On 14 Sep 2005 04:08:29 -0700, wrote:

Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have
interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that
part of the spectrum. The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type
of position cannot become a member of the BoD. The problem is that the
League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several
times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become
Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level.

That's not the only provision in the bylaws that's been winked in the
past, either.

73 de John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, NY

From: on Sep 14, 4:08 am

Dee Flint wrote:
"K=D8=88B" wrote in message
wrote


http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/


. . . unbelievable . . !!

I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but t=
his
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB

But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest?

Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have
interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that
part of the spectrum.

What you mean "millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
'conflict with our interests' in the ham bands"?

Since WHEN has there been any "great interest" in the World
Above 30 MHz to the League? The core membership of the League
is interested only in "working DX on HF with CW." :-)

The core membership doesn't seem to care dink about any World
Above 30 MHz. They wanna play in the HF sandbox, same as they
did a half century ago. Nothing has changed. Status quo uber
alles.

Find me some articles of "great interest in millimeter bands"
allocated to amateur radio by the FCC. Who in here has EVER
worked up in the millimeter bands? Who in here has EVER worked
any ham bands above 70 cm? [besides using a 1 GHz cell phone
or 2.4 GHz cordless telephone?]

The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type
of position cannot become a member of the BoD. The problem is that the
League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several
times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become
Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level.

It would be informative to see some resumes of the work experience
of the Directors and the BoD of the League. Pres. Jim Haynie was
a salesman. [should be a clue right there, ey?] How about the
"other" pres., Dave Sumner?

That piece of
information is necessary to get an insight into the problem. I didn't f=
ind
it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I found it extremely EASY to obtain all the details on Carl's
website. Just a couple of mouse clicks while reading this in
Google. The same with checking out the League's web site to see
the "announcement" of the candidates for Division. At NIGHT,
when I first saw Carl's message on Google.

Well, let's get a membership drive going, right? "Join and
CHANGE THE LEAGUE FROM 'WITHIN'!" Free, open, democratic
principle stuff. Uh huh. :-)=20

wrote:
From: on Sep 14, 4:08 am


Dee Flint wrote:

"K؈B" wrote in message

wrote



http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/



. . . unbelievable . . !!

I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB

But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest?

Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have
interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that
part of the spectrum.


What you mean "millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
'conflict with our interests' in the ham bands"?

Since WHEN has there been any "great interest" in the World
Above 30 MHz to the League? The core membership of the League
is interested only in "working DX on HF with CW." :-)

Plenty of League members operate the bands above 30 MHz. You must have
missed out on this past weekend's contest. It was sponsored by the
League. You're out of touch, old timer. :-) :-)

The core membership doesn't seem to care dink about any World
Above 30 MHz.

Please present any evidence that you've uncovered which outlines what
ARRL members think about the frequencies above 30 MHz. Any at all will do.

They wanna play in the HF sandbox, same as they
did a half century ago. Nothing has changed. Status quo uber
alles.

I'm sure that you have something solid on which to base your claim.
Please point us to it.

Find me some articles of "great interest in millimeter bands"
allocated to amateur radio by the FCC. Who in here has EVER
worked up in the millimeter bands?

I have, on numerous occasions from WA8ONQ.

Who in here has EVER worked
any ham bands above 70 cm? [besides using a 1 GHz cell phone
or 2.4 GHz cordless telephone?]

I have, on numerous occasions.


The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type
of position cannot become a member of the BoD.The problem is that the
League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several
times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become
Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level.


It would be informative to see some resumes of the work experience
of the Directors and the BoD of the League.

It might be informative, if only to demonstrate that none were in jobs
which presented a conflict of interests.

Pres. Jim Haynie was
a salesman. [should be a clue right there, ey?] How about the
"other" pres., Dave Sumner?

There is no "other" pres.


That piece of
information is necessary to get an insight into the problem. I didn't find
it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I found it extremely EASY to obtain all the details on Carl's
website. Just a couple of mouse clicks while reading this in
Google. The same with checking out the League's web site to see
the "announcement" of the candidates for Division. At NIGHT,
when I first saw Carl's message on Google.

Well, let's get a membership drive going, right? "Join and
CHANGE THE LEAGUE FROM 'WITHIN'!" Free, open, democratic
principle stuff. Uh huh. :-)

Off the top of my head, those who post here who cannot run for ARRL
Director:

1. Those with a potential conflict of interest.

2. Non-radio amateurs.

3. Non-ARRL members.

One of those snags your "old_friend" and two of them fit Leonard H.
Anderson.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Sep 14, 4:08 am

Dee Flint wrote:
"K=D8=88B" wrote in message
wrote


http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/


. . . unbelievable . . !!

I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but=
this
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested =
in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB

But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest?

Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have
interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that
part of the spectrum.

What you mean "millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
'conflict with our interests' in the ham bands"?

Since WHEN has there been any "great interest" in the World
Above 30 MHz to the League? The core membership of the League
is interested only in "working DX on HF with CW." :-)

The core membership doesn't seem to care dink about any World
Above 30 MHz. They wanna play in the HF sandbox, same as they
did a half century ago. Nothing has changed. Status quo uber
alles.

Find me some articles of "great interest in millimeter bands"
allocated to amateur radio by the FCC. Who in here has EVER
worked up in the millimeter bands? Who in here has EVER worked
any ham bands above 70 cm? [besides using a 1 GHz cell phone
or 2.4 GHz cordless telephone?]

I've operated on 908 Mhz.

The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type
of position cannot become a member of the BoD. The problem is that the
League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several
times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become
Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level.

It would be informative to see some resumes of the work experience
of the Directors and the BoD of the League. Pres. Jim Haynie was
a salesman. [should be a clue right there, ey?] How about the
"other" pres., Dave Sumner?

Jack Welsh, Ross Perot and Harry Truman were also salesmen.

That piece of
information is necessary to get an insight into the problem. I didn't=
find
it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I found it extremely EASY to obtain all the details on Carl's
website. Just a couple of mouse clicks while reading this in
Google. The same with checking out the League's web site to see
the "announcement" of the candidates for Division. At NIGHT,
when I first saw Carl's message on Google.

Well, let's get a membership drive going, right? "Join and
CHANGE THE LEAGUE FROM 'WITHIN'!" Free, open, democratic
principle stuff. Uh huh. :-)=20
=20


w3rv

Open Letter to WK3C,

What a story. At a time when I've buried all my hard feelings as to
news according to ARRL, which has been public relations over the years,
your story emerges. It reinforces my opinion all along that the League
is in it for itself, not for ham radio. My plan to join has now been
scrapped.

Based on your writing, you shine with integrity. Any organization
should feel honored to put you on the ballot. I am truly sorry you've
run into what essentially is an utter lack of due process.

One remedial outlet you might survey is administrative. Is there any
argument that brings ARRL under the scrutiny of an administrative body
like the FCC is subjected to? Maybe you could argue -- admittedly a
big stretch -- that because they're the dominant ham radio group by
far, they occupy a monopolistic position, giving the federal
Administrative Procedure Act jurisdiction.

Now, that procedure you can handle yourself. Even if you don't
succeed, you might be able to get to the discovery stage, which would
be remedial. Not a licensed attorney, I offer my free help with this
procedure that I know so well. Oh yes, along with this offer, I must
add: "Contact a member of your jurisdiction's Bar."

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said
he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off
the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no
damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as
they thought.

But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for
Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI
Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue. If
it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of
what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's
one or the other.

Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might
otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't
want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the
Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your
hair. And, of course if doesn't do much for League
recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel
against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I
agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot,
but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down
on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who
doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys
club has been doing things.

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's
let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant
abuse of power.

Rick Tannehill - W7RT
NCI Board Member
Life Member - ARRL


wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

wrote


http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

. . . unbelievable . . !!


I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB


But what is the existing or potential conflict of interest?


Carl works as a consulting engineer for commercial firms which have
interests in the millimeter end of the spectrum which could be in
conflict with our interests in the ham bands which are also in that
part of the spectrum. The ARRL bylaws state that anybody in that type
of position cannot become a member of the BoD. The problem is that the
League has conveniently winked that provision in the bylaws several
times in the past and has allowed others in Carl's position to become
Directors. hypocrisy taken to a new level.



That piece of
information is necessary to get an insight into the problem. I didn't find
it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Rick" wrote in message
...

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's let the
Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant abuse of power.


Keeping the shennanagins related to the recent ARESCOM/WL2K scam in mind,
and that poor horse ( http://www.hamblog.com/?p=28 ) at ARRL HQ, I'd say
that the present board members should all be forced to squeeze ( or not )
through the eye of the same needle that Carl could not pass through.

I'm not saying that they were wrong to exclude Carl, but rather that it is
wrong for them to exclude themselves - from the same 'conflict of interest'
filter they have just ( correctly ) applied to Carl.

Let's see the WinLink and SCS connected board members out on the tiles, too.

- A refreshing administrative enema that should not be limited to the board,
but should encompass the ARRL executives as well.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
---------- HamPoll.Com http://www.hampoll.com
---------- DigiBlog http://www.uspacket.org/digiblog/

Rick wrote:
My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said
he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off
the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no
damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as
they thought.

I agree!

But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for
Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI
Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue.

No, they haven't.

It's clear that FCC was pushing for reductions in Morse Code testing
long before NCI existed. And there are strong no-code-test directors on
the ARRL BoD.

If
it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of
what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's
one or the other.

No, it isn't. There are other possibilities.

One is that Carl's manner *in the past* may have upset some people. Or
his *past* comments about ARRL and many aspects of ham radio.

There's also his leapfrogging over the field organization and going
straight for Director.

Personally I don't see any conflict between his present employment and
being an ARRL director. The commitees and Board see different.

Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might
otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't
want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the
Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your
hair.

It might stifle some. But the alleged "humiliation" can be avoided by
not going public until the Board accepts your candidacy.

And, of course if doesn't do much for League
recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel
against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I
agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot,
but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down
on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who
doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys
club has been doing things.

Seems that way. OTOH, there could be other factors.

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's
let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant
abuse of power.

Can I be an NCI Board Member?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

I am somewhat surprised at your naivete. The power and authority
for the "executive committee" to screen and block any candidate "for the
good of the service" was vested in a few individuals in the ARRL a few years
back. Read the BOD minutes and the by-laws. This applies all the way
down to the SM, SCM, EC level. That was about the time that the BOD minutes
was removed from the QST mag. reason: to save on printing costs. I
specifically protested through channels and on this forum at the time that
there was no peer review, no appeals process, no redress, no system of
checks and balances to prevent a runaway "star chamber". When an
organization reaches this level of tyranny under the guise of legitimacy, no
reform is possible.

Clay N4AOX

CCW N4AOX wrote:

I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but this
incident astounds me. For the first time since I became interested in
amateur radio, it's not clear to me why I should continue my ARRL
membership.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

I am somewhat surprised at your naivete. The power and authority
for the "executive committee" to screen and block any candidate "for the
good of the service" was vested in a few individuals in the ARRL a few years
back. Read the BOD minutes and the by-laws. This applies all the way
down to the SM, SCM, EC level. That was about the time that the BOD minutes
was removed from the QST mag. reason: to save on printing costs. I
specifically protested through channels and on this forum at the time that
there was no peer review, no appeals process, no redress, no system of
checks and balances to prevent a runaway "star chamber". When an
organization reaches this level of tyranny under the guise of legitimacy, no
reform is possible.

It is possible but it involves many lawyers (and years of work) and
deep reasearch in the IRS Code esp in this case i should think 501 (c)
3 given the ARRL's nonprofit status

Clay N4AOX