Interestingly enough, during the period before my response was submitted, information came that revealed that the other two members of the Elections and Ethics Committee, Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab, had already accepted the scurrilous claims as being fact and were broadcasting defamatory statements to League members.
The following language has been used by the members of the E&E Committee in communication with membership:
Rocky Mountain Division Director Ryan, KØRM: "In today's political climate, it has become 'OK' to 'lower oneself' to include name-calling, personal attacks that question an individual's competence, heritage, and/or motives; and to generally have emotional distrust or contempt for an individual with whom you disagree. It is my intention to ensure such behavior is not present in the ARRL Board room-because our members deserve representatives that always act in a manner that is consistent with the highest business and ethical standards as would any corporation-non-profit or otherwise. I'm perfectly OK with dissent; I'm not so fond of disrespect. I have been in the minority on votes in the ARRL board room. It goes with the territory. What is not proper is to act like a spoiled four-year old who didn't get his way."
Central Division Director Luetzelschwab, K9LA: [W]hen a Board member calls someone on the HQ staff a derogatory name, when a Board member verbally threatens another Board member, when a Board member advances on another Board member in a physical manner," etc. [T]hat's what this is about."
Both Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab have been requested to provide specifics of their charges made to the League membership, and neither has done so. The bizarre and unique comment from Director Luetzelschwab about "advances on another Board member in a physical manner" should leave no doubt about his source.
Regarding Proposed Changes to Bylaw 46 -
The real reasons behind the proposed changes appears to be that some Board members and management want to hide bad decisions and the resulting impacts from the membership, and that they want more excuses to remove a Director from office..
For example, Mr. Minster has expressed that League financial information, especially that which he may find embarrassing, can be self-declared as being "confidential," and that Directors who discuss it with their constituencies should be removed from the Board.
Mr. Minster's supporters on the Board are attempting to grant Minster the ability to do just that, in spite of Connecticut law not permitting it.
The Ethics and Elections Committee plays an outsized role in such activities. Does the League benefit from efforts like this, obviously aimed at Director elimination? After reading this, do you think the procedures followed in this example reach reasonable quasi-judicial standards? Is this what you want more of from your Board? If the proposed changes to Bylaw 46 are passed, this is what your Board will be up to.
This single example, among many, of abuse of the League's E&E Committee system by three politically connected actors should by itself give reason not to encourage and validate ARRL Board secrecy.
I believe the ARRL members are the owners of the ARRL. I believe they are entitled to knowledge of how their assets are managed, and how their representatives vote.
There is no dispute about not releasing lobbying or litigation strategies. Almost all disagreements about disclosure to members involve what is being done with their money or how Directors voted on issues before them..
There is essentially nothing I do or have done as a League Director that should be kept from the membership.
I encourage any and all members who agree with me to express their opinions to all the League Directors and Officers.
I strongly oppose Board secrecy and the ARRL Motion to change Bylaw 46.
Dick Norton, N6AA