Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by NN4RH, Aug 12, 2019.
ARRL? Never heard of them.
I don’t care for Door #1, Door #2 or Door #3. Or even what’s behind the curtain.
Instead, you can find me by the bar, in my reserved booth, with a sem-private view of the volleyball tournament. (Did I mention that it’s a clothing-optional beach?)
Does the boss know about all that?
Is the drop in membership (discounting the impact of the recent fee increase) really not more of a reflection of the times. Most special interest advocacy groups such as shooting, hunting, fishing, hiking, model railroading, model airplanes, and similar are on the decline. Younger people are less inclined to join such organizations. Many seniors are struggling with fixed incomes in an era of rising costs. Yes I think local efforts can have short term targeted success. But is it possible to achieve that on a national scale?
One of my bosses back in the day told me "I wanted a yacht with a crew of Playboy models. What I got was a leaky rowboat with my wife at the oars".
My auto mechanics instructor told us "You want the Cadillac (or insert your preferred luxury car model) but all you need is the Yugo (or insert some other low cost car)".
No; it's the coup plotters who were opposed to the censure who are trying to hide it. Remember, one of the first things that the coup plotters did once they took over the League, was to repeal the Ethics Code so that literally nothing they do can be unethical.
Hopefully it does take a long time for the coup plotters to make their changes...because then the damage they'll do to the League is limited, and recoverable.
Wait, let me see if I have this right...
You’re saying that the “coup plotters” who were (amongst other things) against the censure in the first place are now covering up that the censure occurred in the first place? Or are they covering up the repeal of the censure?
And you’re also saying that the repeal of the very draconian “ethics code” that led to the censure, and that actually kept Directors from responding to the concerns of their members, is also part of the plot?
I get it. You are against the Reform movement, you liked the Board the way it was before, on it’s way to being very secretive, unwilling to listen to the Members that elected them, and doing whatever they wished behind closed doors. Or was it a personal friend on the Board that you feel got the shaft?
But let us all remember: The Directors are elected, not appointed. (Yes, I know they can be appointed to fill a vacancy in a term, but someone must still first be elected to that term!). That means that it was the Voting Membership that led to the new Directors. That means the Voting Membership decided to replace the old Board members with the new ones.
No plot, no coup, no revolution, no uprising. Just an election. That’s the way it should be.
Don’t like it? No problem. Find a candidate of your liking for the next election, convince him or her to run, and start doing the groundwork to get them elected. That’s what these guys did. And if they’re doing a lousy job, in your humble opinion, then it should be easy to find said candidate and related campaign.
I believe that IS the case to some extent. Based on email exchange with my Director, I believe the Board wanted to "right a wrong", and move forward, not dwell on the past. In that context I can understand not wanting to make it a Big Bold Friggin Deal Headline on the ARRL web page. In any case, the Board doesn't control the editing of the website; so if the way it was published was an attempt to obscure it, it wasn't the Board that instructed that.
Speaking for myself, though, I still agree with whoever said earlier that the rescision of the censure should have gotten at least as much publicity as the original censure. My opinion.
There is a difference between “hiding” the information and “downplaying” it.
I agree with you that it appears they’re not making a big fuss about rescinding the censure. My point was that there is no evidence that those Board members (who remain) who had originally voted for the censure, are now directly involved in “hiding” that it was rescinded. That the information IS on the website, even if downplayed, is or should be evidence enough of that!
Bottom line: The censure should never have happened. It has been revoked. Good. Let’s move on to something productive.