FYI - apparently the feedback to the League is having some effect. See the response so far from the Central Division Director, Kermit Carlson W9XA, http://www.central.arrl.org/ However, instead of tabling all motions toward changing governance policies, it lists a series of links with proposed edits of to be requested revisions. Read those carefully. I'm not sure what to think of them so far. In many cases it seems to be just "lip service" to the groundswell of protest, changes to insignificant grammar, not really serious reform toward what is wanted, ie, increased transparency and member-driven policy. The Carlson Motion for the CoC seems to have the most bite, but, is it enough? And nothing at all that I can see about disclosure or explanations toward righting past wrongs or perception of board elections or censorship, or mending fences in volunteer program management. 73, John, WØPV
I've often seen the language "For good cause shown" in similar documents, and would almost be OK with that in the case of ARRL, but I'm skeptical because of their history with K4AC and N6AA. If the body passing judgement, either the BoD or the E&E committee is willing to show the cause and demonstrate to the membership that it is good cause this would go a long way. Disqualifying a sitting director for an unspecified conflict and censuring a sitting director for unspecified "disparagement" are definitely not cause shown and leads to the membership being unable to make an informed decision as to whether the cause is good.
Oh, that share of stock you own in a real corporation you speak of - the stock "you possess" ... it's value can fluctuate from pennies to thousands of dollars.
For the Record, I also agree with Chip W1YW, table everything until a thorough study can be done and membership consulted. I am not versed in CT statutes as to NPOs but our club here (Louisiana) which is Incorporated as a 501(c)3 has a removal clause yet we must give a reason, the person may contest the expulsion and request either an open or executive session! Organizations do need to be able to discipline errant membership or BOD but there should be mechanism in place to prevent arbitrary dismissals based upon flimsy foundations. Secondly, Conflicts of Interest should be disclosed and executive session hearings held as soon as practical with the person able to divest him or her self of the conflict or allow the person to withdraw and correct the situation. In any case, Stella Camerata must not be allowed to be used. Martin D. Wade, N5PZJ
Cause is not "unspecified." The criteria which constitutes a "conflict of interest" and specific instances where it occurs, is clearly defined in the language of the ARRL Articles of Association. I would suggest chewing on the language in more detail. Learn what a conflict of interest is and what it means exactly. Anyone who ever served on a board in any executive capacity at any corporation knows exactly what it means. I know I do, and I also know most worker bee's at most corporations probably don't know one way or another. "Conflict of interest" basically means you can't have any outside interest (business, personal affiliation or otherwise) where you could potentially receive a "kickback" or other perceived benefit (including personal favors) resulting from your position serving on the board. It could be said an individual can change decisions to suit their personal benefit. Sometimes financially, but not always. So that creates a perception of impropriety, corruption and corporations just cant have that. So it's become a legal requirement in any corporation to take pro-active measures to ensure this does not occur. Many corporations provide executives with specific training courses in this area. It also prevents other things such as "insider trading" from occurring. The fines to corporations for violations are staggering and prevention starts with educating executives, board members, the CEO and other key personnel in any organization about these pitfalls which can quite literally bankrupt a corporation overnight. Before people can serve on a board in most corporations, they are required to take "conflict of interest" and other "ethics" training and then sign a document of "disclosure." The "disclosure" document is basically an affidavit of sorts, where you are indicating you don't have any ties to any person, business or other entity where the decisions you are making on the board are swayed by any kind of outside interest you may have some kind of association with. This includes, but is not limited to, any family members such as a spouse or anyone personally associated with you. So just to demonstrate and make my point clear, here's an entirely made up fallacy scenario example: You are serving on the board of a large real estate corporation. You have a family member who works in construction. Your position on the board sometimes requires you to make decisions about real estate development construction. You learn there's a construction project coming up at one of the developments. You tip off your family member about the upcoming project and then the family member bids on the project and gets the job. ...See the problem? That's what a "conflict of interest" is all about. Incidentally, it does NOT have to actually occur either. Just the POSSIBILITY it COULD occur is all that matters and this is indicated when you submit your disclosure documentation for candidate consideration. So the mere fact you have a business, spouse, family member who could "potentially" receive some kind of financial, regulatory or ANY other kind of benefit ("kickback") resulting from your position serving on the board is all that matters at the end of the day. So when people are disqualified from the position at the ARRL for "conflict of interest," it means there's some kind of underlying reason existing similar to that kind of scenario. I hope this information helps to clear up any misconceptions you may have.
You mean like the US President? You mean like the US President, did not disclose his federal tax return?
No. Disclosing a tax return is a "tradition" and is not a legal requirement for the presidency. In a non profit corporation, "conflict of interest" disclosure may be a legal regulatory requirement to maintain their non profit status. Apples / Oranges.
Yes, I agree conflict of interest disclosure and the emollient clause DO have striking similarities in principle and scope. However, I disagree that has anything specifically to do with disclosing any tax returns.
Stella was my late Sister in Law, but what I am talking about here is Latin for a "STAR CHAMBER" or secret court which is illegal to conduct under the Judicial rules. (I am a Justice of the Peace (Judge) in Louisiana) and I also thought Stella Camarata was a really cool Chick like Sophia Loren but was sadly misinformed! A Judge in Chambers is called sitting in Camara.
Thanks, I learn something every day. Just a little levity to break up this depressing discussion. Glad you took in the spirit it was intended.
I just was elected to a Judgeship in Louisiana, I had to go through an orientation by the Supreme Court of Louisiana and this stuff. After reading the controversy with the ARRL and Crowd, I see a lot room for improvement, no openness on a Non-Profit Organization (NPO) can create problems, the Meetings and subject matter would be better discussed and revealed and justified. I am afraid Mr. Gallagher came out of private/public FOR PROFIT corporations and doesn't quite grasp the idea the members are the folks "owning" a stake hold in the organization and paying the bills. Yeah, trust me, law gets pretty dry! Try reading an Article of Incorporation to a room non legal types, trust me, it get interesting.
The obligation with vague definitions is to provide the individual with the reason for the perceived transgression. SPECIFIC WORDING is required when EXPLANATION for the alleged offense does not get provided as a follow-thru. You can't be vague AND not elaborate on the alleged offense. That's what we have now.
