The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 37

[AA7BQ]

IN THIS EDITION:

* + Candidate for ARRL Southwestern Division Director Disqualified;
Norton Declared Re-Elected
* + Hurricane Humberto Causes Havoc on Gulf Coast
* + Look for the October Issue of QST in Your Mailbox
* + Nominating Petitions for ARRL Section Manager Candidates Sought
* + ARRL/TAPR Conference Lists Speaker Schedule
* + 1296 MHz WAS #1 Awarded to Texas Ham
* Solar Update
* IN BRIEF:
This Weekend on the Radio
ARRL Continuing Education Course Registration
+ Radio Appreciation Day is September 15
+ Representative Ross (D-AR), WD5DVR, Attends ARRL Arkansas State
Convention
ARRL Helps MFJ Celebrate 35 Year Anniversary
ARISS Update
FCC Job Announcement
Let Us Know


+Available on ARRL Audio News <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/>

================================================== =========
==>Delivery problems: First see FAQ
<http://www.arrl.org/members-only/faq.html#nodelivery>, then e-mail
<letter-dlvy@arrl.org>
==>Editorial questions or comments only: S. Khrystyne Keane,
<k1sfa@arrl.org>
================================================== =========

==> CANDIDATE FOR ARRL SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION DIRECTOR DISQUALIFIED;
NORTON DECLARED RE-ELECTED

Carl Gardenias, WU6D, the challenger seeking the position of ARRL
Southwestern Division Director, was declared disqualified Thursday by
the ARRL Ethics and Elections Committee. Gardenias was running against
incumbent Richard "Dick" Norton, N6AA. Due to the disqualification, the
Committee has declared Norton re-elected.

According to ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, writing on behalf of the
Committee, an e-mail signed by "Cathy K6VC, Newsletter editor" was sent
on behalf of Orange Section Manager Carl Gardenias to ARRL Orange
Section newsletter editors and Web masters, among others, on September 1
regarding the Southwestern Division election for Director and Vice
Director. The e-mail encouraged "ARRL Full members to vote and vote
wisely" in the upcoming election. Recipients were also asked to
encourage clubs to "post to their websites and into their newsletter
information regarding each candidate," and went on to list information,
including e-mail addresses and campaign Web sites, for the two Director
candidates and four candidates for Vice Director. Cathy Gardenias, K6VC,
is Assistant Section Manager for the ARRL Orange Section and the wife of
Carl Gardenias.

The information given in Cathy Gardenias' e-mail was incorrect, in that
the e-mail address for Norton was wrong. The e-mail also stated that
Norton and Vice Director candidate Marty Woll, N6VI, did not have
campaign Web sites, when in fact they did.

Cathy Gardenias' e-mail went on to say that "Since all candidates are
listed with e-mails and websites if they have one, there is no show of
favoritism or bias. Please vote. Approved by the ARRL k1zz."

The ARRL Ethics and Elections Committee received a complaint regarding
the misinformation and concluded that the email violated the standard of
"truthful and not misleading" that applies to candidates' mailings. It
instructed Sumner to notify Carl Gardenias that "a correction must be
circulated to everyone who received the incorrect information, i.e.
everyone on the above distribution list and anyone else to whom it may
have been sent." Carl Gardenias was also told that should he "become
aware of any postings of the original, uncorrected item, you should
immediately endeavor to have them corrected or removed."

Specific language for the correction was supplied by the committee. It
was to list correct e-mail addresses for each candidate, including
Norton, and to supply the Web site addresses for Norton and Woll that
had been missing from the original message. It was to further state,
"Finally, the item was NOT approved by the ARRL or K1ZZ, as incorrectly
stated," and that "The Orange Section regrets the errors and apologizes
to those affected."

Carl Gardenias acknowledged receipt of Sumner's September 5 e-mail. On
September 7, having seen no evidence of compliance with the Committee's
directive, Sumner sent him another e-mail, asking for a copy of the
correction that Gardenias was supposed to have sent out. Gardenias
replied via e-mail, "OK on Monday we are at the convention," meaning the
ARRL Southwestern Division Convention. Since that response, Gardenias
has not communicated with Sumner, "nor has any evidence of your
compliance with the committee's orders been received," according to an
e-mail Sumner sent Gardenias September 13.

In that e-mail, Sumner reminded Gardenias that he was previously advised
that "candidates' statements 'must be truthful and not misleading, which
matters will be conclusively determined by the Election Committee.' The
standard of truth applies to all mailings by a candidate. The email that
was sent on your behalf on September 1 violated this standard, as
documented in my September 5 message. You failed to follow the
instructions of the Ethics and Elections Committee to make a timely
correction, although you had ample opportunity to do so."

Sumner advised Gardenias that he has "been disqualified as a candidate
for the office of Director of the Southwestern Division. Your name will
not appear on the ballot." Since Dick Norton is the only eligible
candidate, Sumner said, the Committee has declared him re-elected.

==> HURRICANE HUMBERTO CAUSES HAVOC ON GULF COAST

Hurricane Humberto, a Category 1 hurricane and the first hurricane to
make landfall in the US in two years, came ashore in Texas on Thursday,
September 13 not even 50 miles from where Hurricane Rita hit in 2005.
Stronger than initially expected, Humberto continued eastward toward
Louisiana and Mississippi, where flood warnings were in effect.

In response to Humberto, several ARES groups were activated. According
to Brazoria County Emergency Coordinator Terry Bowersmith, W5SRG,
Brazoria County (Texas) ARES activated a complex Net at 6 PM Wednesday,
involving repeaters in Freeport and Alvin. One member was dispatched to
the Brazoria County Emergency Operations Center, and another to the
Pearland EOC, while others remained in "standby ready condition. By 9
PM, Humberto had cleared Brazoria County with little rain and no damage,
so we secured the operation," according to Bowersmith.

ARRL Louisiana Section Emergency Coordinator Gary Stratton, K5GLS, said
Alan Levine, WA5LQZ, District Emergency Coordinator for Southwest
Louisiana, reported minimal flood damage in his area, and little wind
damage. "About three spans of power lines down in this area but should
be repaired within a few hours. The weather has cleared that area and
will continue along a projected path across central Louisiana and
Northwest Mississippi today," Stratton said. "We were lucky that the
system spawned offshore and moved inland quickly as a minimal
hurricane."

Orange County (Texas) Emergency Coordinator Rocky Wilson, N5MTX,
reported that as of Thursday, Orange County had a "massive power
outage"; all schools are closed, as are most retail stores and
businesses, until power can be restored, expected sometime on Saturday,
September 15. "Most petrochemical facilities are shut down due to no
power," Wilson said. Many oil refineries are located on the Texas Gulf
Coast.

Humberto didn't even exist until Wednesday, only becoming a tropical
storm that afternoon, strengthening from a tropical depression with 35
MPH winds, to a hurricane with 85 MPH winds in just 18 hours. Only three
other storms have pulled off a similar feat, growing from depression to
hurricane in 18 hours -- Blanche in 1969, Harvey in 1981 and Alberto in
1982 -- but all of them were out at sea at the time, not about to crash
ashore like Humberto. A Bridge City, Texas man died when the carport at
his home collapsed on him; Bridge City is between Port Arthur and
Orange.

==> LOOK FOR THE OCTOBER ISSUE OF QST IN YOUR MAILBOX

The October issue of QST is jam-packed with all sorts of things today's
Amateur Radio operator needs. From product reviews to experiments to
contesting, the upcoming issue of QST has something for just about
everyone.

This issue features the results of the 2007 QST Photo Contest. The ARRL
Editorial and Production staff judged the nearly 50 entries and chose
the best ones to be published in the magazine and in other ARRL
products.

Norm Fusaro, W3IZ, Assistant Manager for ARRL's Membership and Volunteer
Programs Department, reviewed the Yaesu FT-2000D HF and 6 meter
transceiver. According to the ARRL Lab test results, "The FT-2000D
offers 200 W of transmitter power or a cleaner 75 W in Class A mode.
It's similar to the base model FT-2000 in other respects, with a lot of
flexibility that rewards the operator who takes the time to learn about
and test its many features and settings." There is also a report from
the Lab describing the changes to the way ARRL conducts receiver
testing.

Robert Conway, KA0VAN, tells of ways to put retired public service
radios to use on 2 meters. Alan Applegate, K0BG, warns that using the
wrong size fuse can damage your rig, and offers ways to make sure you
have the correct fuse for the job. Kai Siwiak, KE4PT, finds a way to get
around antenna restrictions by putting up an all-band attic antenna.

For all you contesters out there, the results of the 2007 ARRL
International DX Phone Contest are in. Did you top your score from last
year? How did your closest rival do? Find out all this and more in the
recap by H. Ward Silver, N0AX. Also, find out about the upcoming School
Club Roundup and 2007 ARRL November Sweepstakes Contest.

Look for your October issue of QST in your mailbox. QST is the official
journal of ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio. QST is just
one of the many benefits of ARRL membership. To join or renew your ARRL
membership, please see the ARRL Web page <http://www.arrl.org/join>.

==> NOMINATING PETITIONS FOR ARRL SECTION MANAGER CANDIDATES SOUGHT

The ARRL Membership and Volunteer Services Department has announced that
nominating petitions for Section Managers are currently being accepted
until December 7 for the following Sections: Eastern New York, Eastern
Pennsylvania, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pacific, San Diego, South
Dakota and Virginia.

To be considered a valid nominating petition, it must be signed by no
fewer than five full ARRL members who live in the Section concerned;
photocopied signatures are not acceptable. Any candidate for the office
of Section Manager must be a resident of the Section, an Amateur Radio
licensee of Technician class or higher and a full member of the League
for a continuous term of at least two years immediately preceding
receipt of a nominating petition.

If more than one member is nominated in a single Section, ballots will
be mailed from Headquarters on or before January 2, 2008, to full
members of record as of December 7, 2007, which is the closing date for
nominations. Returns will be counted February 19, 2008. Section Managers
elected as a result of the above procedure will take office April 1,
2008. If only one petition is received from a Section, that nominee
shall be declared elected without opposition for a two-year term
beginning April 1, 2008.

For more information on this election, please see page 76 in the October
issue of QST.

==> ARRL/TAPR CONFERENCE LISTS SPEAKER SCHEDULE

The ARRL/TAPR Digital Communications Conference, scheduled for September
28-30 in Hartford, Connecticut, has released its slate of speakers. The
three-day conference is an international forum for radio amateurs to
meet, publish their work and present new ideas and techniques.
Presenters and attendees will have the opportunity to exchange ideas and
learn about recent hardware and software advances, theories,
experimental results and practical applications.

Registration for the DCC is still open and will be available at the
door.

Friday's speakers include Bob Bruniga, WB4APR, speaking about "The APRS
Local Voice Repeater Initiative"; Ev Tupin, W2EV, speaking about
"Growing APRS' Value within the Emergency First Responder Community";
Paul D. Wiedemeier, PhD, KE5LKY, will talk about "Performance Modeling
of TCP and UDP over Packet Radio Networks Using the ns-2 Network
Simulator"; ARRL Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, will speak
about "Results of HF Digital Protocol Survey"; Mel Whitten, K0PFX, will
speak about "DRMDV for HF"; Bob McGwire, N4HY, is talking about
"NUE-PSK31: A Digital Modem for PSK31 Field Operation Without Using a
PC," and Bill Tracy, KD5TFD, will give an HPSDR update.

Saturday's line-up starts off with Steven Bible, N7HPR, and Robert
McGwier, N4HY, giving an update on SuitSat-2; McGwier will also speak on
AMSAT's Phase IV and "On a Method for Automatic Image Balancing in IQ
Mixer Based Software Defined Receivers," as well as sharing presenting
duties with Gerald Youngblood, K5SDR, with "The Flex 5000 and SDR
Software." Roderick D. Mitchell, KL1Y, will speak about "The Integration
of Amateur Radio and 802.11"; Martin Ewing, AA6E, will present
"SurgeForge, Hamlib and Rigserve: Free Beer, Free Speech and Rig
Control"; Frank Brickle, PhD, AB2KT, will talk on "The FSM Virtual Radio
Kernel: Why, What and How (in that order)"; John A. Hansen, W2FS, will
speak about "The Nordic nRF2401 Single Chip Data Transceiver," and Hank
Javin and Jerry Newman will present "Transmission Lines, Parameters and
Application in Communications Systems."

Two introductory forums are also scheduled on Saturday: Intro to Eagle
CAD, given by Dan Welch, W6DFW, and Intro to HF Digital, given by Steve
Ford, WB8IMY. The TAPR annual meeting is scheduled for Saturday
afternoon.

Sunday's Seminar, a four-hour presentation led by McGwier on the topic
of "A Stroll through Software Radio, Information Theory and Some
Applications" will cover the basic building blocks of a simple software
radio system, as well as a discussion of information theory and its
practical use in communication systems. As time permits, McGwier plans
to demonstrate several software radio systems ranging from the
Softrock40 to the GnuRadio/USRP and the Flex5000. Attendees will receive
packages containing tutorials and software.

For more information on the ARRL/TAPR Digital Communications Conference,
please see the conference Web site <http://www.tapr.org/dcc>.

==> 1296 MHZ WAS #1 AWARDED TO TEXAS HAM

Al Ward, W5LUA, of Allen, Texas, is the first person to achieve the
ARRL's Worked All States (WAS) on 1296 MHz, making him 1296 MHz WAS #1.
Ward first started on his pursuit January 25, 1977, with his first 1296
MHz contact with Leroy May, W5HN (SK). His 30 year quest ended last
week, with confirmed contacts with Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, giving Ward
his last three needed states, thanks to Paul Perryman's, WA5WCP, EME
DXpedition.

"I couldn't have done this without Paul," Ward said. "Also, thanks to
Ron Roche, K0ALL, and Barry Malowanchuk, VE4MA, in North Dakota for
number 47 in August. Without them, it just wouldn't have been possible."
After collecting his 50th QSL card, Ward drove from his home in Texas to
Little Rock, Arkansas so ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN, could
verify his cards and complete his WAS paperwork. "Verifying QSL cards
from 30 years of activity brought back a lot of memories of several
stations active on 1296, many who are Silent Keys now," Harrison said.

==>SOLAR UPDATE

Tad "Sunspots Cast a Glare in My Eyes" Cook, K7RA, this week reports:
The sun has been blank, no visible sunspots, for the past seven days,
September 7-13. We may not see another spot until September 22, just
before the autumnal equinox. Thursday evening, September 13,
Spaceweather.com mentioned a coronal wind hitting earth this evening,
September 14. The Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) points south,
making the Earth vulnerable to solar wind, but other sources don't call
for an increase in geomagnetic activity today. We might assume that a
solar wind from 27 to 28 days ago could return at this time, based on
the rotation of the Sun relative to Earth. But looking back four weeks
does not reveal any heightened activity. Of course, it could be that the
IMF pointed north, protecting earth from the coronal wind. Sunspot
numbers for September 6 through 12 were 12, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 and 0 with a
mean of 1.7. The 10.7 cm flux was 66.7, 67.1, 66.6, 66.7, 66.9, 66.1 and
65.9 with a mean of 66.6. Estimated planetary A indices were 13, 12, 6,
2, 2, 2 and 2 with a mean of 5.6. Estimated mid-latitude A indices were
8, 10, 3, 2, 2, 2 and 2 with a mean of 4.1. For more information
concerning radio propagation, visit the ARRL Technical Information
Service Propagation page
<http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/propagation.html>.

____

==>IN BRIEF:

* This weekend on the radio: This weekend, the ARRL 10 GHz and Up
Contest is September 15-16. The NCCC Sprint (CW) is September 14 and 15.
The SARL VHF/UHF Contest is September 14-16. QRP Afield is September 15.
Look for these contests the weekend of September 15-16: Scandinavian
Activity Contest (CW), South Carolina QSO Party, Washington State Salmon
Run and the QCWA Fall QSO Party. The North American Sprint (SSB) is
September 16. The Run for the Bacon QRP Contest and the 144 MHz Fall
Sprint are September 17. The NAQCC Straight Key/Bug Sprint is September
20. Next week, the NCCC Sprint (CW) is September 21, while the AGCW
VHF/UHF Contest is September 22. The Scandinavian Activity Contest (SSB)
and CIS DX Contest are September 22-23. The SKCC Weekend Sprint is
September 23 and the 222 MHz Fall Sprint is September 25. See the ARRL
Contest Branch page <http://www.arrl.org/contests/>, the ARRL
Contester's Rate Sheet <http://www.arrl.org/contests/rate-sheet/> and
the WA7BNM Contest Calendar
<http://www.hornucopia.com/contestcal/index.html> for more info.

* ARRL Continuing Education course registration: Registration remains
open through Sunday, September 23 for these online courses beginning on
Friday, October 5: Technician License Course (EC-010); Amateur Radio
Emergency Communications Level 1 (EC-001); Radio Frequency Interference
(EC-006); Antenna Design and Construction (EC-009); Analog Electronics
(EC-012), and Digital Electronics (EC-013). To learn more, visit the CCE
Course Listing page <http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html> or contact
the Continuing Education Program Coordinator <cce@arrl.org>.

* Radio Appreciation Day Is September 15: Amateur Radio operators around
the country really don't need a special day to promote Amateur Radio,
but Saturday, September 15 has been declared Amateur Radio Public
Awareness Day. As part of the Department of Homeland Security's National
Preparedness Month, ARRL Public Information Officers (PIOs) are using
the day as a way to make the media more aware of our Service and
especially its role in emergency communications. The purpose of Amateur
Radio Public Awareness Day, held the third Saturday in September, is to
make the public more aware of the existence, purposes and benefits of
Amateur Radio. ARRL Media and Public Relations Manager Allen Pitts,
W1AGP, said, "Through events such as Amateur Radio Public Awareness Day,
hams can take the opportunity to tell not only their friends and
neighbors about the benefits of the Amateur Radio Service, they can take
the opportunity to let the general public know, too. People willing to
make face to face contacts are always the best ambassadors we have for
Amateur Radio."

* Representative Ross (D-AR), WD5DVR, Attends ARRL Arkansas State
Convention: Arkansas congressman Mike Ross, WD5DVR, was a featured
speaker at the ARRL Arkansas State Convention on Saturday, September 8.
Ross, who represents Arkansas' 4th District, spoke about the ham radio
legislation he introduced in Congress, the "Emergency Amateur Radio
Interference Protection Act of 2007" (HR 462). ARRL Lab Manager Ed Hare,
W1RFI, was also at the convention, speaking about BPL. Held at Queen
Wilhelmina State Park in Mena, the convention drew hams from several
nearby states including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi. Ross
is one of two licensed amateurs in congress; Greg Walden, W7EQI, of
Oregon's 2nd District, is the other.

* ARRL Helps MFJ Celebrate 35 Year Anniversary: MFJ Enterprises observed
their 35th anniversary with "A Day in the Park" open house September 7-8
at their Starkville, Mississippi headquarters. ARRL Chief Development
Officer Mary Hobart, K1MMH, was on hand to help MFJ celebrate, as were
Mississippi Section Manager Malcolm Keown, W5XX; ARRL Delta Division
Director Henry Leggette, WD4Q, and Starkville Mayor R. Dan Camp. This
two-day celebration was filled with tours of MFJ's facilities, a Friday
evening bar-b-que and a Saturday fried chicken picnic. MFJ makes Amateur
Radio equipment such as tuners, SWR wattmeters, antenna analyzers and
power supplies. Martin Jue, K5FLU, founded the company in 1972 while he
was still attending graduate school at Mississippi State University. A
ham since high school, Jue decided to build products for hams -- his
first products were active filters for CW and phone, selling for $9.95
and $12.95, respectively. Thirty-five years later, MFJ features more
than 1000 products.

* ARISS Update: According to ARRL ARISS Program Manager Rosalie White,
K1STO, Clay Anderson, KD5PLA, has started to make general QSOs with hams
after signing off after making school QSOs, even turning on packet radio
for a while. Anderson will continue making school QSOs until he returns
to Earth, currently scheduled for late next month. Due to the schedule
on the International Space Station, the crew will be "terribly busy" for
the next six months; White said that ARISS QSO totals might be low
during this time. The next contacts are scheduled for Monday, September
17 with Mitchell Elementary School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Friday,
September 21 with Pueblo Magnet High School in Tucson, Arizona. To date,
the ARISS program has had 315 Earth-to ISS QSOs. For more information on
the Amateur Radio on the International Space Station program, please see
the ARISS Web page <http://www.rac.ca/ariss/oindex.htm#ARISS%20Status>.

* FCC Job Announcement: The Federal Communications Commission has
announced three job openings for Telecommunications Specialists in their
Columbia, Maryland office. Starting salaries range from
$55,706-$103,220; relocation assistance is not available. Knowledge of
high frequency propagation is a must. To be considered for these
full-time, permanent positions, successful applicants must pass a
background investigation, be eligible for a security clearance, have US
citizenship, pass a drug test and be available for shift work. For more
information, please send an e-mail to Diane Graham at the FCC
<Diane.Graham@fcc.gov> and reference job number DEU-PSHS-2007-0006. The
application deadline for these positions is Thursday, September 27. More
about this opening can be found on the USAJOBS Web site
<http://jobsearch.usajobs.opm.gov/getjob.asp?JobID=61989717&jbf574=FC00&
brd=3876&AVSDM=2007%2D09%2D05+00%3A00%3A06&sort=rv&vw=d&Logo=0&FedPub=Y&
caller=%2Fagency%5Fsearch%2Easp&FedEmp=N&SUBMIT1.x=51&SUBMIT1.y=2&ss=0&T
abNum=1&rc=7>.

* Let Us Know: What's your favorite part of The ARRL Letter? What kind
of stories would you like to see in the Letter? Would you prefer the
Letter in an HTML format? This is your Letter and your chance to let
your voice be heard. Please send your suggestions to ARRL News Editor S.
Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA, at k1sfa@arrl.org, with the subject line "ARRL
Letter Suggestions." All messages will be read and discussed, and we
look forward to implementing positive suggestions into the ARRL Letter.

================================================== =========
The ARRL Letter is published Fridays, 50 times each year, by the
American Radio Relay League: ARRL--the National Association for Amateur
Radio, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111; tel 860-594-0200; fax
860-594-0259; <http://www.arrl.org>. Joel Harrison, W5ZN, President.

The ARRL Letter offers a weekly e-mail digest of essential and general
news of interest to active radio amateurs. Visit the ARRL Web site
<http://www.arrl.org> for the latest Amateur Radio news and news
updates. The ARRL Web site <http://www.arrl.org/> also offers
informative features and columns. ARRL Audio News
<http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> is a weekly "ham radio newscast"
compiled and edited from The ARRL Letter. It's also available as a
podcast from our Web site.

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole
or in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be
given to The ARRL Letter/American Radio Relay League.

==>Delivery problems (ARRL member direct delivery only!):
letter-dlvy@arrl.org
==>Editorial questions or comments: S. Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA,
k1sfa@arrl.org
==>ARRL News on the Web: <http://www.arrl.org>
==>ARRL Audio News: <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> or call
860-594-0384

==>How to Get The ARRL Letter

The ARRL Letter is available to ARRL members free of charge directly
from ARRL HQ. To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your address for
e-mail delivery:
ARRL members first must register on the Members Only Web Site
<http://www.arrl.org/members/>. You'll have an opportunity during
registration to sign up for e-mail delivery of The ARRL Letter, W1AW
bulletins, and other material. To change these selections--including
delivery of The ARRL Letter--registered members should click on the
"Member Data Page" link (in the Members Only box). Click on "Modify
membership data," check or uncheck the appropriate boxes and/or change
your e-mail address if necessary. (Check "Temporarily disable all
automatically sent email" to temporarily stop all e-mail deliveries.)
Then, click on "Submit modification" to make selections effective.
(NOTE: HQ staff members cannot change your e-mail delivery address. You
must do this yourself via the Members Only Web Site.)

The ARRL Letter also is available to all, free of charge, from these
sources:

* ARRLWeb <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/>. (NOTE: The ARRL Letter will
be posted each Friday when it is distributed via e-mail.)

* The QTH.net listserver, thanks to volunteers from the Boston Amateur
Radio Club: Visit Mailing Lists@QTH.Net
<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/letter-list>. (NOTE: The ARRL
cannot assist subscribers who receive The ARRL Letter via this
listserver.)

[W3MIV]

Ironically, this soon after the ARRL BOD clarified the rules reminding all that using any form of the official email system as an election pulpit would be disqualifying, someone is compelled to test it.

[k6lcs]

I read this morning with utter astonishment the news that the ARRL had disqualified Carl Gardenias and his bid for ARRL
Southwestern Division Director.

When it comes to actively promoting this wonderful hobby, and being approachable and visible, few match Carl (and his wife, Cathy) in their dedication to this hobby and the ARRL.

Yes, I realize that without rules, we would have anarchy. But I have been involved in this hobby since 1993. In that short time, I have been involved in many facets of amateur radio, from working at Ham Radio Outlet to speaking scores of times at conventions and club meetings and conferences...and always promoting the "causes" of the ARRL and AMSAT. I run into Carl and Cathy Gardenias all the time at these events, and they have served the hobby - AND the ARRL - very well. But I swear to you, I couldn't pick out Dick Norton from a lineup if I was under oath. How a representative of the ARRL and I could have not met these past 14 years tells me that Norton has a a lot of catching up to do, as far as contacting his region.

The Southwestern Division was not served well by this decision of the ARRL

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
ARRL Diamond Club member
909-241-7666

[k6lcs]

Here's how a non-ham public relations professional interpreted the ARRL's decision to eliminate Cardenias yesterday. If you want to know her identity, just send me an email inquiry.

=======================

The way the story is written makes Cathy's action sound like something
large, horrible and deliberately deceiving. If I was Cathy, I sure as hell
would not be interested in doing anything nice for ARRL ever again.

Talk about bias? Whoever wrote that story is biased: It could have reported the occurrence but with a completely different tone. For example: "Although Cathy believed that all contact and Web site information was listed and correct, an error was made. Unfortunately, the error regarded the incumbent whom her husband, Carl Gardenias, challenged ..." and then go on to say there was a complaint with the resulting action.

Bet I know who made the complaint: was it Dick Norton? Obviously he is more interested in his ego being assuaged and "justice served" than showing up at ARRL events; I have not met him, but I have met Carl and Cathy --- AND MANY OTHER ARRL MEMBERS --- many times at many events. Dick Norton has been MIA in promoting ARRL activities in our region.

As far as I'm concerned, Cathy's error doesn't amount to much more than a hill of beans --- the conference speaker schedule and solar brief articles are far more broad-reaching to the ARRL general membership than the SW division director --- but it is the lead story and an extensive detailing of what is probably an innocent mistake rather than grandstanding for her husband. Give it a rest rather than embarrassing two very fine volunteers... Remember? They are all volunteers and ought to be treasured instead of chastised and alienated.

//end//

[W3MIV]

Rules are rules.

That these rules clearly put the entirety of the ARRL email system off-limits to any form of campaigning was made abundantly clear. The clarification was just the subject of decisons at the most recent BOD meeting and published widely.

When the issue of Carl Stevenson's removal from candidacy was made on the basis of a "conflict of interest," there was room for discussion; that action was the result of an interpretation of the rule.

This action was perfectly clear: The violation is beyond any dispute.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 14 2007,12:23)]Ironically, this soon after the ARRL BOD clarified the rules reminding all that using any form of the official email system as an election pulpit would be disqualifying, someone is compelled to test it.
Al, I just read the piece and I didn't see what you are referring to. #All I read was a disturbed response from ARRL that Mr. Gardenias did not "do as they told him to" insofar as sending out a retraction/correction to his/his wife's Orange Section email.

It seems strange to me that "justice" falls so quickly with what appears to be an oversight affecting just the Orange Section, not the whole of the Southwestern Division.

About 3 years ago, the West Central Florida Section Manager used the ARRL VEC system to steal the callsign K4WCF from a west Florida club, the West Central Florida Group, Inc. #After repeated complaints to the League and ultimately to the FCC, all that transpired was a return of the callsign to its rightful owner/assignee, WCF Group, Inc.

Although Mr. Sumner indicated that an investigation would take place about a year ago, after numerous vociferous complaints, including mine, were lodged with the League and the FCC, no action has been taken to date. #Or, if it has, the result has not been publicly announced by the League.

Might I remind everyone here that several attempts to 'steal' assigned callsigns of other amateurs have resulted in FCC sanctions. #Far and again above a mere "disqualification" from a ballot. #The WCF Section Manager is still serving in his position and his action was not a mere oversight. #It was intentional.

So, in this case, it appears a bifurcated sense of fair play exists at ARRL. #One for the 'clique' and another for 'outsiders.'

73,

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 15 2007,19:59)]So, in this case, it appears a bifurcated sense of fair play exists at ARRL. #One for the 'clique' and another for 'outsiders.'
Take a look at the minutes of the most recent BOD meeting. There have been uneven and/or questionable enforcement (or lack) in the past that the Board is now trying to make as unambiguous as they can.

I appreciate that a friend of yours may have been snagged in a situation that probably should have been handled differently. We cannot go back in time, but we can demand a strict accountability from now on.

It is telling that among some of you, nothing the League does will ever meet your standards, and every issue or slight from the past lives and glows now just as brightly as it did however many months or years ago.

The effort is to go forward.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 15 2007,17:14)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 15 2007,19:59)]So, in this case, it appears a bifurcated sense of fair play exists at ARRL. One for the 'clique' and another for 'outsiders.'
Take a look at the minutes of the most recent BOD meeting. There have been uneven and/or questionable enforcement (or lack) in the past that the Board is now trying to make as unambiguous as they can.

I appreciate that a friend of yours may have been snagged in a situation that probably should have been handled differently. We cannot go back in time, but we can demand a strict accountability from now on.

It is telling that among some of you, nothing the League does will ever meet your standards, and every issue or slight from the past lives and glows now just as brightly as it did however many months or years ago.

The effort is to go forward.
The rule as enacted at the last BoD meeting is simple. If a candidate -- incumbent or challenger uses ARRL paid services (postage, websites, etc.) he/she must do so as per the BoD's decision and without any recourse. The BoD made it very clear that there would be no space left for interpretation. Rather it is cast in ARRL BoD "concrete."

If someone wants to pay all his/her own campaign expenses, then he/she can do as that person pleases. But if so much as a single cent of ARRL funds are involved, then the rule is in place.

It also restricts on-the-air campaigning, which has become significant in recent years especially among repeater clubs. (Clubs that hold no in-person meetings.)

Keep in mind that the ARRL is first and foremost a "corporation." It is not a "democracy" nor is it a "republic." As a "corporation" it is bound by its own constitution, by-laws and rules (as long as said by-laws do not violate state or federal law). Unless a state or federal court vacates the rule of the election committee, then it stands.

For those who are unaware of the rule that brought about this disqualification, go to http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0707/ and see agenda item #35 which in itself was brought about by the situation covered in agenda item #15. The latter dealing with a recent election in the North Texas Section the circumstances of which are not familiar to me. Perhaps someone in that ARRL Section can enlighten all of us.

de
Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF

[K3VR]

All I want to know is, when is the League going to come clean about Hiram Percy's OTHER (http://www.zaldivacomics.com/images/magazines/march17_04/maxim_april04_marge%20(Large).jpg) magazine?

[n4qa]

It is interesting to see that ARRL seems, for now, content to punish its own candidates for office, thus, leaving the vast majority of hams unaffected.

But, go ahead, Dave.
Make yet another failed attempt at petitioning FCC for 'regulation-by-bandwidth' for questionable (to say the least) purposes.

I can almost hear the chants now...

ECFS ECFS ECFS!

72,
Bill, N4QA

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 14 2007,18:14)]It is telling that among some of you, nothing the League does will ever meet your standards, and every issue or slight from the past lives and glows now just as brightly as it did however many months or years ago.

The effort is to go forward.
I am supportive of some things, while critical of others, Al. #And, by what you've said, please don't infer that I support in silence and only express my displeasure publicly.

As a poster joshes, "ECFS." #Yes, do look at ECFS and do count the pro-ARRL comments from me versus those opposing ARRL.

Yes, do go forward ethically. #And, here's a suggestion for the BOD: #Allow members to attend meetings. #Closed door sessions should be reserved only for personnel matters.

There are a few of us out in membership-land who do count beans, or measure water flow under the bridge as it were. #Memory is important. #If we don't learn from history, remember, we are likely condemned to repeat it or worse, have it repeated on us.

This change in policy that you and Bill refer to is referenced NOWHERE in the article. #I shouldn't have to hear from both of you what you think the policies are that the action was based upon. #The ARRL Letter should have told us.
#
The League spoke on this issue, and the League should have included as part of the story the doctrine or procedure it has in place to warrant the action taken.

This was, again, as another poster said, only part of the story.

It does appear, though, that Mr. and Mrs. Gardenias were loyal, committed League promoters as testimony from several here claim. #Only a fool would think, going forward, that these two people would continue to contribute as they have in the past.

73.

[k6lcs]

>>...The violation is beyond any dispute...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

There was no "campaigning" involved. The ARRL *was* offered a draft copy to approve...There's a lot to this story that you do know that is behind the scenes. And your statement shows you haven't read the ARRL rules on this subject, either.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[wa6itf]

W6EM: "This change in policy that you and Bill refer to is referenced NOWHERE in the article. I shouldn't have to hear from both of you what you think the policies are that the action was based upon. The ARRL Letter should have told us."

To me it is all quite clear. The ARRL is stating this is a band new a rule or rules the BoD has enacted at its last meeting. Its saying that -- from this moment on -- that this is the way it will be done and if you violate our new dictate you are disqualified.

As a corporation, the ARRL does not have to justify this action. It has every right to enact any rule of conduct it wants its members to adhere to. If it said that one could only serve in ARES if one painted his/her HT green, then that would be the criteria to belong to ARES. It would not be open to questioning. Not open to scrutiny. Not open to debate. Just the way it would be.

As for members: If they did not like a given new rule they can either attempt to recall the incumbent party responsible, try to elect someone else at the next opportunity, let their membership lapse or resign from the ARRL. What they cannot do is force a response from the ARRL to their questions regarding what transpired because the ARRL operates under Connecticut state corporate law and is not a democracy or democratic equivlant of a "ham radio nation." Its just another not for profit corporation like PBS or your local theater guild or your school alumni association. Just a bit bigger than most but smaller than PBS.

de
WA6ITF

[k6lcs]

PASTERNAK>>...to me it is all clear...

Without seeing all the evidence, you "see" clearly? Wish I has those powers.

I do not believe a "reasonable man" would deem a message that included ALL CANDIDATES' INFORMATION to be a "campaign" piece of mail.

What was sent to us was a plea to VOTE. "Here are ALL the candidates. Make sure you vote!" - was the thrust of the message.

Bill - investigate this further before you publish anything on it, please. Your reputation does not deserve to be tarnished with innuendo and misinformation.

Ask the Elections Committee at the ARRL just exactly WHEN they received a proposed DRAFT copy of this email message to peruse. Look at the date the DRAFT was submitted to the ARRL Elections Committee. Discover for yourself that when the Draft was submitted, THERE WAS NO DICK NORTON CAMPAIGN SITE. How can you tell? Check the Dick Norton campaign site's URL for the date it was created.

Please report on the facts of this case, and not get sucked into emotionalism and rants from those outside this Division who have no clue as to what they are writing about.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[k6lcs]

Since no one else has decided to post much factual information on this case, here's the citation for the ARRL board's motion/rule from the 2007 Second Meeting of the Board. This might not reproduce well - there are strikeouts - so please go to the ARRL site for it...

http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0707

...I just cut and pasted, and it did NOT properly reproduce here. So go to the ARRL site and scroll down to Number 35.

Note that the ARRL defines "election campaign material" in this motion/ruling:

"Campaign material is any material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such election."

No reasonable person would deem a list of candidates and their contact information as "material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome" of an election.

So the "charges" are that the email message in question (1) had a typo in an email address, and (b) neglected to include a Web site that DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF WRITING.

And for this the ARRL disqualifies a tremendously-qualified candidate?

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[W0JBC]

I am NOT suprised by the " 6" landers responses...

Rules are rules..

Heck, everyone wants to be a big shot at something in their lives.

Bickering over who will be an ARRL Section Manager is a life-time acheivement.

Sorrrrrrry . Get a life.

What the hay... A couple of Mom and Pop EXTRA operators . That's cool..... Who really cares ...?


JB

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W0JBC @ Sep. 15 2007,04:15)]Bickering over who will be an ARRL Section Manager is a life-time acheivement.
No one likes to have his or her reputation tarnished without cause by a Kangaroo Court.

Once again, it appears ARRL has dispensed misinformation. Perhaps, on purpose. It certainly is sounding more like that if what K6LCS tells us is correct about the involvement of the ARRL in review and preapproval of the correspondence and the dates involved of the creation of the websites.

As Bill reminds us, ARRL has a right to act, as a clique, under Connecticut law. But, as a corporation, like a person, it is liable for what it does. For such things as acts of omission, or inclusion, on purpose.

Once upon a time, when I was a director of a public corporation, I was covered by a liability policy. It was intended to cover any incidental mistakes or omissions, but it specifically excluded those acts done with with malice or intent to harm.

BTW, this is about a Division Director candidate, not who will be a Section Manager.

And, Division Directors act as Directors of the non-profit Connecticut Corporation. Need I say more?

As to remarks about who's saying what, and where they live, well, for starters I don't reside in the ARRL Southwestern Division, or even in the state of California.

[W3MIV]

The following is an extract from the BOD minutes with the material struck having been removed for clarity:

Quote[/b] ]Mass communications at League expense
In any contested Director, Vice Director or Section Manager election, during the campaign period no mass communication at League expense in whole or in part, dealing with any candidate in any way or issued by a candidate, League or section official in the Division of the candidate, shall contain election campaign material. Campaign material is any material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such election. The campaign period is defined as the period from the deadline for receipt of nominating petitions for Director, Vice Director or Section Manager until the day ballots are due in the election. Mass communication is defined as communications by mail, electronic distribution, posting to a web site, email, hand delivery or by any other means of distribution to League members in the particular Division or Section involved in the contested election.


Any and all emails from any and all League officials that are sent to ARRL members via the ARRL email reflector are clearly "communications at League expense."

Rules depend upon discipline, and discipline is like pregnancy in that you either have it or you have it not. I fail to see the nature of the controversy. If the result of this removal from candidacy for cause means that the ARRL has lost the volunteer efforts of a good and dedicated member, I am truly sorry to hear that. But that loss is not so great when compared with what we might be risking by not tightening the rules under which the elections are conducted.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 15 2007,06:12)]The following is an extract from the BOD minutes with the material struck having been removed for clarity:

Quote[/b] ]Mass communications at League expense
In any contested Director, Vice Director or Section Manager election, during the campaign period no mass communication at League expense in whole or in part, dealing with any candidate in any way or issued by a candidate, League or section official in the Division of the candidate, shall contain election campaign material. Campaign material is any material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such election. The campaign period is defined as the period from the deadline for receipt of nominating petitions for Director, Vice Director or Section Manager until the day ballots are due in the election. Mass communication is defined as communications by mail, electronic distribution, posting to a web site, email, hand delivery or by any other means of distribution to League members in the particular Division or Section involved in the contested election.


Any and all emails from any and all League officials that are sent to ARRL members via the ARRL email reflector are clearly "communications at League expense."

Rules depend upon discipline, and discipline is like pregnancy in that you either have it or you have it not. I fail to see the nature of the controversy. If the result of this removal from candidacy for cause means that the ARRL has lost the volunteer efforts of a good and dedicated member, I am truly sorry to hear that. But that loss is not so great when compared with what we might be risking by not tightening the rules under which the elections are conducted.
Discipline? #If what K6LCS tells us is accurate, then where is the discipline upon those League Election Committee officials who approved the email in advance? #An email that when approved, preceded the existence of omitted web site addresses?

A mere listing of contact information and encouragement to all Orange Section members to vote is NOT campaign material. #And, even if deemed to be campaign material, apparently, documentation exists that ARRL officials in Newington approved the draft before it was sent, in effect, transferring the LIABILITY for the supposed violation of the new policy to the ARRL officials who approved the draft prior to its issuance.

So, yes, Al, where's the discipline? #Are we to soon receive a communique stating that Dave Sumner's been censured by the Board for approving a "campaign" email via the ARRL.NET reflector? #If not, why not?

Certainly, if he, along with the Elections Committee, participated in writing those new rules, then he, above all, should know better.

73.

[k6lcs]

W3MIV>>Any and all emails from any and all League officials that are sent to ARRL members via the ARRL email reflector are clearly "communications at League expense."

You selective quote the first half of the sentence - but you neglect to continue reading, because by doing so, your point is lost.

"At League expense" is NOT on point at all. It is whether or not such emailing constituted "campaign material," which the ARRL defined as...

"Campaign material is any material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such election."

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (k6lcs @ Sep. 16 2007,09:03)]W3MIV>>Any and all emails from any and all League officials that are sent to ARRL members via the ARRL email reflector are clearly "communications at League expense."

You selective quote the first half of the sentence - but you neglect to continue reading, because by doing so, your point is lost.

"At League expense" is NOT on point at all. It is whether or not such emailing constituted "campaign material," which the ARRL defined as...

"Campaign material is any material that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such election."

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666
It seems to me that my quote is of that entire sentence. The only words I removed were those that were struck by the changes made to the rule.

Lee, in the post just above, raises the point about who vetted the email prior to its being sent. If there is validity to that point, the issue should be taken up with the staff by way of an official complaint. Joel Harrison should be involved if that is the case. If, as Lee asserts, the email was read and approved without any redaction, then it would seem to me that such a complaint would have validity and should be addressed at some point by the BOD. That the staff could make an error is not unheard of ( #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif #). If that is the case, the removal of the candidacy would be in error. It is not the rule that is at fault, but an interpretation made by someone in Newington that MAY BE at fault. That possibility should be investigated, and that would best be managed by the BOD and not the staff. The letter clearly states that K1ZZ DID NOT approve the email, though the email states he did so approve it.

The proper venue for any such discussion or decision, however, is not QRZ, but the ARRL. I do not speak for the ARRL; I speak my own opinion, and I strongly support rule changes that seek to level the ground for candidates.

[K3VR]

Quote[/b] ]Bill Pasternak: "Its just another not for profit corporation like PBS or your local theater guild or your school alumni association."

A tempest in a teapot.

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (k6lcs @ Sep. 16 2007,01:34)]So the "charges" are that the email message in question (1) had a typo in an email address, and (b) neglected to include a Web site that DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF WRITING.

And for this the ARRL disqualifies a tremendously-qualified candidate?

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

I don't have any prior knowledge about this but what I read doesn't agree with your statement of the "charges." What I read said the original email had errors. The ARRL sent a message requesting that the errors be corrected. When the request for correction was ignored, disqualification followed.

What I read is that when the errors were made, this did not result in disqualification. The disqualification came as a result of the errors not being corrected.

I realize that my only source of information is the ARRL article so there may be more to it than what is written there but it seems clear to me that the "charges" were not correcting an error.

[n5ark]

Gosh it seemed like a simple mistake. How many emails do you get from ARRL that has wrong information? I do frequently! But I see it as if you are a member and have a email address then you should be able to send anything that is not harful, illegal or otherwise intended to create harm. I dont see anything in the message that does either. It was a email that said go vote. The address was in my opinion done as a courtesy not intentional misinformation. The email could have said just go vote. It did not have to list the canidates, emails, websites or any other information.

Stipid stuff like this is what is going to cause my membership to end when it comes subscription time.

Why waste my money on something that does very little for me as a "Normal Ham that does not politic".

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n5ark @ Sep. 16 2007,11:22)]Gosh it seemed like a simple mistake. How many emails do you get from ARRL that has wrong information? I do frequently! But I see it as if you are a member and have a email address then you should be able to send anything that is not harful, illegal or otherwise intended to create harm. I dont see anything in the message that does either. It was a email that said go vote. The address was in my opinion done as a courtesy not intentional misinformation. The email could have said just go vote. It did not have to list the canidates, emails, websites or any other information.

Stipid stuff like this is what is going to cause my membership to end when it comes subscription time.

Why waste my money on something that does very little for me as a "Normal Ham that does not politic".
Perhaps the "stupid stuff" is not at the ARRL end of the emails?

The issue, as plainly laid out by W0MT just above, was the fact that the errors were pointed out, correction was requested, and that correction was not forthcoming.

Appearing before a traffic court magistrate on a charge of speeding, and enterring a plea of "but everybody does it" is NOT a wise move. Nor is that of a candidate ignoring a demand from the ARRL Electoral Ethics Committee for emendation to a disputed email.

Bailiff, call the next case...

[g0ery]

Sorry to bother you folks with the facts but...

The domain name n6aa.com was registered the day before Carl's first email.

https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=n6aa.com

# Domain Name.......... n6aa.com
#Creation Date........ 2007-08-31
#Registration Date.... 2007-08-31
#Expiry Date.......... 2008-08-31
#Organisation Name.... Richard J Norton
#Organisation Address.
<snip>

I have seen the correction that Carl sent out on the 4th - the day BEFORE the email from the ARRL with their version of the correction.

The only mistake he made was not replying to the ARRL telling them that the correction had already been sent.


Richard - K6RBS

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (g0ery @ Sep. 15 2007,15:24)]Sorry to bother you folks with the facts but...

The domain name n6aa.com was registered the day before Carl's first email.

https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=n6aa.com

# Domain Name.......... n6aa.com
#Creation Date........ 2007-08-31
#Registration Date.... 2007-08-31
#Expiry Date.......... 2008-08-31
#Organisation Name.... Richard J Norton
#Organisation Address.
<snip>

I have seen the correction that Carl sent out on the 4th - the day BEFORE the email from the ARRL with their version of the correction.

The only mistake he made was not replying to the ARRL telling that that the correction had already been sent.


Richard - K6RBS
Sounds like the ARRL owes the Gardenias' a big retraction, if not more.

Perhaps if the incumbent were to lose, a new breeze (broom?)might find its way through Newington.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] ]The issue, as plainly laid out by W0MT just above, was the fact that the errors were pointed out, correction was requested, and that correction was not forthcoming.

It now appears, since a corrected email was, in fact sent by Mr. Gardenias, it was either not received by ARRL, or, did not have a sufficiently incriminating bent to its words (to harm the candidacy of Mr. Gardenias) as apparently intended by ARRL.

So, ARRL had no choice but to decide the election quickly, in its most expedient, efficient manner.

Quote[/b] ]Bailiff, call the next case...

Yes, please do, Mr. Bailiff. #I believe its a civil affair in California Superior Court.

[k6lcs]

>>...Appearing before a traffic court magistrate on a charge of speeding, and enterring a plea of "but everybody does it" is NOT a wise move...

And that scenario isn't relevant at all in the matter at hand. Doesn't apply in the slightest.

>>...Nor is that of a candidate ignoring a demand from the ARRL Electoral Ethics Committee for emendation to a disputed email...

I cannot think of a MORE RESPONSIBLE tactic than to send to the rulemakers a copy of a message, making sure it abides by new rulings - in order to make sure no rules were broken.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (k6lcs @ Sep. 16 2007,14:53)]>>...Appearing before a traffic court magistrate on a charge of speeding, and enterring a plea of "but everybody does it" is NOT a wise move...

And that scenario isn't relevant at all in the matter at hand. Doesn't apply in the slightest.

>>...Nor is that of a candidate ignoring a demand from the ARRL Electoral Ethics Committee for emendation to a disputed email...

I cannot think of a MORE RESPONSIBLE tactic than to send to the rulemakers a copy of a message, making sure it abides by new rulings - in order to make sure no rules were broken.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666
Clint... You live in Orange County. I'm up in the northern most reaches of Los Angeles county -- Santa Clarita. As such, I am sure you know that I might just as well be living in another state. I get far more weekly input from Divisions 500 to 3000 miles away than I do from folks out here in what the rest of the nation calls "LaLa Land." (

That said, I have known both candidates for years and both are good people. Heck -- last year (2006) I flew back from Dayton on the same flights as did Carl and Cathy -- we had a quick bite at DFW Airport and then we flew on a 737-800 back home. Then they drove me to my car which was parked some 4 or 5 miles from LAX. Great folks to be sitting next to for a 3 hour ride from Dallas back here to Los Angeles.

Dick Norton -- the same feeling. Ive met him countless times over the years and have always gotten very positive vibes from him. In fact he reminds me a lot of former Director Jay Holliday, W6EJJ, in his approach to ARRL politics. That being to work to get things done behind the scenes rather than going out and making big soeeches about what ARRL is doing or has accomplished.

In my opinion, either man would make a good Director and it would have been an interesting race. That said, I really have to ask the rhetorical question of whom -- outside the Orange Section and a few non-Californian's here on qrz.com really have an interest?

More important, is it over or will Carl or his supporters take some action to try to force the ARRL to reinstate him in the campaign?

And what effect -- if any -- might Carl's being disqualified have on the 4-way Vide Directors race?

Do you see any sort of political backlash or are most hams in Orange County who are eligible to vote apathetic in regard to ARRL elections?

If the Division's history repeaters itself as it likely will, there will be no cry of outrage from the mases. Unlike the NYC-LI ARRL Section and a few others that are very activist (ask the SM's that have been rercalled) out here its always been more like a political tuna sandwich on rye bread. Tastes OK but nothing to really be proud of.

de
WA6ITF

[k6lcs]

There is evidence that the email in question was sent to the Elections Committee for their perusal on the 28th.

Sorry to disappoint you. But my "take" still stands:

The disqualification is due to an inadvertent typo in an email address, and the failiure to cite a site that didn't exist on the 28th.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[k6lcs]

>>... Clint... You live in Orange County...

Haven't lived in Orange County ever in my life. I am in Riverside County.

I'll get to your other questions overnight. Please know, though, that this matter is on the minds of several L.A. County Fair attendees as I work my AMSAT booth yesterday and today. I have discussed the matter with about twenty folks. All but one were ARRL members. And all but one were supportive of Carl Gardenias.

An informal poll, of course - no scientific basis.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[k5rks]

I wonder why Carl's call -- WU6D -- is not listed in either the Mixed, CW, or Phone DXCC lists?

I looked up his call here on QRZ.COM and he states that he is a DXer and helps to organize a DX convention. It seems strange to me that his call is not listed in the DXCC lists. Did he change his call recently?

It would seem to me given his DXCC activity that he would be on at least one of ARRL's DXCC lists.

73,
#
Roger Simpson
K5RKS

[KC5CSG]

First of all I would like to CONGRATULATE Al Ward, W5LUA, for achieving the WAS award on 1296 MHZ. If you're reading this Al, great job. I had no idea you could do that with a frequency so high in the spectrum.

Second, well there isn't a second. The ARRL deal is water under the bridge. What? It comes as a surprise to you? It's the ARRL we're talking about. I find it absolutely amazing every post preceding this one is a crying session over that issue when there is a man acknowledged for an achievement that took him 30 YEARS TO COMPLETE! So far, it looks like I'm the first to congratulate him. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm sure glad I haven't paid money to participate in this site.

KC5CSG

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Sep. 15 2007,21:22)]First of all I would like to CONGRATULATE Al Ward, W5LUA, for achieving the WAS award on 1296 MHZ. If you're reading this Al, great job. I had no idea you could do that with a frequency so high in the spectrum.

Second, well there isn't a second. The ARRL deal is water under the bridge. What? It comes as a surprise to you? It's the ARRL we're talking about. I find it absolutely amazing every post preceding this one is a crying session over that issue when there is a man acknowledged for an achievement that took him 30 YEARS TO COMPLETE! So far, it looks like I'm the first to congratulate him. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm sure glad I haven't paid money to participate in this site.

KC5CSG
In reply to your remark, one would think that what appears to be an example of our National Association for Amateur Radio libelling one of its dedicated members in a widely-read news distribution is a bit more deserving of recognition.

Perhaps you think its incorrigible, but, I'm not convinced. At least not yet, anyway.

WAS on 1296 is quite an achievement, though. #Congratulations to W5LUA. #Obviously, it wasn't "armchair" copy.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k6lcs @ Sep. 15 2007,19:51)]There is evidence that the email in question was sent to the Elections Committee for their perusal on the 28th.

Sorry to disappoint you. But my "take" still stands:

The disqualification is due to an inadvertent typo in an email address, and the failiure to cite a site that didn't exist on the 28th.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666
Alright, given that it was sent to ARRL EC on the 28th. #Did he receive a reply, constituting tacit approval by K1ZZ or the EC? #No reply, of course, could mean non-receipt by ARRL.

Also, according to an ealier post by K6RBS, an email with the correct and/or missing information was sent by WU6D/K6VC on September 4th to the Orange Section recipients of the first email, without informing ARRL.

Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:29)]Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?
Failing any measure of attestation, what would such a posting prove? More to the point, where is the value of making a major case here on QRZ?

To any reasonable purpose, the issue is dead. That it will, no doubt, assume a life of its own here on QRZ (and perhaps a few other wailing walls of the internet) establishes nothing for the vast majority of amateurs, few of whom bother to read anything here.

If there is a genuine and "litigable" issue, it is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he feels he has a case, he should make his case known to other Directors and to Joel Harrison. That is his only realistic avenue of appeal; nothing that is being posted here will help him -- indeed, I tend to think efforts to open a rancorous dialogue here are counterproductive.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 16 2007,08:33)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:29)]Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?
Failing any measure of attestation, what would such a posting prove? More to the point, where is the value of making a major case here on QRZ?

To any reasonable purpose, the issue is dead. That it will, no doubt, assume a life of its own here on QRZ (and perhaps a few other wailing walls of the internet) establishes nothing for the vast majority of amateurs, few of whom bother to read anything here.

If there is a genuine and "litigable" issue, it is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he feels he has a case, he should make his case known to other Directors and to Joel Harrison. That is his only realistic avenue of appeal; nothing that is being posted here will help him -- indeed, I tend to think efforts to open a rancorous dialogue here are counterproductive.
The issue is not, by any means, dead.

At issue is whether the ARRL libelled Mr. Gardenias, or, it was a series of unfortunate missed emails or misunderstandings. #Or, that ARRL acted properly and the posted claims from two members of the Orange Section, K6LCS and K6RBS are incorrect.

Removing the issue from public debate would accomplish what ARRL no doubt would wish: #That any ARRL-negative outcomes will have no further publicity. #Sequestered to a mere email exchange between the ARRL president and an affected party.

As we all know, 99% of ham radio media is controlled by ARRL, unlike the corollary of a case against one newspaper publisher in the US would be. #To no longer discuss it here would suit ARRL's interests just fine. #

This, as of now, appears to be yet another incident, on a list of unfair tactics employed by ARRL to achieve its desired outcomes over that last year or two.

Evidence is a powerful thing. Any reasonable person would certainly not wish to suppress evidence. #Or, would they?

If the email exchange exists, as it is claimed, including a response of tacit approval, then, where is the harm in showing it? #It would either prove the case against Mr. Gardenias, or disprove it. #The same for the alleged email with corrections sent out on September 4.

Let's see if either the ARRL was correct in its actions or if it acted with malice or at least, far too hastily. #Which is it? #The ARRL blasted the issue all over the latest email ARRL Letter sent to thousands of recipients nationwide.

Just like your email survey, Al, it deserves a response. #(Did we hear one from ARRL?)

This issue will go away, I believe, with most of us, if the requested evidence is not produced. #In that case, ARRL would be assumed to have been correct, by default.

73.

[K3VR]

Quote[/b] ]Lee: "As we all know, 99% of ham radio media is controlled by ARRL..."

Lee,

Do you have any data to support this? I'm not certain, but I would think the ARRL's output is dwarfed by the combined readership of QRZ; EHAM; Pop Comm; CQ; ARNewsline; The RAIN REPORT; W5YI; The FCC Enforcement Log; and several other online and printed sources of information regarding ham radio.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 16 2007,08:33)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:29)]Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?
Failing any measure of attestation, what would such a posting prove? More to the point, where is the value of making a major case here on QRZ?

To any reasonable purpose, the issue is dead. That it will, no doubt, assume a life of its own here on QRZ (and perhaps a few other wailing walls of the internet) establishes nothing for the vast majority of amateurs, few of whom bother to read anything here.

If there is a genuine and "litigable" issue, it is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he feels he has a case, he should make his case known to other Directors and to Joel Harrison. That is his only realistic avenue of appeal; nothing that is being posted here will help him -- indeed, I tend to think efforts to open a rancorous dialogue here are counterproductive.
This is as dead as the fallout from RM-11306. In other words, the technical activity may be dead, but it's yet another hit to the reputation of the ARRL.

You may want it to be dead, but I'm sure it won't be for quite some time...

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 17 2007,11:57)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 16 2007,08:33)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:29)]Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?
Failing any measure of attestation, what would such a posting prove? More to the point, where is the value of making a major case here on QRZ?

To any reasonable purpose, the issue is dead. That it will, no doubt, assume a life of its own here on QRZ (and perhaps a few other wailing walls of the internet) establishes nothing for the vast majority of amateurs, few of whom bother to read anything here.

If there is a genuine and "litigable" issue, it is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he feels he has a case, he should make his case known to other Directors and to Joel Harrison. That is his only realistic avenue of appeal; nothing that is being posted here will help him -- indeed, I tend to think efforts to open a rancorous dialogue here are counterproductive.
This is as dead as the fallout from RM-11306. In other words, the technical activity may be dead, but it's yet another hit to the reputation of the ARRL.

You may want it to be dead, but I'm sure it won't be for quite some time...
Any number of jailhouse lawyers can make any number of cases on QRZ or eHam and never make the least impression on the vast majority of amateurs.

So far as I am concerned, the issue is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he wishes to dispute any decision, that is both his right and his duty. My suggestion to do so within the context of the BOD and Mr Harrison was a prudent one, though it is not surprising to see that the merit of that approach is lost among the "loud voices" of the QRZ mob.

If anything were to come of the brouhaha, all of the nonsense being bruited on this site can only detract from the merits of whatever case Gardenias may feel he has.

As it is, this shall be my last post on the issue. So far as I am concerned, the case is closed.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 17 2007,10:33)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:29)]Could we see copies of the text from both and any response from ARRL on the email of August 28th?
Failing any measure of attestation, what would such a posting prove? More to the point, where is the value of making a major case here on QRZ?
Potentially it could prove that the alleged ethical violation was not an ethical violation but rather a simple, insignificant mistake or miscommunication, that was in fact corrected, which pulls the rug out from under the ARRL's allegations. Or, potentially it could prove that the ARRL has arbitrarily and capriciously abused the ethics rules in order to lock out challengers to incumbent directors.

Quote[/b] ]To any reasonable purpose, the issue is dead.

Only if you're happy with the way ARRL has spun the incident.

Quote[/b] ]If there is a genuine and "litigable" issue, it is between Gardenias and the ARRL. If he feels he has a case, he should make his case known to other Directors and to Joel Harrison. That is his only realistic avenue of appeal; nothing that is being posted here will help him -- indeed, I tend to think efforts to open a rancorous dialogue here are counterproductive.

The issue affects all of the ARRL members in the Southwestern Division. The ARRL has denied them a voice in the selection of their Division Director, whether rightly or wrongly, this affects thousands of hams.

It affects all ARRL members in that, if in fact the ethics rules are being misapplied or abused, it could happen to them. Now is not the time to sweep it under the rug, try to silence criticism, and facilitate an ARRL cover up.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Sep. 16 2007,09:23)]Quote[/b] ]Lee: "As we all know, 99% of ham radio media is controlled by ARRL..."

Lee,

Do you have any data to support this? I'm not certain, but I would think the ARRL's output is dwarfed by the combined readership of QRZ; EHAM; Pop Comm; CQ; ARNewsline; The RAIN REPORT; W5YI; The FCC Enforcement Log; and several other online and printed sources of information regarding ham radio.
Brian: #Controlled doesn't just necessarily mean "owned by."

Show me some published criticism, besides Inet blogs, other than the one recent editorial in CQ. #I'm proud to be a subscriber and will remain so, just for their having the guts to express a contrary-to-ARRL opinion.

If you think we would have a voice to be heard in ARRL media about this issue, you're dreaming.

99% is likely not a correct figure, but "a vast majority" certainly is. Visions of Yellow Press.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 16 2007,10:07)]Any number of jailhouse lawyers can make any number of cases on QRZ or eHam and never make the least impression on the vast majority of amateurs.
We see how well that worked on RM-11306...

How many thousand comments did the FCC receive again?

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:04)]As we all know, 99% of ham radio media is controlled by ARRL,
As a part of the "media" that you so disparage with that remark, I dare you to prove it!!

The fact is that you cannot prove your statement because the ARRL "controls" almost no aspect of the ham radio media at all. That is because nobody and no organization "controls" the media and it will be a cold day in hell before I or anyone else in the media permits that to happen.

About the only thing media-wise that the ARRL can "control" is what it as an organization says to its members. Thats it. Period.

de
BIll Pasternak, WA6ITF

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,11:00)]Brian: Controlled doesn't just necessarily mean "owned by."

Show me some published criticism, besides Inet blogs, other than the one recent editorial in CQ. I'm proud to be a subscriber and will remain so, just for their having the guts to express a contrary-to-ARRL opinion.
How about 28 years of 73 Magazine; 12+ years of the W5YI Report, and -- going way back -- how about 5 years of K6MVH Newsbeat of the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Oh yes, I forgot about all those DX newsletters that have condemned aspects of the DXCC program over the years; the 1970's "Repeater Report" newsletter that tore the ARRL to shreds on its then opposition to repeater deregulation, etc..

And I can also think of a number of times that we at Newsline raked the ARRL over various issues.

Shall I continue?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[W9WHE]

This is just ANOTHER example of arrl protecting the status quo and why change from within is IMPOSSIBLE.
To all of you that think hams should join arrl then advocate change from within, I offer this as a CLASSIC example of WHY more then 70 percent of licensed hams REFUSE to join arrl.

Change from within is IMPOSSIBLE.
It is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME to try. Save your money and breath. Those in UNaccountable power at arrl will simply not permit meaningful change.

W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!

[K3VR]

Influence is a difficult thing to quantify, but I think the combined influence of the amateur radio readership of QRZ; Eham; Pop Comm; W5YI; ARNewsline; TWIAR; World Radio; and Monitoring Times; plus all of the other non-ARRL affiliated blogs, publications, and websites far outweigh the influence of the 150,000 members of ARRL, many of whom suscribe only to receive QST.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the ARRL winked out of existence tomorrow, the overall effect on amateur radio would be virtually nil. Organizations come and go, and anything viable that the ARRL is doing right now would be almost immediately absorbed by other ham radio organizations.

I've said this before, but I think the ARRL has already been eclipsed by more readily accessible and practically instantaneous change agents, with the internet being #1 in that category. The defeat of RM-11306 is a good case in point.

[N7YA]

Hmm, and all this time i thought the ARRL was a bookstore...i was a member in the 90's, and when i lapsed, they barraged me with junk mail for books.

I am currently a member but thats only for the buro and the DXCC...neither of which i use. i send cards when they are needed and i couldnt care less about a piece of paper that confirms what i already know. This is a recent realization for me personally, you guys do whatever you want, but i am letting my membership lapse. The DXCC award has become a circus of monkeys and im no longer all that interested in it.

I agree with K3VR, if they went away tomorrow, someone would pick up the flag and continue the charge...theres way too much opportunity there not to...and i suspect that whoever succeeds the ARRL would learn from the mistakes made in Newington and we would have the next level of organization. Theres a lot of smaller groups, but just not as huge and influential as the crew in CT. I dont hate the ARRL, i just dont need them...and as with any oversized corporation, theres a little mistrust there too...maybe thats just me, you know how us libertarians are. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73...Adam, N7YA

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Sep. 16 2007,12:45)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 17 2007,08:04)]As we all know, 99% of ham radio media is controlled by ARRL,
Quote[/b] ]As a part of the "media" that you so disparage with that remark, I dare you to prove it!!

A proof by contradiction.

The last time Newsline printed anything contrary to ARRL or its stated position on an issue was? #In my few years of reading and listening, well, I think almost never. But, you seem to recall otherwise. #You had a great opportunity in RM-11306, but chose not to.
#
A good deal of the items in Newsline are just a rehash from the ARRL Letter. Or, it seems that way.

Quote[/b] ]The fact is that you cannot prove your statement because the ARRL "controls" almost no aspect of the ham radio media at all. #That is because nobody and no organization "controls" the media and it will be a cold day in hell before I or anyone else in the media permits that to happen. #

Would you not agree that lobbying is a form of control? #Or, at least a means to influence favorable outcomes? #Does it work? #You bet it does.

Lobbying isn't just about money. #Its about recognition, awards, etc. #Items used to pat folks on the back, make them feel good, etc. #Recognize their good works and, yes, publicize same, if appropriate. #We see it in the corporate world and in government.

Now, are those who are rewarded inclined to be soft on their benefactors because they 'owe' them? #I'll leave that up to the readership to form their own opinions.

Control, in the context that I used it, was not about just what is produced internally, but what is influenced, or lobbied #externally.

As to those other publications, yes, I'm old enough to remember Wayne Green. God Bless him. But, who took up the call?

Just my observations. #Perhaps others don't see it that way.

[w6em]

Deleted

[W0FS]

It was suggested that QRZ is not the proper forum to discuss this issue, that it should be discussed through the ARRL. In other words, the ARRL members who are not part of the organization should have no means to comment. There is no open forum in the ARRL. Try running an objection to an ARRL policy through your section or district manager. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
Thanks, Clay WØFS

[W9WHE]

W0FS correctly notes:

"There is no open forum in the ARRL. Try running an objection to an ARRL policy through your section or district manager. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response"

Clay:
arrl does NOT need any "stinkin" forums. arrl knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it. So sit down, shut up and send in your money.

[wa6itf]

On September 17th Carl Gardenias, WU6D, filed an appeal of his disqualification directly to the ARRL Executive Committee. More to follow as I receive it.

[wa6itf]

W6EM: "A good deal of the items in Newsline are just a rehash from the ARRL Letter."

Oh really? we spend hundreds of hours a year enterprising our own stories and you tell us that all we do is to reprint the ARRL Letter? Try again.

The latest edition of Newsline has one -- o-n-e -- one story culled from the ARRL Letter and thats a short piece on vanity fees going down. And thats one story out of 21 we cover this week.

Want to go back to last week? How about 1 -- o-n-e -- 1 story out of 20.

How about 2 weeks ago? 1 out of 21. And if we had run long, that would have been the one cut.

How about a year ago this week? 19 stories and not one with even a mention of the ARRL.

Two years ago this week: 1 story from the ARRL

Shall I continue or do you get the point?

Actually, we dropped the ARRL as a primary news source about a decade ago. Why duplicate their stories about themselves. Those hams interested in the ARRL are likely already reading the ARRL Letter, so and unless its a general interest story, we prefer to use our own news sources, which in most cases are either on-scene or close to the action.

Unlike the ARRL we at ARNewsline have our own network of reporters around the globe. When something of importance takes place we have someone close by able to get us the details. In turn we get it to you a lot faster.

Doing news is not brain surgery. Its simply a matter of having people in the right place at the right time with the skill of putting into words what he/she saw or heard.

As to this story: At the moment there are two and only two sources. The ARRL and Clint. Nobody else is willing to go "on record" and we are not in the rumor business. The ARRL stated its position in print. Clint has challanged this with facts hes presented. We have contacted close to a dozen other people in the region who I would consider as being politically active and theres really no comment.

No, we have not tried to contact NU^D because he has fied an appeal and we do not want to do anything that might interfere with or taint that process. If Carl has a statement to issue, he will do so I am sure. Right now the appeal is far more important.

B-T-W: this is not the first time a candidate in the ARRL Southwestern Division has been ruled ineligible to run. Do any of you remember who the last one was and why that person was disqualified? One hint: It was also an Orange County resident.

de
WA6ITF

[k6lcs]

>>...Its been now about 24 hrs since K6LCS and K6RBS were asked to post the relevant emails...

Sorry for "disappearing." Worked an amateur radio event until midnight Sunday, was busy catching up from the weekend on Monday...

I have been advised that a formal appeal to the Ethics and Elections committee is in process. Carl can speak for himself.

The original post that was sent to Orange Section is "out there" for ARRL members who are on the email hit list for Orange Section news. I am not going to bug Gardenias with a request to re-post it here. But here's an accurate paraphrasing...

It started right out with its intent and with facts -

"It is that time of the year when the ARRL holds its elections for Director and Vice Director for the Southwestern Division....

"...We are encouraging all ARRL Full members to vote and vote wisely...

What followed was a listing of both candidates for Director. Just FYI, Carl Gardenias was listed SECOND, and his opponent was listed FIRST. No bias there...

Then the Vice-director candidates were listed.

The email message wrapped up with a plea: "I encourage you to contact each candidate...(Thisis an important election)...

The message was signed by Cathy (Gardenias).

I have subsequently learned that Norton's email address cited in this message was missing the middle initial (e.g., johnpublic@email.com instead of johnqpublic@email.com).

But in no way can the original message be construed as a piece of "campaign material" meant to give favorable treatment to any candidate. It was a benign a piece of "campaign material" as is, well, say, a ballot at the ballot box: It merely listed ALL candidates, the best-available Web site cites, and one typo in an email address.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
ARRL Diamond Club member
909-241-7666

[k6lcs]

>>... It was also an Orange County resident...

Neither Gardenias nor Norton live in Orange County.

I, too, have been incorrectly labelled as being from Orange County.

It's the ORANGE SECTION of the ARRL we're discussing.

Clint, K6LCS

[w6em]

Clint: #Sorry to have doubted the issue's merits. #Good luck with the appeal.

Do you think the details of the appeal will appear in this week's ARRL Letter as the ARRL play-by-play demandments were in the last issue?

[k6lcs]

>>...I've contacted about 20 politically active folks in the Division...no comments...

I respectfully suggest, then, that you update your Rolodex™ to include a better representation from this, the second-fastest-growing area of the nation...

About 20 amateur radio operators discussed the matter with me out at the Los Angeles County Fair's Amateur Radio Expo this weekend. All but one were (surprisingly) ARRL members. And all but one were irritated with the ARRL's decision to disqualify Carl Gardenias. A second person was non-committal.

Quite un-scientific, of course.

It did prove to me something, though: Gardenias is KNOWN in this region for his approachability and dedication...much more so than any other candidate.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[N7YA]

Ok, fair and good...but this is one reason why i am no longer interested in the ARRL, it sounds too much like the ineffectual political mayhem we endure every day in the news...why should my HOBBY be tainted by the same dung?

The ARRL is a ham radio organization, or at least it started out as one. I dont need "big government" in my leisure time too! Even the DXCC program is awash with microscopic and micromanaged criterion over what is and is not a country, whos operation was good and whose wasnt, was 'proper documentation' received for that submerged rock, etc.... I still chase DX based on the list they made, but remember, i chase DX for fun, the award itself is not all that important. I know who i worked and what ive done.

When my membership lapses, i will not renew it. I can easily print up my own version of a "DXCC" award and hang it on the wall...i can even get a nice brick and etch my name and call into it and stick it in my front entry way too, it would feel just as special...i will call it my 'Diamond Front Door". If any of you wants to send me $200-$300, ill make a brick for you too!

I do ham radio because it relaxes me, working that new one gives me a sense of accomplishment, i enjoy meeting new people...you know, that basic reason we became hams in the first place.

I was taught that certain things should be left out of ham radio, a couple of them were religion and politics...i dont hear too much of the religious stuff, maybe a 'god bless' at the end of a QSO, nothing wrong with that...ive even heard christian nets and again, i have no problem with this....but politics is another thing. This thread is a prime example of ham radio politics, literally! I have nothing against the gentlemen in question, nor am i asking anyone to change what they do...but the ARRL has basically just lost me for the last time...and i know they wont lose any sleep over my departure, they will just send me a ton of printers clearing house junk mail for the next 2 years.

Again, i dont begrudge anyone for being members, running for offices in their club, or even being life members...do whatever feel right to you. I just cant see the reason for me personally to stick around, if the ARRL disolved tomorrow, we would carry on as usual and another organization would likely pick up the line and run with it. Maybe they would conduct themselves using past mistakes as a template for the preservation of true ham radio spirit...not rampant politics.

73...Adam, N7YA

[k6lcs]

>>...Sorry to have doubted the issue's merits. Good luck with the appeal.

No apology necessary (appreciated, but not necessary...grin).

I am not "anti-authority" by nature. But I do ask questions. And I seem to get answers from some folks when others have trouble communicating. For example, I have had several, IMMEDIATE replies from the ARRL President Joel Harrison...NOPE - they're private, not to be posted here...

I have absoutely nothing to do with Carl's appeal. I just know that this ARRL division deserves to have both candidates on the ballot.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
909-241-7666

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (N7YA @ Sep. 17 2007,15:29)]I do ham radio because it relaxes me, working that new one gives me a sense of accomplishment, i enjoy meeting new people...you know, that basic reason we became hams in the first place.
This sentence caught my eye, and it highlights what I think is my biggest problem with Newington and their actions.

I hate to say this, but I don't think you're the kind of ham they're looking to recruit these days.


If you don't have 8 antennas on your car, if you don't have 3 HTs on your belt, if you don't have a light bar, if you don't coordinate with the local emergency management office, if you haven't taken their requisite Incident Management courses (when is a ham going to be an Incident Commander? Not our job...), if you're not ready to step up and be that Junior DHS member, they don't want you.

Darn hobbyists. Get off of their frequencies!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Sep. 17 2007,14:19)]B-T-W: #this is not the first time a candidate in the ARRL Southwestern #Division has been ruled ineligible to run. #Do any of you remember who the last one was and why that person was disqualified? #One hint: #It was also an Orange County resident.

de
WA6ITF
Good that you are attempting to report the facts surrounding this, but, at this point there probably are some sensitive details that would not be appropriate for airing.

I do find it somewhat strange to desire to placate the seriousness of ARRL's decision by citing other disqualifications in the Orange Section. And, as Clint commented, his county of residence is not Orange County.

Wouldn't it have been much simpler, and fairer to Mr. Gardenias, to have only said publicly that he had been disqualified? The statements that were published implied that he or his wife had purposefully omitted or erred in candidate information. A reasonable person was left with the impression that Gardenias wasn't at all ethical in the email communication. Apparently, facts exist that say just the opposite.

Its fair to say at this point that the ARRL has lost a great deal of respect from many in the ham community over the way this was handled. Let's see how they handle the retraction.

[KA5LQJ]

Ya' Know,

This thread belongs in the Jokes section of QRZ where it may be hashed over & hashed out, LOL!

I mean folks over there get REAL personal about the President, so this has all the ear-markings of a good, bar fight. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I'm not going to post my opinions about the ARRL, here. #But, I'll give y'all my take over in the Jokes, etc section.

BTW, I do have a flame-proof suit, hehehehehe. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Respectfully and reverently,
73,
Don/KA5-LQJ
Grid: EM32-cl

[N7YA]

We have a jokes section?? Cool! and judging by your post, they scrap and fight in there too...funny how ANYTHING can be a trigger for some folks. Im sure this thing will be hashed out, but not over.

And to KC4RAN, im afraid you are right...the common ham who simply enjoys playing with radios is in no hurry to buy the latest publications, therefore, we are relegated to the "basic numbers" section of importance.
Its best to get involved with your local club, people you can meet in person and get together with and do projects, get out into the schools and the local populace and SHOW them ham radio...no bickering, no politics, no publishers clearinghouse marketing...just good times, friendship and ham radio...maybe some BBQ ribs and beer too, but results may vary.

I fear you are correct, they dont want hams like me anyway.

73...Adam, N7YA

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (KA5LQJ @ Sep. 17 2007,16:32)]I mean folks over there get REAL personal about the President, so this has all the ear-markings of a good, bar fight. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
The only entity that's gotten personal, so far, is ARRL, in its characterization of Carl and Cathy Gardenias in this week's ARRL Letter. #Definitely, not the other way around.

No one's so far called Dave Sumner a liar (over the denial of the pre-approval of an email).

Bar fight? #Is that why the lawyers league is called the Bar?

Of course, if Dave and whoever the ARRL Elections Committee Kangaroo Court are would like to join in, it could get toasty.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 19 2007,08:22)]Of course, if Dave and whoever the ARRL Elections Committee Kangaroo Court are would like to join in, it could get toasty.
That's not personal? On what objective basis do you use the term "kangaroo court?" Do you even know who sits on the committee you so defame? Have you seen a single bit of their discussions?

Your arrogance is breathtaking!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,06:34)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 19 2007,08:22)]Of course, if Dave and whoever the ARRL Elections Committee Kangaroo Court are would like to join in, it could get toasty.
That's not personal? On what objective basis do you use the term "kangaroo court?" Do you even know who sits on the committee you so defame? Have you seen a single bit of their discussions?

Your arrogance is breathtaking!
Al: #The arrogance you speak of better fits by a hundred-fold the act of posting in bold headlines that a candidate for SW Division Director was disqualified.

As to your other colorful claim of defamation, well, that very aptly coins the lengthy verbiage of the subject ARRL Letter wherein it openly accuses the Gardenias' of misdeeds. #Not accidental omissions, but misdeeds.

Calling an entity a Kangaroo Court seems to be appropriate in this case, in that it acted at least way too hastily and likely errantly. #Much out of character for the normal ARRL pace of "investigation." #Especially, the example I cited earlier of the theft of an assigned callsign via the ARRL VEC system which is still languishing. #Some of that "water under the bridge," Al.

What, for instance, do you coin the entire Board of Directors? #A Board that fails to even mention the existence of your 3-Division ARRL member survey, let alone its results. A Kangaroo Congress?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 19 2007,09:35)]What, for instance, do you coin the entire Board of Directors? #A Board that fails to even mention the existence of your 3-Division ARRL member survey, let alone its results. A Kangaroo Congress?
I understand why you would resort to jest rather than respond to the pith of my comment, which must be somewhat embarrassing to one who so often insists on proprieties. The simple fact remains that you made a pejorative, judgmental wisecrack on no other basis than your own prejudices.

Your bon mot bespeaks a revealing ignorance: The survey was never an effort of the Board, hence would not receive any comment as such. The survey was an independent effort by three Directors, acting solely by and for themselves on behalf of their constituencies.

The results were, indeed, discussed by the Directors at an informal get-together that always takes place in a hotel suite the night before the board meeting.

As I mentioned somewhere deep in the tangled bowels of this thread, the issue is one between the Gardeniases and the ARRL. Any and all mob bruitings of this sorry thread have no standing in that proceeding at all.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,08:02)]As I mentioned somewhere deep in the tangled bowels of this thread, the issue is one between the Gardeniases and the ARRL. Any and all mob bruitings of this sorry thread have no standing in that proceeding at all.
What's that old saying about those that don't learn from history? We're talking about a series of common actions and behaviors from the ARRL, since the discussion has in fact expanded from just this single incident.

Apparently the division in question has seen candidates disqualified for questionable reasons in the past. Would you have us ignore that in these discussions?

This isn't an isolated incident of poor behavior from the ARRL. Bad judgement, hidden agendas, quick decisions on the one hand and slow justice on the other, poor communications with members (for a group whose primary focus is communications?!?), poor internal political processes... we're not talking about isolated incidents. We're talking about patterns of behavior.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 19 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,08:02)]As I mentioned somewhere deep in the tangled bowels of this thread, the issue is one between the Gardeniases and the ARRL. Any and all mob bruitings of this sorry thread have no standing in that proceeding at all.
What's that old saying about those that don't learn from history? We're talking about a series of common actions and behaviors from the ARRL, since the discussion has in fact expanded from just this single incident.

Apparently the division in question has seen candidates disqualified for questionable reasons in the past. Would you have us ignore that in these discussions?

This isn't an isolated incident of poor behavior from the ARRL. Bad judgement, hidden agendas, quick decisions on the one hand and slow justice on the other, poor communications with members (for a group whose primary focus is communications?!?), poor internal political processes... we're not talking about isolated incidents. We're talking about patterns of behavior.
Unless you can fully substantiate your allegations with something other than the usual idle gossip of QRZ threads, they remain nothing but unsubstantiated legends in the minds of believers. And, as Anatole France pointed out, "if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

What, precisely, is your relationship to either the Gardeniases or to their Division?

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,08:02)]Your bon mot bespeaks a revealing ignorance: The survey was never an effort of the Board, hence would not receive any comment as such. The survey was an independent effort by three Directors, acting solely by and for themselves on behalf of their constituencies.

The results were, indeed, discussed by the Directors at an informal get-together that always takes place in a hotel suite the night before the board meeting.
Ignorant, I am, of the facts surrounding your survey and its results, as are the vast majority of ARRL members.

What an interesting approach to doing business collectively. #Three Directors host an emailed member survey. #Nothing mentioned of it in the conduct of the formal meeting. #Although, they do mention such things as glad-handing a departing Director. #One who doesn't respond to any emails written to him.

To not tell the balance of ARRL membership about the survey was a big mistake. #And, what did they have to lose by publicizing the survey? #Nothing. #Especially with only non-controversial content.

It would seem to me that I did address your very pointed, undeserved accusations of arrogance (mine) and defamation (mine).

Kangaroo Court fits just fine, as does Kangaroo Congress, for an organization that sequesters itself from its electors by not discussing relevant information on the record or, Heaven-forbid, considering the results of a small experiment and whether the experiment should be expanded across the entire organization. #We know they don't like to consider member input. #RM-11306 is but a glaring example. #A goal of broadband content on our HF bands is another.

As I've said before on various threads, the organization needs new blood. #And, that includes, IMO, new paid-managers at the top. #I'm not anti-ARRL, just a member who wants it to improve the way it conducts its business. #The subject of this thread is another example of how poorly a sensitive issue has been handled. #Trashing the reputations of two very fine people, from what others have said.

The incumbents refuse to change. #So, people change or people change. #That's the way I see it.

I can't vote for Mr. Gardenias, but, the person he's challenging had a hand in approving RM-11306 and the absurd goal of HF broadband on the amateur bands. #Perhaps his position on these two issues, among others, differs from the majority.

Who knows why the 'Roos came to such a hasty conclusion.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,08:12)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 19 2007,10:07)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 18 2007,08:02)]As I mentioned somewhere deep in the tangled bowels of this thread, the issue is one between the Gardeniases and the ARRL. Any and all mob bruitings of this sorry thread have no standing in that proceeding at all.
What's that old saying about those that don't learn from history? We're talking about a series of common actions and behaviors from the ARRL, since the discussion has in fact expanded from just this single incident.

Apparently the division in question has seen candidates disqualified for questionable reasons in the past. Would you have us ignore that in these discussions?

This isn't an isolated incident of poor behavior from the ARRL. Bad judgement, hidden agendas, quick decisions on the one hand and slow justice on the other, poor communications with members (for a group whose primary focus is communications?!?), poor internal political processes... we're not talking about isolated incidents. We're talking about patterns of behavior.
Unless you can fully substantiate your allegations with something other than the usual idle gossip of QRZ threads, they remain nothing but unsubstantiated legends in the minds of believers. And, as Anatole France pointed out, "if a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

What, precisely, is your relationship to either the Gardeniases or to their Division?
What's with all the defensiveness? Wanting 'fully substantiated' info for allegations, demanding to know my relationship to the current issue at hand... I guess in your mind, no one who isn't directly associated with this incident should be discussing the latest screwup by the ARRL? You're starting to sound like an ambulance chasing lawyer, yelling "OBJECTION!" to each question asked of their client.

Fortunately, you don't set the tone or the list of allowed discussions around here. I suspect if you did, I would turn around and find five cops with Tasers drawn, dragging me away for discussing a Topic Verboten.

[W9WHE]

Gentleman, gentleman, gentlemen......


We don't call it the "Newington Boys club" for nothing!
Perhaps now you understand why. If you think that those in control at arrl are going to permit meaningful change, you need to think again.


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 18 2007,09:08)]Gentleman, gentleman, gentlemen......


We don't call it the "Newington Boys club" for nothing!
Perhaps now you understand why. If you think that those in control at arrl are going to permit meaningful change, you need to think again.


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!
Careful with your FACTS, Jonathan. The Hudson, Roanoak, Dakota and Southeastern Division Vice Directors are girls. And, they do attend the meetings.

Are the meetings "all expenses paid?" I would assume so.

As Al has shared with us, they have informal pre-meetings that are off the record. The posturing over the 'real' business probably gets done in those. Over a hoisted cocktail or two......

Since members are forbidden from being in the audience at regular Board meetings, are members permitted to attend the informal pre-meetings? Probably not.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 19 2007,10:37)]Ignorant, I am, of the facts surrounding your survey and its results, as are the vast majority of ARRL members.

What an interesting approach to doing business collectively. #Three Directors host an emailed member survey. #Nothing mentioned of it in the conduct of the formal meeting. #Although, they do mention such things as glad-handing a departing Director. #One who doesn't respond to any emails written to him.

To not tell the balance of ARRL membership about the survey was a big mistake. #And, what did they have to lose by publicizing the survey? #Nothing. #Especially with only non-controversial content.
You still don't seem to get it, Lee. The survey was not made of the entire membership by the BOD as a Board, but by three Directors acting for themselves. There is a similar survey going on right now in the Rocky Mountain Division, and it is not a Board inititated or Board sanctioned survey, either.

Quote[/b] ]It would seem to me that I did address your very pointed, undeserved accusations of arrogance (mine) and defamation (mine).

I felt, and still feel, that your comments warranted the description I applied to them, and I stand by my statements still. You have no basis beyond your own personal prejudices to make such defamatory proclamations. You have no idea whatever what discussions may have taken place among the members of the committee, yet you feel no compunction about issuing a condemnation of them all as a unit. You base your entire deprecation upon an assumption that grows, not from any factual input, but from your own biases.

Quote[/b] ]Kangaroo Court fits just fine, as does Kangaroo Congress, for an organization that sequesters itself from its electors by not discussing relevant information on the record or, Heaven-forbid, considering the results of a small experiment and whether the experiment should be expanded across the entire organization. We know they don't like to consider member input. RM-11306 is but a glaring example. A goal of broadband content on our HF bands is another.


Just who are the "they" of your imaginings? You have become a sort of stuck needle, running in the same grooves again and again. Do you know who voted for the filing of RM-11306 and who did not? Do you know who among them is still on the BoD and who is not? RM-11306 was filed in November, 2005, now just shy of two years ago. Like "Incentive Licensing," will it now assume a role in the minds of the recalcitrant and grow a whole new life unto itself, embellished and embroidered over time to fit any imagined slight or failure by any Board that will be elected in the future?

Quote[/b] ]As I've said before on various threads, the organization needs new blood. And, that includes