Norton response to "Recommendation of E&E Committee"

From: Richard J. Norton
Date: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 5:21 PM
Subject: Norton Response to "Recommendation of E&E Committee:
To: OD Reflector

Response of Director Norton

To "Recommendation of the E&E Committee"

This responds to the "Recommendation of the E&E Committee to the ARRL Board of Directors," submitted by Mr. Carlson in an e-mail to OD from President Roderick, dated September 11, 2017.

My role at the 2017 Visalia DX Convention's ARRL Forum has been distorted. The testimony solicited from Mr. Mills (not a Southwestern Division member, by the way) some months after the fact does not reflect actual events, and is inaccurate.

I described what actually transpired at the 2017 Visalia ARRL Forum to the EC meeting attendees near the end of the October 14 EC meeting. That description follows again in this message.

What Actually Happened

I am quite familiar with the "Code of Conduct" and take scrupulous care to follow it. Like most Directors, I have conducted a good number of these forums, and the format is essentially the same in all of them.

Because of the "Code of Conduct," the relationship I have had with the members of the Southwestern Division for many years has changed. I simply listed a few of the significant changes and opened up the floor for discussion. I emphasize that I clearly stated that I support whatever the Board passes -- likely more than once. I did not flash that sentiment on a screen, but I said it nonetheless.

As stated in my email to ODV on April 28, the three items mentioned are:

1. My primary responsibility is now to the corporation -- not to the members, not to Amateur Radio, and not to society as a whole.
2. I am now compelled to support whatever the Board passes.
3. I am now not permitted to tell the members how I voted on an issue unless a roll call vote was taken with the votes recorded in the minutes.

Members of the audience then voiced their opinions.

As in all forums at which the features of the Code of Conduct have been presented factually, the reaction of the audience was extremely negative. A number of attendees spoke against aspects of it. Interestingly, when the first speaker from the floor who strongly criticized the "Code" finished, the audience burst into applause. The applause was not in response to what I had said, but to what that Life Member had said.

The actual questions posed, at the conclusion of the Code topic, to the attendees, and their responses, were accurately covered in my email to ODV on April 28.

In all the forums I have conducted, most audience comments on the "Code of Conduct" have contained only negative comments. Only occasionally is something positive said about a part of the Code, such as the need to keep personnel matters private. But my membership does not have a positive view the Code as a whole.

Mr. Mills stated, "I was recognized at one point and asked that since there were legal issues involved, Corporate Law of the State of Connecticut, if it would not be wise for [the audience] to hear a legal opinion, I was essentially ignored, even though Vice Director Tiemstra, who is a lawyer, was in attendance."

Mr. Mills was not ignored. He had a full opportunity to voice his opinion, and did so. I was, of course, not at liberty to discuss the history of the stealth method used to introduce the "Code," or the fact that the Board itself was unable to hear additional legal opinions before voting on the matter. As I was not at liberty to discuss those things, I did not.

I do not consider Mr. Mills' comments to be positive toward the "Code," just not negative.

First, Mr. Mills' statement that "Director Norton's entire presentation was spent in his disagreement with the ARRL Board's implementation of a Code of Conduct for the ARRL Board of Directors" is false. Additional topics covered in the presentation included, among other matters, a summary of the League's financial position, current membership trends, and the legislative effort regarding HOA antenna issues. Furthermore, it would have been difficult to miss the discussion of the California Distracted Driving Law, spearheaded by the late Norm Lucas, WB6RVR, who unfortunately passed away shortly after the convention..

It has been nearly eight months since Visalia, and I am now uncertain of every detail, but it is likely that the success of NPOTA, and the possibility of a future comparable event was discussed. I also think QSL Bureau issues were covered.

Near the conclusion, the Forum was opened up to the audience for any comments, criticisms, and suggestions. Every attendee present was given an opportunity to comment on any topic. The Forum was concluded only after there were no further attendees wishing to speak.

The statement that "Director Norton's entire presentation was spent in his disagreement with the ARRL Board's implementation of a Code of Conduct" misrepresents the forum, and should discredit the rest of Mr. Mills' description of the proceedings. Assuming he was not told what to write, it appears that he missed many other elements of the presentation.

Mr. Mills' statement, "To the contrary, he 'railed' against it," is also inaccurate. The members "railed" against it. I only stated, correctly I believe, aspects of the "Code" that impact my relationship with the membership. And, to repeat, I clearly stated that I supported whatever the Board passed, likely more than once.

Two ARRL Forum attendees will soon be sending messages to the ARRL Board also describing what took place. They are the Hon. Mark Weiss, K6FG, a retired Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner (formerly a judge with Alternative Resolution Centers), and former ARRL WPA Section Manager Tim Duffy, K3LR.

Commissioner Weiss and Mr. Duffy each take considerable interest in League affairs. Before the 2017 Visalia DX Convention they had both expressed disappointment in the League's Code and the fact that it prevents me from arguing the case against anything the board passes, including in particular the "Code" itself. The membership reaction to simply hearing the Code's content makes it unnecessary to argue against it. Commissioner Weiss and Mr. Duffy have knowledge of the Code. They paid close attention to what happened.

Based on the initial response to President Roderick's original posting, I had assumed there was inadequate Board interest in the matter to warrant a response. However, at the EC Meeting, an unprecedented action took place. Three members of the ARRL Board were kept out of the meeting for 2 hours and 40 minutes. The only reported outcome of the meeting was a motion by Director Lisenco, seconded by Director Norris, something to the effect that an emergency meeting of the Board was to be called to discuss this matter.

I had hoped to avoid bringing Commissioner Weiss and Mr. Duffy into this issue, but the actions taken at the EC Meeting require me to do so. I have no interest in being defamed by false assertions and will take whatever action is needed for the truth to be heard. The League's stature in the eyes of these two long-time members cannot be bolstered as a result of my need to ask them to relate what they witnessed.

Should the Board desire additional evidence, I can attempt to acquire it. Occasionally, participants record these forums. I can query the email reflectors of the Western DX and contest clubs to see if anyone has a recording, which might then be made available to board members.

Mr. Carlson actively solicited this "complaint" and filed the "recommendation" to the board before giving me an opportunity to rebut the assertions or even comment on them. I conclude that this action was intended to defame me, and the procedure that followed suggests malice.

Note also that at the recent EC Meeting, there were deliberations lasting 2 hours and 40 minutes where three directors, with legal full and unfettered access to corporate actions, including private matters, were denied access. The only report of those 2 hours and 40 minutes was the Lisenco-Norris motion to consider "the Ethics and Elections Committee recommendation and related items." The "related items" are not described. The Board will be hearing substantially more about this issue in the future.

To restate the primary point from my e-mail of April 28 -

I'm sure you all know my view that the ARRL is primarily a membership organization with the objective of serving the members and Amateur Radio that happens to be organized as a non-profit corporation in Connecticut. Although this is a minority position on the present Board, it appears to represent the almost unanimous view of the members and other Radio Amateurs who, once they have heard about it, have made their opinions known.

The participant reaction to the "Code" at the 2017 Visalia DX Convention ARRL Forum, as witnessed by three other ODV members, illustrates the factual basis for my statements that the "Code" has been poorly, if at all, disclosed to the members and that the members who learn about it almost unanimously oppose the "Code".

Should I proceed in gathering additional evidence?

Very truly yours,

Dick Norton, N6AA