Recall Petition for the ARRL Southeastern Division Director is under way.

​

Recall Petition for the ARRL Southeastern Division Director is under way.

The Issue: Members of the Southeastern Division of the ARRL were told there would be an election for a new director this fall only to have a week later the ARRL declared one individual elected without any explanation or input from the members of the division.

The Proposal: To utilize the “petition for recall of a director” per article 7 of the articles of association of the ARRL. This will give the members of the Southeastern Division a vote on their representation which is been denied. Members can either vote "no" on the removal of the director “declared elected”, making that person the legitimate representative of the division. Or the members can vote “yes” and that person will be removed at which point the president of the ARRL will appoint someone else, the vice director.

We will be gathering signatures at various gathering over the next couple of months. Visit our website and Facebook pages foe locations and discussions:

http://gotvotearrlse.webs.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/110917216081178/

Feel free to download the signing sheet and share with everyone who wants to have a say in their ARRL leadership.

Also consider reviewing “Zero Bias – A CQ Editorial, Election Drama Down South”:

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_highlights/2016-cq/2016-12-cq/2016-12-cq-zero-bias.html

​

And Doug Rehman’s, K4AC, page with a timeline of events:

http://arrlse.org/

 

I blame the Russians.

 

Sounds like the ARRL is getting too big for itself.

 

What the heck did the guy do?

 

I read the CQ article and I still can't figure it out.

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cq_highlights/2016-cq/2016-12-cq/2016-12-cq-zero-bias.html

 

"the board's Elections and Ethics committee voted to disqualify Rehman on the basis of actions he took following the announcement of the election, a decision that was subsequently ratified by a majority of the full board of directors. The specifics appear to be subject to interpretation, so we won't get into them here, but actually, the specifics are irrelevant in this case."
CQ Magazine

I think the specifics are important here as to the disqualification of the candidate.. Just saying.

 

Read the timeline K4AC put together carefully. It's the last link in the OP.

I am an ARRL member from the SE Division, and feel cheated out of my vote. I don't know Mr. Rehman personally, but IMO nothing he has reportedly done seems unethical nor a negative influence for amateur radio. On the other hand, I can perceive that some of his initiatives were for changes and asserted upon many of the entrenched political powers on the League board and in management or their close advisers.

In particular he took a strong position for obtaining independent review of the ARPA legislation, which was snubbed, and then the bill failed to pass. And it failed to pass because of a hold placed on it by a US Senator from a key state in the SE Division!

And elsewhere today it is reported that ARPA has returned as H.R. 555 with IDENTICAL LANGUAGE! Hmmm ...

73 de John - WØPV

 

ARRL is not your friend.

 

I have never bought into the ARPA legislation. I was wanting to get more involved in our Section and I was pointedly asked my position on ARPA and I said I thought it was a hollow solution to a problem that is better solved by people not moving into a place that hates the practices of the potential property owner. That was the last I've heard from the folks.

 

ARPA beats a boot to the head from the HOA.

 

The ARPA bill gives more to power to many, many, many HOAs which currently don't have jurisdiction over antennas. Many HOAs just exist for water or roads in small subdivisions, but with this legislation they would suddenly have power over antennas (which they don't currently have...).

 

They have been that way for decades.

 

Does this happen often? I don't usually pay attention to ARRL elections but this year I am.

 

ARPA does something that our Founding Fathers were absolutely sick and tired of dealing with on a personal level: it allows the Federal government to cancel or alter an existing two-party private contract. The ARRL swears up and down that it doesn't, but when you challenge them to show you how it doesn't cancel or alter private contracts, I've never got much more than stammering. It's unconstitutional because of this. But, that's okay, things that are unconstitutional get passed all the time.