RadioBanter - View Single Post - You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.

[email protected] · September 12th 06, 01:13 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

The ARRL's rules regarding candidacy for elected ARRL positions existed
decades before Carl's run.

They go all the way back to the very beginning of the League. They're
really very basic conflict-of-interest rules. Someone whose employment
is tied to parts of the radio industry that conflict with amateur
radio, or could conflict with amateur radio, are not allowed to hold
policy-making ARRL positions, such as Director and Vice-Director.

For example, someone working on a BPL system could not be a vice
director.

It's not about whether someone is a "professional" or not, but whether
the person's "pecuniary interest" could present a conflict.

The problem is in the interpretation of those rules. The committee
which decides such things decided there could be a
conflict-of-interest. The BoD agreed with the committee.

Some of us here in the Atlantic Division (where he lives), and
elsewhere, thought that Carl should be allowed to run. We did not see
the alleged conflict-of-interest. We expressed that opinion to the
commitee, the board, the officers, etc. but they did not change their
minds.

For all the verbiage posted, I don't see anyone else here saying they
let the ARRL BoD and officers know of their support for Carl's
candidacy.

btw, director and vice director are division positions, not section
positions.

The matter is moot since Carl's mouth would
have precluded his being elected had he qualified for candidacy.

Possibly.

He sure did say some wild things here in years gone by. Perhaps they
would have come back to haunt him - or perhaps the things he's done
since then would be seen as more important.

But in 2001 he upgraded to Extra, got a 2x1 vanity call, set up a
station, got on HF and worked some DX.

And about then he mellowed quite a bit. Became much less argumentative
and much more agreeable and consensus-finding, without changing his
basic positions on the issues.

He also hasn't posted here much if at all since then.

But as an ARRL member in the Atlantic Division, I thought he
should have the chance to run. The fact that I disagree with him on
some issues might have been overshadowed by broad agreement on other
issues.

Maybe I would have voted for him, maybe not. Maybe he could have won,
maybe not, but at least I wanted the choice.

Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself.

Director terms are not for life. The board, committees and officers
change over time. There will be other elections.

But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that
they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs
cannot?

The judicial system does not rely primarily on people recusing
themselves. In fact, that's pretty much a last resort.

Yet, if the judge doesn't recuse him/herself where a conflict of
interest occurs, or a potential conflict of interest exists, then what
do you call it?

Unethical is what I'd call it.

But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides
self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely
solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves.

Take jury selection. Here in Pennsylvania, there are lots of
occupations and associations that will get someone eliminated from
different types of cases.

For example, in a personal-injury case, being in the insurance
industry, the medical industry, or law enforcement will usually
disqualify you. In fact, if a close family member or a good friend is
in those industries, it greatly reduces your chances of being on that
jury. That's all based on the possibility of a potential conflict of
interest.

On top of that, both sides have the right to object to the selection of
a particular person. They can object for a specified reason (such as
not wanting a juryperson whose relative worked in the insurance
industry, because that person might not want to hand out big awards in
a personal injury case). They can also object for no specified reason
at all. The number of objections is limited, but usually enough to keep
people with possible conflicts off the jury.

OTOH, a potential jury member cannot recuse themselves. They can give
the jury commission reasons to not choose them, but ultimately it is
not their decision.

In a jury case, it is ultimately the jury who decide the outcome, just
as in the ARRL BoD, it is the directors and vice directors who decide
policy. Neither depends on self-disqualification (recusing) to prevent
conflict of interest.

The jury pool contains a large number of potential jurors who remain in
the pool, eligible for duty on numerous other trials.

Of course - but they are called upon only occasionally, for a specific
case. ARRL directors serve a term during which they decide many policy
issues.

People who are eliminated from the ballot never get that chance.

"Never" is a long time. There will be another election.

Similar rules apply to judges. Usually a judge will recuse himself or
herself if there is an apparent conflict of interest, because to not do
so makes the judge look incompetent.

Do the ARRL BoD not concern themselves with looking incopetent?

Perhaps they thought they would be considered incompetent if they did
not enforce the bylaws.

The judges all know that the
various sides in a case will make a lot of noise about such a conflict,
too, and have legal recourse. The methods of deciding which judge gets
which case are another safeguard against conflicts of interest.

On top of all this, a judge doesn't usually have any other job, while
directors and vice directors often do.

Or they're retired.

I suppose some of them are. Carl isn't, obviously.

Maybe when I retire, I might run for director or vice-director of the
Atlantic Division. Say, there's a ticket - Carl in one of those jobs
and me in the other.

The point of all this is that the judicial system does not depend
primarily on self-disqualification to prevent conflicts of interest.
Nor should it!

Then you advocate that the judicial system take away the ability of a
judge to recuse him or herself?

No.

Hardly. Its an important safeguard that is absolutely needed.

It's only one safeguard. There are many more.

Is amateur radio more important than the judicial system that
you have to refuse top notch talent so that a conflict can never occur?
so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse
themselves?

Carl may be top-notch in his specific technical fields. But whether he
is top-notch in dealing with the issues of the ARRL BoD is another
matter, and open to opinion.

We'll never know.

"Never" is a long time. There will be more elections.

Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who is technically
knowledgeable in one area is automatically knowledgeable in all related
areas.

Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who has no technical
knowledge is automatically knowledgeable in all technical areas because
they hold an Extra license.

Both are mistakes. The first is more common.

Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who is
technically knowledgeable in one area is automatically a good manager,
negotiator, teacher, or spokesperson.

Some make the mistake of assuming that a person whi is technically
knowledgeable in one area is automatically devoid of knowledge in
management, negotiations, teaching, or public information.

I don't know anyone who does the latter. Lots of people do the former.

None of that is a given - in
fact, it's an extreme rarity. We've seen examples of how
self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONALS" can behave very poorly on newsgroups...

Yes. I understand that you are in the industry.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be a "PROFESSIONAL". I may be a
professional, but I don't see the need to shout it at people.

In Carl's case, I think the ARRL BoD erred on the side of caution.

I think they erred on the side of self-preservation.

How? Carl is only one person. How could one director destroy the BoD?

I supported letting him run for the office in my division, and letting
the membership decide. I still support that position, even though I'm
not sure I'd vote for Carl (it would depend on who the other candidates
were).

You'll never know.

"Never" is a long time. There will be more elections.

btw, the ARRL BoD is a widely varied group, not just a bunch of retired
guys.

Working guys not from industry (and probably lacking in technical
knowledge), and retired guys from industry (whose retirement plans and
401ks couldn't possibly present a conflict of interest).

Which industry?

Their opinions are all over the map - that's why their proposals
are obviously compromises between the various groups.

Regardless of all of the maps and all of the compromises, when their
opinions are distilled into policy, they always advocate the Morse Code
Exam.

Incorrect!

The recent ARRL proposal to the FCC proposed eliminating the 5 wpm code
for General licenses. It would only be retained for Extra under the
ARRL proposal.

IOW, they advocated eliminating the Morse Code exam for access to all
amateur HF/MF frequencies except a few segments on 80, 40, 20 and 15
meters.

And this wasn't the first time. Back in 1990, ARRL advocated for a
no-code-test amateur license for VHF/UHF.

"they always advocate the Morse Code Exam" is simply not true.