If its not in the minutes its not ARRL business. Has Ria's name shown up in the ARRL BOD meeting minutes since she left? If so, can we see it here? If Dave or anyone else says things that are knowingly false, then there is, IMO, a basis for libel in a dispute that does not entail ham radio or the ARRL. We have no evidence for that and as such it is irrelevant to THIS thread. THIS thread is about Dave as the CEO of the ARRL, and the ARRL's position on several issues..
What trenches would you like him to work? A bit more specificity would help us understand where you think his work is deficient.
KQ1V raises a very valid point. Societies like the ARRL had a certain raison d'etre in the regulated spectrum management world, where privileges could be awarded for "good looks" or for previous good performance. In a deregulated "brave new world" this is about as interesting as last week´s Lottery numbers. If we look at what the ARRL delivers, by reading the FCC ECFS entries regarding amateur radio, they contribute to a small fraction of the deluge of petitions, replies, counter-replies, counter-counter-replies and so on reaching the FCC, which some "poor sod" at the FCC has to read and compile some form of executive summaries of. I have reason to believe that this "poor sod" is some junior staff member that repeatedly has shown up late for work. What kind of impressions he and his superiors have about amateur radio is then "open to speculation". This ends up in a general observation that societies are well past their "sell-by dates". Discussions about the behaviour of the CEO are very relevant as a general matter of principle. The "top brass" of any organisation, regardless if they are elected, appointed or hired ultimately sets the bar for how the organisation as a whole becomes viewed from an ethical standpoint. If a despotic CEO or chairman surrounds himself with "yes-men" who do not voice dissent about this, outside viewers may draw the conclusion that the entire leadership has equally dubious ethics. I have some first-hand experience of this, when society politics were used for furthering the personal agendas of a despotic chairman and vice-chairman, who used it to manipulate member opinion in favour of openly un-ethical actions. When confronted with this, all other board members suddenly went mute and hid behind the frontal figures to divert the blame. Also, they appointed a "Minister of Propaganda" in the position of web-master who distributed direct lies in the spirit of a "role-model", the late Dr. Goebbels, about those that voiced opinions that they did not like. Those included representatives for the regulator. One should be very cautious about belonging to or supporting organisations which endorse or just allow such habits. 73/Karl-Arne
If it’s not in the minutes it’s not ARRL business? Come now. Ria’s experiences and opinions, and those of others who have served on the BOD, are relevant to me as an ARRL member and probably to a number of other participants here. Threads typically drift a bit, and this is not very far off the original topic, so I see nothing wrong with it at all.
Ria is no longer part of the board. Ria can have, and has, all the opinions she chooses. The question is: is it a reflected in --existing--ARRL board activity? Boards often have comments by individual members that do not reflect their fiduciary duty. Those are ignored in undertaking the business at hand. If there were aspersive allusions to Ria that would have no place in the business of the ARRL as a board. Whether or not these were actually said, its not a board activity to asperse anyone. You have several board members who are lawyers. They would stop any such comments if it was being posed as ARRL business. The CEO executes directives of the board. The board is the driving body. Should there be aspersive comments about Ria? Of course not! But that is not the point. The minutes summarize the activities of the board. If its not in the minutes its not ,in this case, ARRL business.
Just the other day on here I contributed to a debate on the merits of a two hour video intended to help people figure out what rig to buy. As with audio, taking care to tailor a video helps keep an audience. What's interesting about an internet video presentation is that there are no real limits as to the audio quality you can achieve, compared with being on the air. Yet, the same mechanisms of tweaking the audio to make the most of the typical "receive" setup will boost the overall quality of the presentation. Fascinating pursuit. Kevin, come join us on AM some time and we can give you all the feedback you want and then some, huh-HA! Mod-U-Later
I have knowledge of how things work. And no, you are not entirely correct. I have a certain degree of insider status. At the very least I know how the sausage is made. I can read the minutes with context, which the average person who has never been inside the boardroom cannot. I know the players. I know how it is played. This is valuable insight and the members ought to know because it's their interests, their money and their representatives. BTW I could even attend the Board meetings if I wish, as an observer. Former Board members are given that privilege. It is a myth that the CEO executes directives of the Board. It is supposed to be that way but the CEO has essentially re-engineered governance so that he provides the strategy and the Board simply votes yes. Sometimes it's about favors granted to Board members, such as speaking at meetings, working with the President to grant favorable committee assignments, and even pushing out enough Board members so that the CEO can be guaranteed a majority vote on his vision. This is the status quo with the ARRL. As far as the issues with me go, he has written to the (now former) President of my current organization in an attempt to cast doubt on my qualifications and ethics. It doesn't affect my status since I have much in the way of expertise and qualifications but it bothers me that he does this. Some call this "cancel culture." To me it is just plain sneaky. He needs to stop. He didn't elect me. He needs to work with his own Board and stop meddling in other organizations. It's an annoyance. As far as those reporting on him, such as Kevin - at least be honest. You are biased by only allowing positive, praising comments to stay on the video, giving an impression to passers by that there isn't anything bad about the interviewee. It does a disservice to the members.
Wait! The CEO of the ARRL has written letters to another independent organization attempting to call into question a former directors expertise and qualifications? What qualifications are required to be an ARRL division director? One has to run for the position and win the election, correct? If true (and I have no reason to think otherwise) I would have my friendly lawyer write a very nice letter informing that CEO of the consequences of that letter or any more! Jesus!! ...............Bob
Ria, We really , as a whole, don't want to hear personal comments. If they are actionable, then,IMO, that is the direction you should take it, as per W4PG's prior post. IMO, I do not see Dave as some model CEO. My point is that we have no data that shows the ARRL has taken a stance against you or anyone. Frankly, that's not the business of the ARRL. And its not for us to be involved with. Certainly as a LM, I personally don't want to see the ARRL divert away from its defined mission. I want to see the CEO execute the mission under the guidance of the board. Again, read W4PG's post 73 Chip W1YW
This is an example of what I am referring to....why do we need to know this? I feel that I am not being asked to THINK from facts, but react from an allegation. SO let's take it as pure opinion...how is it relevant to the OP?
