|
Responses From Officers and Board Members Characterizing Norton Dissatisfaction with Actions as Being a "Personal Attack"
------------------------------------------------ Response from 2nd Vice President, Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT Your personal attacks are beyond pale, provide no value, petulant, and unprofessional, Dick. 73, Brian N5ZGT ----------------------------------------------- Response from General Counsel, Christopher Imlay, W3KD Dick, I told you a long time ago, the first time you attempted to lecture me about how to write contracts, that I am a professional person and I expect to be treated like one. I also told you that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. But I have had to endure an awful lot of completely baseless personal attacks from you and others either now or formerly associated with the Board and I don't intend to sit back and take it any longer. You are out of line. Cut it out. You have no business serving on a non-profit board of directors because you know nothing of collegiality and your interpersonal skills are clearly inadequate for the job. You really should consider resigning from the Board, Dick. Seriously. Chris ------------------------------------------------ Response from President, Rick Roderick, K5UR Dick, the personal attacks need to stop. This is uncalled for. You can make dissenting points and still be civil. Rick ------------------------------------------------ Response from Delta Division Director, David Norris, K5UZ Dick, You really need to refrain from these personal attacks on OD and ODV. They are uncalled for and only serve to offend your colleagues on the Board. Enough is enough. Please make your points without being ugly about it! It also distracts from the salient content of your arguments. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ ------------------------------------------------------ Response from Northwestern Division Director, Jim Pace, K7CEX These sort of personal attacks are the reasons that I think this evenings webinar can be a disaster, if not regulated, and the reason I suggested that our electronic meeting might be premature. I have not been on the board that long, but long enough that I am sick and tired to the personal attacks. If we can't disagree without lowering ourselves to the status of bullies, then we have no reason to exist. Despite a common thread in the rumor mill and recent Ham Convention that the Board is trying to be underhanded and secret about the Vice Directors and the Code of Conduct, I call on all of the directors to ignore such attacks and marginalize those who wish to take such stances, that are neither professional nor in the best interests of the ARRL membership. As to the Thursday night webinar; Mr. Norton if you are truly planning to use the internet from a cruise ship, I would suggest that you plan to pay the $10.00 per minute (or whatever the charge is...always much higher than home) out of your own pocket. It is not up to the ARRL to subsidize your vacation. As some of our colleagues have noted that opposition can be made without personal attacks, I must say that I truly believe that some people are not capable of doing so; and should not serve in positions of leadership. Mr. Norton, it has been suggested that you resign your position as Director. I'd rather suggest that you stop with the personal attacks and act in a productive manner - participating in discussions, honestly debating and help reach a consensus, even if it's not the position that you may champion. The ARRL Board is not a 'my way or the highway' organization. We are not the US House or Senate and we are not governed by California or Texas rules of law. We are a non-profit corporation in the State of Connecticut, governed by the Statutes of Connecticut, as a membership based non-profit corporation. That does not make us unique. The Connecticut rules governing non-profit membership based corporations, were written not just for us, but for any such type organization in Connecticut. Based on that lack of uniqueness. I trust our Attorneys including Mr. Imlay. 73 and good Hamming (don't forget the 7 QSO Party, coming this weekend) Jim ------------------------------------------- Response from International Affairs Vice President, Jay Bellows, K0QB Director Norton: If we are trotting out old sayings a quote from Paul Simon appears to be apropos of your comments. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." It puzzles me why you would question the motives and integrity a man who has devoted more than 35 years to vigorously representing the interests of ARRL would do anything to harm the organization or mislead its governing body. You are right, shame on you. Shame on you. Number 1. No one, absolutely NO ONE has more experience in representing the interests of ARRL and individual amateurs than Chris Imlay. There may be room for differing opinions as to how best to overcome the current prohibition against amateur antennas in HOA restricted developments the plain fact is the Board has supported HR555 as the best approach to achieving our goal. Why some board participants can't grasp the concepts of majority rule and accepting the decision of the majority is also puzzling. It isn't surprising that CAI would claim victory. What do you expect them to say, "we tried our best but they beat us"? I'm not sure what your source is for the claim that the Hopengarten view is "shared by most all involved antenna attorneys". I can only state that is not the view of the attorneys I know who have been engaged in that work, not for profit, but pro bono, for more than 25 years. Number 2. The presentation to the EC in March as to inconsistencies between the ARRL Articles and Bylaws and corporate governance was based upon advice from ARRL's Connecticut legal counsel Not Mr. Imlay or the other authors of the EC memo. Perhaps you and I are reading different documents but I don't understand how the Day Pitney advice could be construed as saying our Vice Director succession and voting provisions comply with the Non Stock Corporation statute. To name just two provisions, Day Pitney opined there is no provision in CT law for a VD to vote in the absence of a Director, or to succeed to fill a vacant Director position I recognize Vice Directors Raisbeck and Tiemstra have rendered opinions that challenge the opinions of Day Pitney. I appreciate their efforts, though as a participant in preparing the memo to the EC I found VD Tiemstra's bald suggestion that this was part of a year-long scheme or plan to do away with Vice Directors not only baseless but personally offensive. That said, it is worth pointing out that no one, NO ONE who is an Officer, Director or Vice Director is licensed to practice law in Connecticut and the rendering of legal advice to the Board or its voting members is not authorized. The only legally authorized legal advice we have is from Day Pitney. Perhaps we need to ask them for clarification or explanation of a few points. As far as the authority the "legal opinion" of anyone else who has commented; that and $2.50 will get you on the bus in Minneapolis. Director Norton you stated "its (sp) sad to now need to skeptically view what is delivered to us as being 'legal advice' might simply be camouflage for some hidden political agenda." Are you referring to the legal advice of Day Pitney? Are you suggesting that Vice Directors analysis is legal advice? Certainly you can't be suggesting that the memo to the EC was legal advice beyond the quoted opinions and comments from the Day Pitney memo. If you have any factual support for your suggestion that there is some hidden agenda please provide that documentation. If not, when you make comments like you have we will need to remember the words of Paul Simon "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Jay, K0QB -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|