No. And now that I have time to write to n1vxy /Barry the temp CEO and k5ur /Richard the president, I am confused as to what I am requesting. I was going to send 2 letters in a priority mail tomorrow. What I can determine is that the retiring CEO /Tom ny2rf has disqualified a candidate for ARRL director, Bob /k3rf, for no clear reason. Other than an apparent conflict of interest. The whole thing is a fuzzy non- transparent mess, which seems to be the rub. It seems the issue is not being addressed in a proper manner with all the churn. Chip /W1yw is outraged and up in arms because he knows Bob/k3rf well, and feels this is outrageous and the arrl needs to fix this wrong immediately. If that summarizes the issue correctly I will put this in a letter to the CEO and president and request that the issue be reconsidered. Can someone confirm or deny this ? Questions, comments, emotional outbursts are all welcome. Thank you. I don't need this headache, but since I have tar all over me, I might as well gather some feathers. 73
Interesting comments and perspective from the FaceBook page of Doug K4AC, former ARRL Southeastern Director, who while on the BoD attempted to steer the ARRL away from the very issues that have caused the membership revolt. This led to an 11th hour DQ from re-election and nullifying any SE membership vote, an early warning of what has transpired with K3RF. They are long texts so I will post them separately and as they chronologically appeared below. 73, John, WØPV ---------------------------------- From K4AC FaceBook dated January 18 8:33 am, https://www.facebook.com/arrlse/ The headline that ARRL CEO Tom Gallagher, NY2RF, is going to retire has many members that have been calling for reform taking a victory lap. While it is good news that he is stepping down, Gallagher is the symptom of the disease, not its cause. Gallagher was selected by a highly flawed process created by the (highly flawed) Board—a Board that is substantially worse today than the one several years ago and that will select his replacement. At the end of the day, this changes nothing. Gallagher was but a puppet for ARRL President Rick Roderick who is up for re-election tomorrow. If the Directors re-elect Roderick - which they will in a landslide -, you can rest assured that the downward spiral will continue, probably at an accelerated rate as Roderick will feel invincible. Roderick will appoint his 3 most obedient cronies (not up for election in 2018 per the Bylaws) to the absurdly named Ethics and Election Committee (E&E)—the 4th Reich's Gestapo. That committee will ensure that the five crony Directors up for re-election this year (Central, Hudson, New England, Northwestern, and Roanoke) will not have any competition that might be able to defeat them. If Roderick actually wanted to create a fair and impartial E&E, he would appoint the only three honorable Directors to it: N6AA, K5RAV, and W3TOM... Just like the President and the Vice Presidents (1st VP, 2nd VP, & Int'l VP), the CEO position is up for election every two years. Rumor has it that for the first time ever, someone else was going to be nominated to run against Gallagher. Perhaps Gallagher didn't want to be the first CEO to face a public challenge and maybe a defeat? ---------------------------------------- From K4AC FaceBook dated January 21 @ 11:52am, https://www.facebook.com/arrlse/posts/1708947762517627 A quick analysis of some of the happenings at the ARRL Board Meeting TLDR: An incremental improvement due to Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT, becoming the Pacific Director, but expect more of the same, only sneaker, with Roderick remaining as President. President: Roderick was challenged by Frernaye, K1KI (New England), but won 9-6, despite having led the League into the mess it found itself in prior to this meeting and his condescending letter to the members. This is the single most telling sign for the future—more of the same, though probably worse and probably kept far more secret. The fact that 3/5 of the Directors voted for Roderick is a harbinger of more bad things to come. So who voted how? The ballots are secret for all of the elections, so there is no way to know for absolute certain. Here are the most likely votes for Frenaye (or more accurately, many were votes AGAINST Roderick) based on my knowledge of all of the backstories: Stratton (West Gulf- sitting in as Woolweaver couldn't attend) Norton (Southwestern) Pace (Northwestern) Frenaye (New England) Abernethy (Atlantic) Vallio (Pacific) Five of the six I'm virtually certain of. The only one I might have some question about would be Vallio. Pace almost certainly voted for Frenaye as they are an inseparable duo; we used to refer to them collectively as Penne. That means the ones voting for Roderick were: Carlson (Central) Holden (Dakota) Norris (Delta)- Roderick is from this Division & they think alike Williams (Great Lakes) Lisenco (Hudson)- Lisenco has done well under Roderick, and wouldn't want that gravy train to end Blocksome (Midwest) Boehner (Roanoke) Allen (Rocky Mountain)- Frenaye tried to throw Allen off the Board in 2014 Sarratt (Southeastern)- owes being on the Board to Roderick's E&E Committee 1st VP: It was a disappointment that no one ran against Widen. He fancies himself an IT guru and much of the blame for the League's IT mess belongs to him. As head of the Administration and Finance Committee for several years, he absolutely blocked needed changes and reforms. Although the 1st VP typically is eventually elected President, I don't think this will happen for Widen. Someone else will emerge when Roderick's days are over and will easily defeat Widen. (Sorry to break it to you Greg...) 2nd VP: I was not all that surprised by Brian Mileshosky not running for re-election. I suspect he was sick of what he was seeing. The year prior to my first year on the Board, Brian was on the Executive Committee (EC). He detested the petty politics that took place there that he didn't run for EC the next year. Brian was Chair of the Programs & Services Committee (PSC) for my first two years and did an outstanding job running the committee. He stood up to Roderick in the long running PSC dealings with the remote station debate. Given the choice between Vallio and Pace for 2nd VP, I was glad to see Vallio win—not because Vallio is a good person for the job, rather it takes his wishy-washy vote and hands it over to the Vice Director, Jim Tiemstra. Jim is a very level headed person that knows right from wrong, doesn't survey the room to see which way the wind is blowing, and will be a voice for reform. CEO: The election of Barry Shelly as an interim CEO was probably a good temporary move. Barry has been with the League for many decades and is very close to retiring. He knows the operations backwards and forwards and can be a knowledgeable caretaker while the search process plays out. Fun fact unknown to the vast majority of the membership: Many years ago an insider (Treasurer?) embezzled a substantial amount of League funds and had left it financially troubled. Barry was brought in to literally save the League from financial ruin. Given its present accounts, Barry did just that. For those wondering why a new CFO was named so quickly, Barry wasn't that far from being retired and probably won't be around long after a permanent CEO is identified. The new CFO, Diane Middleton, was directly under Barry and she handled much of the day to day work. She was a good choice. EC: This doesn't bode well and don't be surprised to see the EC used to push through surprises (and not good ones...).
Also, will that be too late ? When is the election going to happen ? The one that Bob /k3rf is desiring to apply for. Or is it a nominated post ? Sorry, I do not have time to untangle this plate of spaghetti. Anyone can reply please. 73.
I don't believe there is time to reverse that decision. There is plenty of time to show that decision has no basis and a public apology is in order. Again-- Instead of it being a matter of 'what constitutes conflict of interest", the ARRL board made it a far more troubling issue by asserting "FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST", and acting on a recommendation of the Ethics Committee Basically the board approved an assertion that K3RF is dishonest--which is outrageous nonsense, and wrong.
Look: K5UR may not agree with you, and I don't agree with his stance on HR555. But it is not kosher to look at all these issues--and especially PEOPLE-- as binary GOOD -- or BAD. That is exactly the stance that created the mess in the first place. Tell the ARRL leadership what you want and why. Otherwise they will only have their own data to act on, which clearly, in some cases, is not representation of membership wishes. If they don't act wisely, based on the membership's wishes, then it's a problem. If they don't get the --constructive--feedback then who's fault is that? Don't like the 'naming' of Director's? Cite the by law section on elections and have them call special elections. For example. A complacent and silent membership created this problem. I hold myself as part of that description. Now, the membership is obviously no longer almost purely silent. Think things through, give thoughtful feedback. People don't and won't always agree. Reality check. If you feel you need to separate the pigs from the hams, then use the intelligence test of seeing who registers and understands the feedback. Then you can articulate the differences between an 'oink' and a 'grunt' ;-) OK? 73 Chip W1YW
Despite the outcries of membership, recent news still points to a failure of registration and understanding with this "oinkering" in front of a U.S. Senate committee no less "... ARRL and CAI, at the urging of members of this Committee, cooperatively and carefully negotiated the precise, current language of the Bill, and both organizations have stated their support for it. ...", from pages 3 and 16 in the following, https://tinyurl.com/y9cp39m7 http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-hudso...teur-radio-parity-act-before-senate-committee
The bill is dead. It was tabled by Senator Nelson. There is no reason to assume it will pass. It is given a 27% chance of passing by an independent assessment orgamization, You can easily find that on the web. Why are we spending membership dollars to resurrect this with fatal but --allegedly--"precise current language" HR555? The ARRL needs independent outside counsel to judge whether the HR555 wording expresses the needs of the membership and US amateur radio. That is where the money needs to be spent right now--not on positioning by lobbying post-mortem on HR555. My opinion, Yours may not differ, I suspect.
What they NEED is the proverbial "slapupsidetheHead",............... It's obvious that they have not even considered listening to anything the membership has had "concerns" with lately. Their actions and attitudes are still the same.
