaye, if he is the source.
KD0CQ says
Could this lead to the League lobbying AGAINST our best interests in the future? If they start with something like this, what’s to stop them from not defending portions or entire swaths of our frequency allocations or primary status therein?
With the future of our collective hobby at stake maybe we should take a much closer look at just who we’re electing to these offices, and what connections they have to industry.
Sterling N0SSC says
At some far flung point in the future, I would love to run for board. There’s gotta be transparency and frequent communication between the ARRL and its membership. Without some sort of discourse between the Board and N6AA, all I’m seeing is the formation of another ol’ boy’s club that might ultimately lead to a political split of the ARRL, like so many radio clubs before it: some folks vehemently disagree with something the club has an unmovable position on, leaves, and starts their own club.
This is especially silly though. Like, goodbye ARRL, nice knowing ya, level of silly. In what godforsaken reality is it better for a member-centric organization to ignore their constituency?
This sounds exactly what the FCC is doing in regards to Net Neutrality.
Dan KB6NU says
What’s stopping you from running for the board? Although you couldn’t tell from looking at the current board membership, there’s no lower age limit. Andrea Hartlage (sp? callsign?) was a Vice Director for a while.
I actually ran for Vice Director twice, although I lost both times. The second time I lost by only 12 votes! That still kinds of sticks in my craw.
Peter G. says
The ARRL Bylaws appear to impose a minimum age requirement of 21.
Bobby Burns says
AMEN on both situations! At the rate the League has acted thus far, I strongly feel it is in jeopardy. And if this code is not corrected to eliminate this section, I for one, would consider very seriously withdrawing my membership to the League
Sherri Brower says
https://www.facebook.com/arrlse/
Take a look at his facebook page. This was a sitting director. He made remarks that the BOD did not like so they didn’t censure, just declared him ineligible.
Dan KB6NU says
It truly saddened to read K4AC’s Facebook page. It was the first I’d heard of it. As K4AC predicted, it seems that the Board’s success at removing him has emboldened them to go after other directors with dissenting opinions. Seriously, does the board really think that doing stuff like this is in the best interest of amateur radio?
Jay says
Sterling N0SSc wrote, “At some far flung point in the future, I would love to run for board. There’s gotta be transparency and frequent communication between the ARRL and its membership.”
The catch-22 is that if you ran on that platform, you would be in violation of the code of conduct for publicly mentioning opposition to ARRL policies. If elected, you would immediately be expelled. The first rule of Fight Club…
Phil says
Respectfully, given the background of the majority of the board, you might have here a takeover in the makings. Mr Greedy For Gain is very sneeky in his actions, but eventually exposes himself.
The membership should take care they are not subverted and turned into consumers only.
Mel says
I almost always favor more openness. Openness builds trust. When you limit the voice of people, organizations move toward control and manipulation. I would far prefer the ARRL strive to be more open and representative.
Lloyd Colston says
EVERY board member had a vote. As a result of that vote, I emailed my Division Director my comments regarding the vote.
1. The LEAGUE is a representative organization. If you are concerned about this, contact your representative. Express your opinion there.
2. Your representative did not vote according to your wishes? Drain the swamp. Vote him OUT.
3. You don’t like the way the League is going? RUN for office. It was my pleasure to be the Oklahoma Section Manager. There are some interesting characters who will “help” you. :)
4. Two and Three require League Membership. You can’t make change outside the organization. Some have tried. Many have failed. JOIN … http://arrl.org/join
https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/8cea6d64-ff6a-453a-8347-c5afeffd45b7/ede99f46-8e61-4313-bd49-083d616058c4.jpg/:/rs=w:400,cg:true,m
Dan KB6NU says
While you’re certainly right about the ARRL being a representative organization, I think this Code of Conduct—at least Section 8—makes it less so. That’s the crux of the matter here. At a time when the ARRL should be working to be more inclusive and increase membership, they continue to do things to alienate hams and make membership less attractive.
Phil K7PEC says
It doesn’t seem like much of a representative organization if the director that represents me is forbidden to discuss his reasons for his vote, but is only allowed to tell me how he voted. I agree that this is a very unusual restriction that appears to restrict the flow of information from our board to us members. We need to have it removed.
Jay says
Lloyd Colston says: “Your representative did not vote according to your wishes? Drain the swamp. Vote him OUT.”
Good luck with that. According to ARRL code of conduct, your representative is PROHIBITED from telling you how he or anyone else voted and REQUIRED to fully support the majority decision. Any HINT of dissent is forbidden. See http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/ARRL%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf section 6c and 8.
Mark Regan says
The ARRL has NEVER had credibility. That’s why I quit sending them MY money many years ago.
Fred LaHead says
Wow. Quite the thought processes going on here. NOT!
Derek (N0GB) says
Thanks for the article Dan. I was unaware of the ARRL Board of Directors actions in moving to censure another member. In my opinion, this is quite disturbing to read. To read Mark and Tim’s letters in support of Dick is reassuring and I think distilled the matter quite nicely. This is definitely not the way to increase membership and instill confidence in existing members. This action, combined with some other recent ARRL related news will not be forgotten when it comes to evaluating a decision to renew membership. Am I crazy but are the ARRL junk emails trying to sell me something increasing? But that’s another issue entirely.
MJ - WO9B says
Here’s the problem for me: The Special Meeting Minutes report a nearly 3 hour meeting. The minutes report actions and not discussion. So tell me, how do I obtain any account of the discussion to understand this issue when those present are constrained to point only to the minutes as an answer to my question.
My ARRL renewal is sitting on my desk. It may sit there a while longer.
Total ad hominem: Can’t wait to see what Tom Gallagher will be yelling about in the Jan QST. Hmmmmm.
Steve C - KE8HXM says
I’m new to amateur radio, but as a veteran of Vietnam vintage I am not sure this is a great decision on the ARRL board’s part, as it seems to deny the First Amendment right to free speech under The Constitution.
I don’t know whether I should be offended by the imperious attitude behind it, or the act itself. As many have pointed out when a post in an organization is filled by voters of a particular geographic division within that organization, what business do the people on the board have in silencing another who is of the peoples representatives? The people within the membership of ARRL’s Southwest division elected this man to represent them in matters before the board, and just because his views expressed did not lock-step align with some of the board in favor of the people he represents, they have taken it upon themselves to declare that board member out of order and further restrain him from any future dissent opinions? The final stroke of arrogance was the part where they demand confidentiality and that no further outbursts will be tolerated by the board – who do these people think they are? They, who were part of the formally written decision, and who also voted in favor of it, used every tool of parliamentary process to civilize this hostile act which in essence renders the people who make up the Southwest division without any advocacy in their favor when it comes to ARRL matters. This is wrong on many levels and it smacks of hubris and ego beyond acceptable limits within the greater totality of the United States as a people who are under our Constitution allowed broad discretion when it comes to public expression.
My mother, father and I all were in the U.S. Army during the Cold War in opposition to enemy states that behaved in similar fashion regarding their general population, and for my part I hope this is simply misguided and not a harbinger of things to come from ARRL. It seems the heavy hand of totalitarian politics is never really very far away whenever people congregate in organized groups, no matter how limited in scope or how small in number there is always someone who seeks to dominate.
It saddens me to see this in amateur radio’s oldest organized body. I am grateful to ARRL for it’s part in preserving our privileges as radio amateurs in this country, but this latest move was not simply against Mr. Norton but also those he represents. Ultimately unless Mr. Norton committed a criminal act, the board has no legal standing to silence him and in turn his constituents. The people who elected him are the only ones who should be able to influence his behavior in board proceedings, and this maneuver sounds all too familiar – and wrong. It is my hope that ARRL will realize this and undo what they have done.
73,
Dave New, N8SBE says
Steve C — I’m afraid that you are conflating governmental rules with corporate (as the ARRL is) rules. First of all, the 1st Amendment (Free Speech) only applies to governmental agencies and those agencies that receive government money (and that latter point has made for fine debate on many fronts in the past).
A corporation has a right to keep secrets and censure discussion, including such public-facing entities as Facebook and Twitter. In spite of talk to the contrary, they are not public utilities
Many corporate boards have closed meetings, and that is considered the norm. Even governing bodies have closed meetings from time to time, including our House and Senate.
We may wish for more transparency from the ARRL board, and it’s fine to push for that, but please leave 1st Amendment and similar discussions out of it. They have no standing in the current conversation, I’m afraid, since the ARRL is an NGO by definition.
K6HTN says
I would guess that the board has the right to censure one of its own members. But censure him for communicating with his constituency?? How can there be fair elections if the candidates & sitting officials can’t talk about issues? Board policies should be toward open discussion.
Besides, Dick Norton is a great guy & a leader in the ham community. Hams & other people respect him. This is not something to be thrown away.
Lee says
This stinks, plain and simple. It is the kind of thing one would expect the old Soviet Politbureau to do – but not any American organization. The bums need to be voted out.
Allen Pitts says
Democracy is messy!
Of all the governmental systems, democracy has to be one of the most confoundingly sloppy, noise-filled, here-we-go-on-a-tangent-again, inefficient systems ever devised. It allows both the wise man and the fool the ability to hear propositions, argue their merits and voice an opinion. That takes time and wears on the nerves. It is much better by far to have a dictatorship or a “star chamber” where edicts are pronounced and followed without question or debate.
And yet, somehow history has shown us that dictators and star-chambers just never seem to work out well for the governed. For all the sloppiness, democratic processes seem to be the best for the actual people even if not for the potentates.
Go now to a “voluntary organization” whose leadership is elected by the members at large. How shall the members choose their representatives? Well, of course, by knowing the issues at hand, the various alternatives and the stances of the candidates. But then what if the issues are NOT being shared with the members? What if they are NOT told what is being considered, why, the options or even allowed to know what their representatives are advocating? Obviously, then democracy, or any voting on leadership positions is, at best, a shot in the dark.
Say we know your town has a financial problem. Are the selectmen going to raise taxes? They won’t tell you. Are there other options? You cannot know that either. Well, what ARE they thinking? Hush… just be quiet until we tell you what we did to you. And even if you were to meet the First Selectman in a coffee shop a few days later, and he actually hated the idea, he would have to praise it and pretend he loved it the whole time. So, do you vote for him again next cycle?
At that point you are no longer a “member” but a pawn being played. Pay your taxes, keep quiet and big daddy in the sky will make choices for you. Sure, you get to vote, but what good is it and what is the real difference between this and a dictatorship? (damn little)
The free flow of ideas, options, feelings and support is indeed messy at best and there are always those folks on the fringes who really can make it a horror show. But it works. It works best for governments and it works for voluntary organizations. It keeps one from becoming a dictatorship and the other from becoming just another publishing company with a subscription base.
James Wades says
Wow! Suddenly, people are taking notice of what has been happening in Newington. No one cared when the reputation of Joe Ames was destroyed by a press release, nor did anyone care when the national leadership of NTS was decapitated by the ARRL Executive Committee. No one cared when the SE Division Director’s candidacy was vacated and a hand-picked successor was declared elected by the powers that be. No one paid any attention to other candidates for office have been disqualified by the “Elections and Ethics Committee” based on their opinion as opposed to properly drafted standards and policies. Why all of the attention now? Did someone’s special interest finally become the victim of dirty politics? Perhaps a preferred constituency, such as the contesting and DX interests finally fell in the crosshairs? Who knows. Regardless; I’ve got bad news for everyone…this skulduggery has been going on for quite some time.
Sherri Brower says
Actually some people cared about the SE Division Director issue. The lofty Ethics and election made us get 3 different versions of a form we only had 75 days to get signatures on and return to HQ.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=got%20vote%3F%20arrl%20southeastern%20division
Check out this facebook page.
Sherri Brower says
Actually some people cared about the SE Division Director issue. The lofty Ethics and election made us get 3 different versions of a form we only had 75 days to get signatures on and return to HQ.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=got%20vote%3F%20arrl%20southeastern%20division
Check out this facebook page.
Dave New, N8SBE says
What did the trick for me was that ARRL posted the link to their Code of Conduct in the article they posted about the censure. That was the first time I had been aware of this Code, even though I faithfully read everything they post via their RSS feed.
By posting the Code of Conduct, whether they intended to or not, they invited critical review of said document, and all the protests that will likely rain down on them.
Dan KB6NU says
The ARRL actually did mention the adoption of the Code of Conduct—whose official name is the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors—in the minutes of the January 20-21, 2017 board meeting. Oddly, though, the news story on that meeting did not mention the adoption of the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors at all. That seems a little fishy. That’s why this one got by you.
I even blogged about those minutes, but apparently didn’t realize the importance of that particular item. When I received the email containing the minutes for the special board meeting, I searched the ARRL website for “code of conduct” once I read the committee meeting minutes. The only two relevant search results were the news item on Norton’s censure and the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors itself. At first, I thought that perhaps they were trying to keep it secret, but the reason it didn’t turn up in a search is that I wasn’t using the correct name.
I did note that there was something funny about the vote on this issue. Initially, there was a voice vote, and there were ten ayes and five nays, but when a roll call vote was taken that changed to 12-3 in favor. So, two of the directors didn’t want to go on record as opposing it.
At any rate, while the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors wasn’t being kept secret, per se, the ARRL didn’t go out of its way to make it public, either. The only link to it, before the link in the news story detailing Norton’s censure, was on the Organizational Structure page. Even if they had tried to keep it secret, and no action had been taken against Norton, the members would have found out about it sooner or later.
Pepe Sparks says
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/150622408/qstanon-arrl-insider
Don Hiles Ka9sgz says
I have never become a amember of ARRL because simple membership without subscribing to their magazine was not offered making joining too expensive for me. But their decisions have affected me over the years. I agree with you folks that this smells bad, big time. Please, for everyone’s sake, find a way to fix this mess. Thanks for listening.
Dale says
I am an ARRL member and I have been for many years. I was concerned the first time I heard about the Code of Conduct (CoC) for our member elected Division folks who ultimately serve as the Board of Directors (BoD) for the ARRL.
When this issue with Mr. Norton came up I reread the entire document. The document in its entirety can be found here: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/ARRL%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf What jumped out at me is that the language in the introduction is written like it pertains to major commercial firms and not a membership organization. The language in the CoC while possibly well intended is a gag order. The required loyalties of the BoD are misplaced. These folks are elected to represent the membership! Yes, there are certain fiduciary, organizational and operational responsibilities to the organization, but it is the membership the organization serves. To me, as written the document is putting the organization first and not the membership who the BoD is elected to serve! It basically says “we know what’s best”!
Michael D. Bolton, N5RLR says
The solution? Resign from ARRL membership or choose to not renew. It’s as simple as this. Vote with your feet, as is said. When its membership/readership/customer base declines to the point of seriously jeopardizing its bottom line (i.e., income stream), the ARRL might get a clue. Might.
Yes, they’ve done a great deal of good over the years, and have been a veritable fount of technical information via their publications. But when an organization becomes a little “too big for its britches” and believes those in its employ/company should practically eat, sleep, live, and crap its dogma, there is a problem.
Bob, KG6AF says
If you’re going to resign, make it count: be sure to first write letters to president Rick Roderick, CEO Tom Gallagher, and your director, explaining exactly why you’re resigning or not renewing.
Myself, I think I’ll remain a member at least until I can vote against a director who apparently approved these code-of-conduct changes.
Michael, KA3X says
W2NSD must be screaming out “I TOLD YOU SO!” in Heaven right now.
Fred says
You sure Wayne’s in heaven? [:-))
Fred (“Skip”) K6DGW
Sparks NV
Ron 04 says
This is the sort of baloney that had me exit the league and all their pomp and circumstance for over a decade.
From what little I know, this entire folly is unnecessary. People should be mature enough to accept conflicting opinions. This is not only juvenile but embarrassing.
Paul says
This does make one wonder who is pulling the board to develop corporate operating rules where in our case we want a democratic process. ARRL is not a corporate body that needs to protect its intellectual property or control access to information such as competitor intelligence gathered covertly. I recall seeing some rationalization for the CoC from Tom Gallagher in one of his editorials. Can’t recall the actual reasoning he supplied however. Perhaps, given todays technology, we push for videotaping of all board meetings and support member access to these recordings as a mechanism to openess, not to diminish the directors role, but to enhance it.
C. Dwight Baker says
The ARRL is a volunteer membership organization. We elect those to represent us on the board of directors. If a board member cannot discuss or criticize actions taken by the board as a whole without the threat of being censored, it is time to replace leadership and the current board. Is a recall in order?
I am taking action by withholding my Diamond Club contribution this year.
John Caplins says
I am truly appalled at this rule and action by the board. This is a hobby after all for most of us and such efforts to supress dissention are disgusting.
Corey says
I will not be renewing my membership to ARRL until this is overturned. As my clubs webmaster i will be sure to make this known in a news posting and mass email. This is just bad and ARRL should be ashamed….. ARRL just signed its own death certificate…..
Don, AC8TO says
So I just learned about this in the November 30 ARRL letter. This seriously pisses me off. I am wondering what the most effective recourse would be? Nasty letters? Some kind of online campaign? Pledging to only vote for leaders who will commit to repealing item 8 from the CoC? I’m coming up for renewal soon, and I certainly could decline to renew, but this seems like it would be a completely ineffective gesture unless I could forcefully communicate the reason for my non-renewal.
Does anything think something like a public website with a strong open letter of opposition to this direction of the ARRL which hams could sign might do any good?
Charles M. (Bud) Garretson, Jr. AD5SK says
Too bad that the late Wayne Green is no longer with us. He was on the League’s case back 50 years ago for some of the same stuff. Amongst the members of the clubs I belong to, I am one of the few hams who still belong to the ARRL.
Tony Everhardt/ N8WAC says
The ARRL elite at it’s finest. After the run-in I had here in here in Ohio I let my membership expire and will never renew. I brought to light that the EC has not had an ARES meeting in years. And that the EC does not have NIMS certification since taking office many years ago. The SEC, Sectional Manager and The Director of The Great Lakes are all aware of this. I had asked about a cover up. I was told that “anything that is being “covered up” is really not in your best interest”. To my knowledge, the county still hasn’t had an ARES meeting (1 in almost 3 years and counting). And the latest NIMS roaster still doesn’t show the EC to be NIMS-certified. The elite ARRL stands tall. But my opinion is that the ARRL is absolutely worthless.
Ron W3WN says
Dan,
I am going to reprint your blog post in my club newsletter, immediately after the official ARRL announcement.
As a League member for over 40 years, I am appalled by what I see here, and I believe that others have (at the very least) the right to know about it.
Of course, I suspect that a request I had from someone in the Field Organization for assistance will now be quietly withdrawn. I can live with that.
73, ron w3wn
Robert H. Pusch, WD8NVN says
The Code of Conduct, I think, was to keep everyone in the ARRL Field Organization on the “same page” so to keep a big and cheery smiley-face tone and tenor on every public interaction with the ham population…
Doug says
Where to begin? Problems in Newington are like a slow train coming. The decision to raise dues all at once rather than gradually has led to a case of heartburn for President Roderick. To be fair this happened under the previous salaried regime. The reality for more than a few of us, not being among the elite, is ARRL membership consists solely of QST magazine. Get much above 30 bucks a year and the number of memberships/subscriptions declines. Just like any magazine.
I dropped out at the $39/year level but cost wasn’t the reason. A confluence of events drove me away. ARRL-proposed legalization of PacTOR 4 in the CW bands, the tremendous expenditures on 100th anniversary activities & converting QST to a cellphone magazine that was not needed or wanted, and of course the Logbook of the World money-pit. Again, to be fair, these events occurred during the prior salaried regime. If I gave up when it was $39 why would I want back in at $49?
Now we have Dick Norton taken to the woodshed for speaking to a gathering where an anti-ARRL word riot began. Bob Famiglia gets sandbagged for not supporting a bad bill. How dare he? ARRL may have hit a new low Budlong notwithstanding. Someone is really going to have to hit me over the head with a strong argument consisting of incontrovertible logic before I re-up again. I’m not holding my breath.
It should be obvious the executive search committee made a big mistake by not promoting from within. As far as I’m concerned the top position should have gone to Dave Patton NN1N, an amateur I’ve never met or spoken to. He was the logical heir-apparent. Continuity is important. Things can be fixed. What purpose does bringing in a rock thrower achieve? Haven’t we already seen this in action over many years in Washington DC, with little to show for it?
ARRL may be unique among 501(c)3’s, never mind the planet of corporate finance. If a new leader has to “walk the halls” to gain a sense of what goes on, the organization is rudderless for that time. The summit of the learning curve has been reached but what spills into the outside world is not pretty. Groups of talented people make mistakes but they know what it takes to correct them before greater damage is done.
For the sake of the National Organization for Amateur Radio let’s hope this is the case.
Budd Dunson says
I gave up on the AARL after seeing that it is an exclusive club.
Richard Montel says
This is KW4MQ, name is Rick.
The first thing that needs to happen is an apology to N6AA from the board. Then we need the gag section of the by-laws removed.
Third, those Board members that created this fiasco need to consider “Volunteering to Resign” for the good of the ARRL.
Until the first two happen, I will not be renewing my membership.
Harris Leck says
Agree with first two items but would urge hams to use your voice as a member to make things work better.
Harris K9RJ LM
Tony DiCenzo, KX1G says
I have served on the boards of 4 non-profits. All ask directors to support decisions, but none have gag rules. This is not a good sign. Seems to me the board is heading down a dangerous path.