Still more information on the Bylaw 46 proposal: N2RJ on K6UDA, N6AA statement

Here’s some more information about the Bylaw 46 proposal. Both N2RJ, former director of the Hudson Division, and Dick Norton, N6AA, are urging members to contact their directors and express their displeasure with this draconian measure. If you haven’t done so yet, please do. You can find email addresses and phone numbers for your director by going to https://www.arrl.org/divisions.

I’m also including a message to the board sent by Skip, K4EAK. In addition to being an ARRL member, Skip feels that this proposal is so poorly drafted that it should be killed, whether or not those who drafted it have ulterior motives

N2RJ on K6UDA

---

N6AA Statement

Dick Norton, N6AA, Southwest Division Director has issued this statement:

Dear ARRL Member,

It is with a sense of profound disappointment that I find it necessary to share some of the background and details of recent action of the ARRL’s Ethics and Elections Committee, and its apparent use in a scheme to attempt to deprive ARRL members of their ability to choose their representative on the ARRL Board with proposed changes to Bylaw 46.

When I received the following unfounded claim made by ARRL Pacific Division Director McIntyre and learned that ECE Committee members even considered acting on it, I was so stunned and outraged that I was at a loss of how to respond.

Interestingly enough, during the period before my response was submitted, information came that revealed that the other two members of the Elections and Ethics Committee, Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab, had already accepted the scurrilous claims as being fact and were broadcasting defamatory statements to League members.

The following language has been used by the members of the ECE Committee in communication with membership:

Rocky Mountain Division Director Ryan, K0RM: “In today’s political climate, it has become ‘OK’ to ‘lower oneself’ to include name-calling, personal attacks that question an individual’s competence, heritage, and/or motives; and to generally have emotional distrust or contempt for an individual with whom you disagree. It is my intention to ensure such behavior is not present in the ARRL Board room—because our members deserve representatives that always act in a manner that is consistent with the highest business and ethical standards as would any corporation—non-profit or otherwise. I’m perfectly OK with dissent; I’m not so fond of disrespect. I have been in the minority on votes in the ARRL board room. It goes with the territory. What is not proper is to act like a spoiled four-year old who didn’t get his way.”

Central Division Director Luetzelschwab, K9LA: [W]hen a Board member calls someone on the HQ staff a derogatory name, when a Board member verbally threatens another Board member, when a Board member advances on another Board member in a physical manner,” etc. [T]hat’s what this is about.”

Both Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab have been requested to provide specifics of their charges made to the League membership, and neither has done so. The bizarre and unique comment from Director Luetzelschwab about “advances on another Board member in a physical manner” should leave no doubt about his source.

Regarding Proposed Changes to Bylaw 46 –

The real reasons behind the proposed changes appears to be that some Board members and management want to hide bad decisions and the resulting impacts from the membership, and that they want more excuses to remove a Director from office..

For example, Mr. Minster has expressed that League financial information, especially that which he may find embarrassing, can be self-declared as being “confidential,” and that Directors who discuss it with their constituencies should be removed from the Board.

Mr. Minster’s supporters on the Board are attempting to grant Minster the ability to do just that, in spite of Connecticut law not permitting it.

The Ethics and Elections Committee plays an outsized role in such activities. Does the League benefit from efforts like this, obviously aimed at Director elimination? After reading this, do you think the procedures followed in this example reach reasonable quasi-judicial standards? Is this what you want more of from your Board? If the proposed changes to Bylaw 46 are passed, this is what your Board will be up to.

This single example, among many, of abuse of the League’s ECE Committee system by three politically connected actors should by itself give reason not to encourage and validate ARRL Board secrecy.

I believe the ARRL members are the owners of the ARRL. I believe they are entitled to knowledge of how their assets are managed, and how their representatives vote.

There is no dispute about not releasing lobbying or litigation strategies. Almost all disagreements about disclosure to members involve what is being done with their money or how Directors voted on issues before them..

There is essentially nothing I do or have done as a League Director that should be kept from the membership.

I encourage any and all members who agree with me to express their opinions to all the League Directors and Officers. I strongly oppose Board secrecy and the ARRL Motion to change Bylaw 46.

73,
Dick Norton, N6AA

---

K4EAK’s message to the board

All –

As you know, the proposed new Bylaw has generated considerable controversy. Although much of the discussion is little more than the rancor typical of modern debate, I do want to remind you of some serious deficiencies in the proposal irrespective of the merits, or lack thereof, behind the initiative.

There’s been a side discussion going on among a bunch of lawyers (yes, I am one) and the new bylaw is at least an incomprehensible mess of cross-references, incorporated documents, and vague allusions to obscure sources. I know a lot of people read some nefarious motives into the proposal, but whether that’s true or not the draft makes it impossible for anyone to know exactly what is, or is not, a bylaw, what information can be, or cannot be disclosed, and what grounds exist for disqualification, among a host of other drafting deficiencies. I’ve had the misfortune of litigating numerous cases where the requirements of the underlying documents were hopelessly obscure, and this is as bad a case as I’ve ever seen. Really.

Hopefully you’ve seen the numerous inputs from attorneys to the ARRL Board pointing out that the proposal is an interpretation nightmare and I urge you to take those comments to heart.

If there are ulterior purposes behind this change, it needs to be killed; if there are not, it needs to be redrafted. Either way, it needs to be voted down.

Thank you for the tie and effort you put into representing the interests of amateur radio. It is greatly appreciated. And thanks for your consideration.

73 Skip K4EAK