"KØHB" wrote in message
link.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? 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

Dee Flint wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote


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

. . . unbelievable . . !!


I'm usually one who waits to "hear the other side of the story", but th=
is
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 fi=
nd
it on the web site. Of course I don't have a lot of time this morning.
=20
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Dave Heil" wrote


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


I was a successful candidate (twice) for Vice Director, both times while
employed in the same industry segment as Carl.

What is particularly interesting (to me) is that the Executive Committee did not
reject Carl's candidacy because he HAS a conflict of interest, but because he
COULD (in the future) HAVE such a conflict. This, in spite of his sworn written
promise not to accept any client which might lead to a possible conflict.

As is well known around these parts, Carl and I have not always seen eye-to-eye
on every subject, but I have never doubted he was a person of integrity and a
true-to-his-word kind of guy. That the Executive Committee discounts that
solemn promise is very telling, and that the full BoD distanced themselves from
the issue by letting it be decided in committee diminishes their honor in my
eyes.

When I questioned my Director on the matter by email he declined to answer me
and passed the buck down to the Secretary, who blew me off with a scholarly
explanation/recital of Article 11 of the Articles of Association.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Chief Curmudgeon, Dakota Division

KØHB wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote


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



I was a successful candidate (twice) for Vice Director, both times while
employed in the same industry segment as Carl.

I'm not sure what you mean by "employed in the same industry segment",
Hans. Were you in a position to influence the outcome of issues before
the ITU or any similar body?

What is particularly interesting (to me) is that the Executive Committee did not
reject Carl's candidacy because he HAS a conflict of interest, but because he
COULD (in the future) HAVE such a conflict. This, in spite of his sworn written
promise not to accept any client which might lead to a possible conflict.

I don't know that a sworn promise ever cut any ice. It certainly
doesn't in governmental elected office. Blind trusts and divestitures
are the order of the day.

As is well known around these parts, Carl and I have not always seen eye-to-eye
on every subject, but I have never doubted he was a person of integrity and a
true-to-his-word kind of guy. That the Executive Committee discounts that
solemn promise is very telling, and that the full BoD distanced themselves from
the issue by letting it be decided in committee diminishes their honor in my
eyes.

I don't see it that way at all. By letting the committee's decision
stand, the Board is affirming the decision of the committee.

When I questioned my Director on the matter by email he declined to answer me
and passed the buck down to the Secretary, who blew me off with a scholarly
explanation/recital of Article 11 of the Articles of Association.

Interesting. I think I'll zap Dennis Bodson and note and see if I get
the same treatment.

Dave K8MN

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote


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


I was a successful candidate (twice) for Vice Director, both times while
employed in the same industry segment as Carl.

You're one of the primary examples Carl has cited in his complaints.

What is particularly interesting (to me) is that the Executive Committee =
did not
reject Carl's candidacy because he HAS a conflict of interest, but becaus=
e he
COULD (in the future) HAVE such a conflict. This, in spite of his sworn =
written
promise not to accept any client which might lead to a possible conflict.

As is well known around these parts, Carl and I have not always seen eye-=
to-eye
on every subject, but I have never doubted he was a person of integrity a=
nd a
true-to-his-word kind of guy. That the Executive Committee discounts that
solemn promise is very telling, and that the full BoD distanced themselve=
s from
the issue by letting it be decided in committee diminishes their honor in=
my
eyes.

When I questioned my Director on the matter by email he declined to answe=
r me
and passed the buck down to the Secretary, who blew me off with a scholar=
ly
explanation/recital of Article 11 of the Articles of Association.

The whole deal was cooked from top to bottom. Our outgoing Director
Bernie Fuller N3EFN is backing our Vice Director Bill Edgar N3LLR for
the job. Then Carl popped up out of nowhere so "the boys" circled their
wagons and found a way to quash Carl's candidacy before it even got off
the ground.

Even the average banana republic military junta has more finesse than
this bunch.

I'm waiting to see how HQ responds publically to this nonsense. Or if
they stonewall it and hope it goes away.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Chief Curmudgeon, Dakota Division

w3rv

wrote

I'm waiting to see how HQ responds publically to this nonsense.

They won't.

Or if they stonewall it and hope it goes away.

If they don't talk about it, then it never happened. SOP.

My Director/Vice Director are not answering email, but "deferring" comment down
to the Secretary who gives a boilerplate answer about Article 11.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Chief Curmudgeon, Dakota Division

wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote


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


I was a successful candidate (twice) for Vice Director, both times while
employed in the same industry segment as Carl.

You're one of the primary examples Carl has cited in his complaints.

What is particularly interesting (to me) is that the Executive Committe=
e did not
reject Carl's candidacy because he HAS a conflict of interest, but beca=
use he
COULD (in the future) HAVE such a conflict. This, in spite of his swor=
n written
promise not to accept any client which might lead to a possible conflic=
t=2E

As is well known around these parts, Carl and I have not always seen ey=
e-to-eye
on every subject, but I have never doubted he was a person of integrity=
and a
true-to-his-word kind of guy. That the Executive Committee discounts t=
hat
solemn promise is very telling, and that the full BoD distanced themsel=
ves from
the issue by letting it be decided in committee diminishes their honor =
in my
eyes.

When I questioned my Director on the matter by email he declined to ans=
wer me
and passed the buck down to the Secretary, who blew me off with a schol=
arly
explanation/recital of Article 11 of the Articles of Association.

The whole deal was cooked from top to bottom. Our outgoing Director
Bernie Fuller N3EFN is backing our Vice Director Bill Edgar N3LLR for
the job. Then Carl popped up out of nowhere so "the boys" circled their
wagons and found a way to quash Carl's candidacy before it even got off
the ground.

Even the average banana republic military junta has more finesse than
this bunch.

Not always but the Banna republic junta normaly is at least honest to
say what they are doing, (overthrowing free elections) normaly claiming
they have to but they least don't pretend that they are still having
free and open elections when they act. Even Saddam never claimed to be
having "free elections" just "elections"

I'm waiting to see how HQ responds publically to this nonsense. Or if
they stonewall it and hope it goes away.

likely stone wall it
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB
Chief Curmudgeon, Dakota Division
=20
w3rv