ARRL Affiliated Contest Clubs criticize BOD actions

There was not;

Bob asked them. He did not get an answer as to what the League saw as his "conflict of interest". In other words, the alleged conflict of interest by the League was asserted but not shown.

Those are the facts.

So, are we to see, in the future, members having their memberships revoked "for cause", but with no explanation for what so-called "cause" was?

 

That is exactly the point: Bob was not told what was the "conflict of interest".

 

I have been in touch with Bob, and the answer is :"no". He was not informed on what was the alleged "conflict of interest".

 

Does anyone else hear the jack boots marching in?

 

Again, much of what was brought to the board as amendations is, in spirit, designed to bring the articles and bylaws in line with 'standards of practice' with other non-profits. That is a totally legitimate . If that is your gripe, then it has no compelling basis.

The issue is the ambiguity of the wording, or lack of any detail, presents opportunities for abuses of such amendations (if adopted) beyond the presumed intent. I and many have major concerns about that, based on recent actions by the board.

Sending the proposed amendations back for additional consideration--tabled for this board meeting-- is the only reasonable thing to do, given the great number of members and major donors clearly expressing concern with the proposed amendations.

Not acting on the wishes of members and major donors will, IMO, create a huge new problem, that transcends the mere act of paying more attention to wording and process.

 

Perhaps, but it could also be the heavy briefcases of the attorneys. With no explanation there is less to go on for a complaint or a lawsuit. The same thing often happens when an employee is dismissed from a company.

 

In far more places than ham radio.

 

Come on, we past that point a while back , We're up to the Nuremburg Laws now. Sooner or later they'll be overrun by the "membership" .

 

I have sent a cordial email to my Director requesting a vote to table the proposed changes at the 19 January board meeting. No malice, no angst, just a cordial request.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Usually, it fails to go to a formal complaint and is settled through lawyers.

 

Every scenario, Yes. But not citing a single one opens it to the interpretation of the board, at that time.

And the other language means nobody will be allowed to talk about why it happened, or even question it.

--Shane
KD6VXI

 

Is the definition found in Appendix A?

If cause is not defined by ARRL, then it should have not been included in the amended language, as it opens the flood gates to limitless disingenuous interpretations for membership revocation. As written, it can be construed as a strategic word used to establish undue control.

Unfortunately, the recent actions of the BoD involving Conflict of Interest does not instill confidence and demonstrates undue control against the best interests of the Membership.

There is a right and a wrong way to get BoD objectives achieved...successful control strategies used by for-profit Corporations usually do not work well for non-profit organizations. In the end, the Membership are the ones financing the operation...and like Shareholders, they can slowly start pulling out ultimately destroying the organization.

 

Here is PVRC's letter which was one of the first to go public:

http://pvrc.org/PVRCarrl01012018ver9a.pdf

 

There is a valid reason for not specifically defining what constitutes "Conflict of Interest" or "Cause".

The more specific you get in your definitions, the greater the opportunity the other guy has to argue:

SINCE YOU DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY DEFINE WHAT I DID AS "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" (OR CAUSE), IT ISN'T!

I learned that years ago from our Senior Executive Vice President and Senior General Counsel when I was still in banking.

BTW, I've heard attorneys say that, one day, the U.S. Supreme Court may strike down DISORDERLY CONDUCT STATUTES as UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUE BECAUSE THEY GIVE TOO MUCH DISCRETION TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER.

IOW: ANYTHING THE OFFICER DOESN'T LIKE IS "DISORDERLY CONDUCT"!

 

And like the typical corporation a few at the top control the
agenda with the new paradigm. Like the typical corporation
a few individuals in the clique control the assets. Anyone with
a differing opinion is told to eat their sandwich and shutup.
Only now it is going to be codified so the executive does not
have to tell you to shutup anymore, they can simply terminate
your membership plus if you hold a position in the organization
they can unilaterally dismiss you.

Oh that share of stock you own, well at least in a real corporation
you possess it, in the League you lease it on an annual basis.
Really strange lashup they have.

73

Chuck