From: Richard J. Norton
Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:37 PM
Subject: The Bullying of Mary Hobart Myth

Introduction

Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay have periodically attempted to gather sympathy for their apparent displeasure with recent summaries of their own activities and expenses by the creation and dissemination of a Mary-Hobart-Was-Bullied-Myth. Their descriptions of what constituted the alleged bullying have never been specific.

This memo will summarize my evaluation of the League's 2012 fundraising costs that was presented in January 2013 to the Board at the New Orleans Annual Meeting, the meeting where the alleged "bullying" was claimed to have taken place. .....sentence redacted ....

Lisenco E-mail Quotes

1) Mr. Norton has been on the attack for years. We should have done something when he decided to take on Mary Hobart, who eventually left the ARRL earlier than she should have.

2) Incumbent Board members sat silently while Director Norton bullied Mary Hobart mercilessly, making false accusations against her and causing her to retire. (Emphasis added)

Imlay Quote

1) The Board allowed Mr. Norton to bully CDO Mary Hobart into resigning, using precisely the same disturbing tactics he is now employing against me and others. This really needs to stop now.

Hobart's Relationship with the ARRL Board

Ms. Hobart was elected to the position of Chief Development Officer by a vote of the Board; consequently, she attended Board meetings. The present Development Department manager is not an elected officer and does not attend Board meetings.

Specific Evaluation Presented

At the 2013 Annual Meeting, I presented my evaluation of the League's fundraising efficiency.

In 2012, the League Statement of Activities showed the following:

Contributions and Support     $1,126,533
Expenditures, Fundraising     $   717,435

The financial information is publicly available in the 2012 ARRL Annual Report, at www.ARRL.org.

Out of the $1,126,533 raised, the sum of $409,098 therefore remained for use in League programs. Thus, 63.7% of the funds raised was used to raise the funds. Note also that the true fundraising costs are really even higher since the League does not record costs such as those related to QST-ads-concerning-fundraising to the "fundraising" account.

My comments were directed at the 63.7 cents of every dollar being used to raise the dollar. This is a number so high that if potential donors were aware of it, their donations might well be impaired. The comments were directed at the fundraising costs, never directed at Ms. Hobart personally.

The analysis and criticism were appropriate for a Board member to have performed and presented to the rest of the Board. Management oversight is a regular component of Board activity.

Ms. Hobart, who was present at the meeting because of her officer status, obviously heard the analysis and, because she was in charge of the fundraising operation, may have felt both responsible and possibly uncomfortable.

For Ms. Hobart, or anyone else, to label a questioning of the appropriateness of 36.3% fundraising-efficiency as constituting "bullying" is totally unwarranted. Note that I have never seen any evidence that Ms. Hobart made such a characterization, only Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay.

Comparative Activity

Plenty of information is available on the web that rates and compares non-profit fundraising costs. For example, Charitywatch.org has a "Top-Rated" list that includes those that generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs. Since after fundraising expenses, the League only had 36.3% of funds raised to spend on programs, it would not make the "Top Rated" list.

For a comparable Amateur Radio fundraising activity, note that the 2014 Boston WRTC committee raised nearly $750,000 at a cost of somewhere around 1 or 2 percent. This efficient fundraising encourages donations.

Performance Evaluation

There is no doubt that my financial performance standards differ significantly from those of Mr. Lisenco and Mr. Imlay.

Whereas my comments were directed at encouraging a more cost-effective fundraising effort, Mr. Liscenco and Mr. Imlay portray them as being a personal attack on Ms. Hobart.

They were clearly not a personal attack on Ms. Hobart. The discussion did not criticize Ms. Hobart by name. It was about the high level of fundraising costs.

It is in the interest of both the organization and the membership that fundraising be carried out efficiently.

..... paragraphs redacted .......

Conclusions

Participating in a Board-level discussion of the suitability or unsuitability of the 2012 League's 36.3% fundraising efficiency at the 2013 Board meeting was a proper part of a Director fulfillment of his fiduciary responsibilities.

Ms. Hobart was present at the meeting because of her Board-elected officer position, not her employee status. She heard discussion that was critical of the results of her department's work.

.... sentences redacted ....

Mr. Lisenco's claim of "making false accusations against her" is, ironically, a false.accusation.

Mr. Imlay's defensive characterization is also untrue.

..... paragraph redacted ......

73,

Dick Norton - N6AA