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