Prompted by "complaints" filed by ARRL Hudson Division Director Liscenco, N2YBB, with the Ethics and Elections Committee, the ARRL Board has conducted two trials of Southwestern Division Director Dick Norton, N6AA, concerning alleged violations of the "ARRL Director's Code of Conduct." This summary documents the first trial, held at the July 2017 ARRL Board meeting.

The censure attempt was unsuccessful, but the lack of success appears to have possibly motivated the second censure effort, which succeeded.

Details are provided so that League members can assess the validity of either this complaint and/or the validity of Director Norton's dissatisfaction with the performance of a League contractor. League officers and directors have made statements to League members about the successful censure, with no details that the members can substantiate.

Understanding the overall political nature of the disqualification of other political opponents, as well as understanding this censure attempt, is believed critical to understanding the second censure effort, which is detailed elsewhere. This censure effort appears to be part of a continuum of efforts by the present majority ARRL political party to remove ARRL Directors with differing views from the Board rather than permit members to select their representatives.

ARRL is a representative democracy--its members control its policies through the power of the ballot. If members are dissatisfied with performance of their League Director, they are encouraged to work for change.

I have been elected by the membership of the Southwestern Division to represent their interests and, in my view, also the interests of Amateur Radio.

My concern was with actions. My complaints were about withholding important information critical to performing my fiduciary duties, and then playing a key role in what appears to be misrepresentation of "legal advice" for political means.

The subject of my complaint and his allies have called my complaint a personal attack, a mis-characterization that might be a way of diverting attention from the serious issues raised. Rest assured that the views I expressed are not unique to me.

The League should operate with open, honest discussion of issues involved. Withholding information, misrepresenting facts, and attempting to prevent your opposition from being heard are antithetical to my concept of good government, and those engaging in any of those practices should expect to be called out.

Original E-mail from Norton, which expressed dissatisfaction with two actions by ARRL General Counsel Imlay

Responses From Officers and Board Members labeling Norton dissatisfaction with actions as being a "personal attack"

Reply by Norton to Imlay - Norton dissatisfaction was about actions, not a personal attack (Imlay response included)

Initial E&E complaint to Norton from Frenaye, Carlson, and Pace, alleging "conduct ... deviated from the standard of collegial discourse."

N6AA clarification request e-mail to E&E Committee (K1KI, W9XA, and K7CEX)(no reply received)

Response by Norton to complaint from E&E Committee - The response stated that Imlay's actions were very much deserving of criticism, and should even be considered when evaluating possible future Imlay pronouncements.

Message from Frenaye to ARRL Board requesting trial at July 2017 Board meeting

Message from Norton withdrawing sentence that used the descriptive characterization term "Potemkin Village"

Board Action - ARRL BOD Minutes of 2017 Second Meeting (July 2017) - Item 17 (second paragraph)

1. Was Director Norton justified in being concerned about the Board's not being advised of criticisms of the compromises made to the Parity Act?


2. Was Director Norton justified in being concerned about Mr. Imlay's depiction of the Vice Director position as non-compliant with Connecticut law, and later finding that there was no non-compliance issue?


3. Was Director Norton justified in bringing his dissatisfaction to the Board in strong language?


4. Is someone who has withheld important information and misrepresented legal advice entitled to "collegial discourse"?


5. Were the Norton actions egregious enough for the Board to have spent the time and effort to prepare for and conduct this trial?


6. Did the ARRL or Amateur Radio benefit in any way from the trial?


7. Was the trial worth spending thousands of dollars of League money?


8. Did the League serve you well by conducting this activity?


9. Did your ARRL Director serve you well by his actions in this matter?