ARRL Board Political Disqualification, Code of Conduct, and Censure Activity

This presentation is authorized by and compliant with the ARRL POLICY ON BOARD GOVERNANCE AND CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND VICE DIRECTORS -
Section 3, under the subject-requests-disclosure clause.
AFTER-THE-FACT CLAIMS CONCERNING CENSURE

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 section documents some claims made after-the-fact by Board members about the nature of the censure, and provides responses. Members are encouraged to evaluate the details of the claims, and react accordingly.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF NORTON POSITION

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.

The allegation that I "publicly criticized the ARRL Code of Conduct for Board members at a public Amateur Radio gathering" is factually untrue, as confirmed by letters that four prominent ARRL Life Members sent the Board after attending the meeting, and after the censure action, by tens of others who were at the meeting.

A few Board members have made the interesting claim that the defamatory statement, made against me on both the web-site and in QST, was knowingly untrue and that the censure was made for other reasons. The alleged reasons are vague and zero documentation of the charges is provided.

Documentation of a level sufficient to establish the veracity of my denial of the charges is presented.



REFERENCES

Carlson Web-page Claiming Mistreatment of ARRL Staff

http://w9xa.us/Norton.html


Pace Web-page Alleging Personal Attacks

https://www.k7cexcom.com/hamradioasiseeit.html


Response to "Mistreatment of Staff" Claim

Norton Response


Response to "Personal Attacks" Claim

Norton Response


Claim That 75% of the Board Can't be Wrong

http://www.academia.edu/31094500/The_Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster_A_classic_example_of_Groupthink



QUESTIONS FOR MEMBER CONSIDERATION
  1. Is a fundraising cost of 63.7% of funds raised appropriate for the ARRL?. Is attempting to encourage more efficient fundraising an appropriate Director function?

  2. Is spending $449 for a single night's hotel room, when another League representative spent $89, appropriate? Is suggesting that there might be more economical ways to travel, an "attack"?

  3. Are there any specific examples of "damning rhetoric and mis-characterizations?" Is use of vague accusations without details an example of transparency?

  4. Is publishing defamatory statements, and later admitting that they were knowingly false, the type of behavior expected of a corporate Director? Would making such admissions on a web-site be something legal counsel should advise against?
Return