ARRL CEO Tom Gallagher, NY2RF, to Retire

You mean they didn't tell you yet?

Hi Chip. Hope all is well. Darn cold over here lately... Brrrrrr.

 

I've read the posts regarding Gallagher, especially his taxes.

For most legal purposes you are considered a resident of the state where you are registered to vote.

You can reinforce your residency decision by putting a legal document something to the effect "... we declare ourselves to be residents of "X" and his document shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of "X" ...". Our attorney used this type of language in several of our documents.

You pay taxes WHERE EVER you own property and / or receive income, regardless of your legal residence. If the XYL would win $1,000 in the California lottery WHILE VISITING, we'd be liable for California income taxes even though we're legally residents of Illinois. The tax could be an offset against our State income taxes.
​

I really hope that Gallagher had enough smarts to bail. Getting canned by an rinky-dink outfit like the League would be a real insult.

 

If the combative nature of the ARRL Presidents recent public statement wasn't enough of a turn-off, make sure to read the exhausting letter the ARRL General Counsel Christopher Imlay W3KD wrote in response to another concerned member. Here is the link,

https://www.myarrlvoice.org/alan-applegate-k0bg-with-response-from-chris-imlay-w3kd/

Like the K5UR essay, there is no lack of words, and no acceptance of any responsibility for anything wrong. Any and ALL erroneous perceptions or ideas are simply the fault of some of the members, not the League management.

A couple of lines really stood out to me. Buried deeply in the middle is the first hint I have ever read of an official League explanation for why Dick K6AA may have been censured.

"A basic precept of nonprofit boards is that individual directors are not spokespersons for ARRL organizationally. ARRL has a communications person on staff. It is not the proper role of individual directors to speak for the organization or to publicly evaluate the wisdom of the collective decisions of the Board."

Immediately following that sentence, it back-tracks,

"Individual directors can and do regularly discuss policy issues affecting radio amateurs with members in their own divisions and with each other. They are obligated to keep in touch with members and to ascertain their interests and to represent those interests diligently."

It seems to me, in the case of N6AA, discussing the CoC, hastily drawn up because of a recent or pending law suits, there was little time for any Director to review its concepts and wording with membership before adoption.

Dick Norton, apparently trying to be helpful, presented it after the fact and then fell victim to the "Catch-22" outlined above, ie, going outside the official channel of the staff communications person.

Even if that was clear in the new Bylaw, it was probably a one-time first offence. But the General Counsel instead unfairly scolds members as harshly judging the BoD's non-unanimous split decision for a totally unnecessary public censure. The Board is always infallible; defense by gaslighting, again.

Later, the response letter really hits rock bottom with this line,

"No one raising a concern about the Code of Conduct has stated any reason to distrust the ARRL Board or its collective judgment, which has served Amateur Radio well for more than a century."

The issue has never been the historic foundation of the ARRL or its BoD, its the distrust of THIS CURRENT BOARD, and some of the staff they are responsible for choosing! The reasons, far more then just the censure, have been succinctly listed and now include events spanning over 2 years, including multiple Board elections, heavy-handed actions managing League volunteers, and the controversial wording of ARPA, an issue for which W3KD is personally responsible.

No doubt, more changes should come. Hopefully.

73, John, WØPV

 

The tax reform bill is merely a save face statement to deflect away from the discord and upsetting management style he brought to the Board of Directors during his tenure. Pay no attention to it. Had things been running smoothly, he'd have wanted to be re-elected for another term and stay put in CT.

 

;-)

 

Quite the short term at the helm. ??

 

There has been someone at the helm?

 

Usually when you have to do a lot of "headmansplaining", you are doing something wrong. The longer the explanation, the more reason to suspect something fails the sniff test. When the lawyer is involved, then "the ARRL" becomes "the defendant" in the court of public opinion. It has the smell of guilt.

 

Riley as CEO and Zack W1VT as President...............or the other way around, its all good! Gives me goose bumps!!

 

W3KD did give a lengthy detailed response, and I give him credit for that. I think it would have been better to make the explanations and leave out the attacks on the critics. When reasonable people without an axe to grind (I count myself among those) find some of the board actions troubling, then attacking the critics is counter-productive.

I can see how there would be room for interpretation of the actions which resulted in censure. Personally I'm not convinced it rose to a censurable level, but reasonable people can differ and more importantly I'm not on the board to hear the evidence.

I still didn't see any explanation of the candidate disqualifications for alleged conflict of interest.

 

Loyalty pledges to the organization are absurd.

They need to be replaced with statements that board members will always act in the best interest of the membership.

Period.

 

So, no news of the first day's events? No leaks?

 

With W3KD's response I guess that seals it. I have given up hope of ever hearing, "we hear your concerns, we understand your concerns, we will do our best to address your concerns". We are up against some huge egos here. People who are above being told, "you can't do that". There needs to be a real change of attitude and/or personnel at the top. Having such high opinions of themselves I can see how it would be difficult to even consider the possibility that there would be the slightest measure of legitimacy to the complaints being levied. As a life member since 1976, I don't know if I am stuck with them, or they are stuck with me. I prefer to think it's the latter. My attitude will change for the better as soon as theirs does. But not before.

 

W3KD's "defense" of recent events in the ARRL lead me to only one conclusion. Like many attorneys he will say anything to defend his client---even a client that there is no legitimate basis for defending. Nice try Chris, but we are not all fools nor are we sheep. This is NOT a matter of a couple of disgruntled members of the SW Division defending their Director. It is far more pervasive than that and you know it. Save your BS for those who might be swayed by it.

 

The IRS does not prescribe loyalty pledges for the governance of non-profits. And non-profit status is not an overwhelming concern if you are losing money.

Its a charity. Ask donors for money on behalf of the membership.

Think. Add value as perceived by donors. Cut and slash now has a League with no institutional experience at leadership level.

Unbelievable.