Where Never Is Heard... ARRL Board "Code of Conduct" on HamRadioNow

The matter is settled. Which is rather unsettling.

 

I did. Fascinating read. And a sad commentary on how the NTS and its traffic handlers have been treated.

Though I haven't been involved in traffic handling in years, way back when I did my fair share in CN, CPN, and the D1RN. So although strange, I'm not a complete stranger.

I can't help but wonder how George Hart, W1NJM, would feel about this whole debacle were he still around.

My favorite George Hart quote: "Computers are the bane of my existence." Please don't ask how I came across that quote...

73,
Jeff WN1MB
Winsted CT
http://alienjeff.net

 

Bob asked, but was not provided any reason or facts supporting his alleged "conflict of interest". NY2RF is certainly AWARE of the matter, as he was the one who sent Bob the letter barring him from running for Director. Perhaps what was meant is that NY2RF was provided the outcome, but not the reason behind it.

I think we should primarily be concerned with the ARRL in the next year. My impression is that money is a problem and that membership is down. Frankly, that could be a representation of the demographic of the membership. It is both appropriate and urgent to address that issue, should it be the case. We should be supportive in addressing that, but IMO insist on transparency on how to approach it.

Despite the fact that a huge percentage of ad revenue comes from non-Techniian(class) items, note QST changes dramatically in January to appeal to a younger, Technician oriented (but less technical) demographic (see the announcement on the ARRL website) it would seem....lots of 'basic' stuff will be put in QST.... let's see where it goes.

I fear we will end up with QST now becoming the old S9. To wit-- (some) bling-y human interest stories with fact mixing with fiction and overstating importance :

 

Probably on his harddrive...

 

What do you expect--Chris Imlay to send a nastygram? I suggest reading the bylaws rather than insisting on a response.

The issue is whether this transparency issue is prescribed in the bylaws.

Or not.

Dissent on boards is a very real fact, and the professionalism of the board members quickly leads to constructive discussion and usually--but not always--consensus. It is important to know if that actually happen(s)ed with the present ARRL board.

 

Hmmm... maybe this is what QST now aspires to be....I should dig out my old man ascot....and pipe. (Looks like Dabny WHatis in 9 to 5)

SSB! Everyone's doin' it!

Scanning Federal Frequency Channels!

What's New? 60's ham nostalgia is hot stuff!

 

Err,............................ Didn't ya miss the two articles about CB's?

 

Errr..
read carefully.

Those are story fluffs we may see from QST.... suggestively patterned after a 1979 S9 cover, edited by W4XAA (I believe) ...

 

All you have to do is take a moment and review the IRS payroll filing for them. They do indeed try to hide the salaries but as a Not For Profit they are required to file publicly.

 

I DID read it "carefully".

Again, 2 of the covers articles were about CB radio.

Why did you feel free to NOT mention them?

 

http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2017_01_EO/06-6000004_990_201512.pdf

 

Most peculiar in that 2015 Form 990 is the answer on page 6, item 4, "Did the organization make any significant changes to its governing documents since the prior Form 990 was filed?" - NO

Yet the minutes of the January 16-17 2015 BoD meeting contain obvious and substantial changes to Bylaws. See starting bottom page 6 through page 10 on ethics and elections,

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About ARRL/Board Meetings/2015_January_ARRL_Board_Minutes.pdf

Curious if this line item NO answer is consistent in subsequent Form 990 filings. Changes in ARRL Bylaws and other governing doc's continue to be commonplace.

Opinions published online by major CPA firms specializing in clients incorporated as nonprofits state that making errors or false statements on the Form 990 can be a primary cause of alert to the IRS which may then institute a special examination of qualification for tax exempt status.

John, WØPV

 

Go back to bed. You don't get it.

 

John,

I am of the opinion that burdening the ARRL budget with potential litigation does nothing to the board, who are not compensated anyway, and have D&O insurance. It will only lead to fewer employees, all of which are pretty much modestly compensated to start with.

Before going after the board--other than voting them out for example-- think about how that affects the employees...

In case no one noticed, the ARRL lost its highly skilled CTO last year, to no notice to the public, and without replacement. Does anyone really think a CTO is superfluous in a tech non-profit?

Money --lack of it--is driving this, IMO. They eliminated 3 C-level positions to save--oh let's speculate--$400,000 ,and got a reduced but break even budget. This makes it easier to BORROW money to then buy back future positions... a f***ed approach often done by collapsing non-profits: again, MO.

 

I noticed Brennan Price's rather sudden loss, and could feel it. He had quite the background (former ITU Director, Georgia Tech engineer and J.D. wrapped into one package).