Director/Vice Director Elections - Atlantic, Great Lakes, Mid-West

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I wonder what happened to Carl, WK3C.

From the ARRL Site, 9/8:

In the Atlantic Division: Current Vice Director William C. Edgar, N3LLR, faces a challenge from Scott J. Bauer, W2LC, for the Director's seat. The winner will succeed Bernie Fuller, N3EFN, who is not seeking reelection to another term. Competing to replace Edgar on the back bench are Maryland-DC Section Manager Thomas J. Abernethy, W3TOM, and Thomas G. Valosin, WB2KLD.

The Complete ARRL Story

[Paul, K2ORC]

I wonder what happened to Carl, WK3C.

From the ARRL Site, 9/8:

In the Atlantic Division: Current Vice Director William C. Edgar, N3LLR, faces a challenge from Scott J. Bauer, W2LC, for the Director's seat. The winner will succeed Bernie Fuller, N3EFN, who is not seeking reelection to another term. Competing to replace Edgar on the back bench are Maryland-DC Section Manager Thomas J. Abernethy, W3TOM, and Thomas G. Valosin, WB2KLD.

The Complete ARRL Story

This is strange.  I checked Carl's website today to see if there was anything about this, but there's nothing.   I believe Carl wrote earlier that he'd be at FARFest.  If someone happens to see him there, they might ask what's going on with his candidacy.   I for one would like to know and I think there are a few others from the Atlantic Division who'd be interested, too.

[Ott]

I wonder what happened to Carl, WK3C.

From the ARRL Site, 9/8:

In the Atlantic Division: Current Vice Director William C. Edgar, N3LLR, faces a challenge from Scott J. Bauer, W2LC, for the Director's seat. The winner will succeed Bernie Fuller, N3EFN, who is not seeking reelection to another term. Competing to replace Edgar on the back bench are Maryland-DC Section Manager Thomas J. Abernethy, W3TOM, and Thomas G. Valosin, WB2KLD.

The Complete ARRL Story

This is strange.  I checked Carl's website today to see if there was anything about this, but there's nothing.   I believe Carl wrote earlier that he'd be at FARFest.  If someone happens to see him there, they might ask what's going on with his candidacy.   I for one would like to know and I think there are a few others from the Atlantic Division who'd be interested, too.

He's not on the ballot because Newington in their finite wisdom, has decided that his consulting business may provide a "future conflict of interest" despite an overt, public, legal denial of same...

He been more or less told that he would have to sell is business in order to be considered worthy of candidacy...

He may well take them to court on the matter but that is another story entirely...

[WA3VJB]

Here are two of the documents that provide detail as to Carl's thwarted candidacy.


http://www.wa3vjb.com/pics/WK3C_Appeal.pdf


http://www.wa3vjb.com/pics/WK3C_Denied.pdf


What would be interesting, for those who care, is to examine the business interests of other volunteer administrators who hold elective office with the group in Newington, and then request action to avoid the same speculative risk regarding those elected office holders.

--Paul/VJB

[W2VW]

Why not let the voters decide? BTW, Carl checked in the other night when W3F was on. His audio needed a little work and he was rough copy but he was there. Picked a really bad night due to flare and 807 interference.

[w3jn]

Why not let the voters decide?

Because they're afraid he'd be elected.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist/nut/Wayne Green/ but the ARRL recongized a potential maverick director in Carl who may not toe the party line.  Original thinking and a full/open/transparent election process have never been the ARRL's strong points.

Guys, this REALLY pisses me off.  After a long haiatus I re-joined the League mainly because of the outstanding work Ed Hare has done countering the BPL juggernaut.  However, the present Atlantic division director responds to member questions with one-liner sequitors re-stating the party line with condescending "we know better" attitude when I questioned him about that stupid bandwidth proposal.

Instead, because the dickweeds in the ol' boy network know they have their election locked, they don't need to be responsive to their members. 
 

[Paul, K2ORC]

I had a long telephone conversation with Carl last Friday during which we discussed much of what appears in the attachments that Paul VJB posted links to above.

During and after the conversation I again read the ARRL by laws and found nothing about an appeals process.   

Section 11 of the ARRL By Laws, cited as the reason for denying Carl permission to run for Vice Director, is worded so vaguely (the word "could" being operative) that it could be used to keep almost anyone off the ballot for League office.  Carl submitted affidavits to the Board swearing that his consulting business does not, and would not, constitute any conflicts of interest. 

I'd echo the query about the employment of some of the other ARRL Directors.  The answers might be interesting.  Just for starters, check out pages 5, 6 and 7 here: http://www.wa3vjb.com/pics/WK3C_Appeal.pdf


Finally, note that two of the candidates for Atlantic Division office have put together a website in which the retiring Atlantic Div. Director endorses their candidacy.  One of the candidates is the present Vice Director while the other is the MD/DC Section mgr.
http://bestvote.org/

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Finally, note that two of the candidates for Atlantic Division office have put together a website in which the retiring Atlantic Div. Director endorses their candidacy.  One of the candidates is the present Vice Director while the other is the MD/DC Section mgr.
http://bestvote.org/

Since Fuller endorses both these candidates, they probably will follow the same "duh'ness" of the current Director. I would encourage reviewing the other candidates views on things of interest to you and then beat the bushes long and hard to get them elected if you agree with their views and ideas. The Director seat should be the higher priority. Getting someone into the Director's seat that doesn't always follow the party line is a good thing.

[w3jn]

Getting someone into the Director's seat that doesn't always follow the party line is a good thing.

How very, very, true, Pete.

[wk3c]

Getting someone into the Director's seat that doesn't always follow the party line is a good thing.

How very, very, true, Pete.

THAT's why I was running (and I suspect why they were so eager to find an excuse to keep me off the ballot) ...

If you'd all like to see a rundown of the whole shebang, I've updated my website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c ... there's a summary on the main page, with links to the more detailed documentation.  You have to read the detailed docs to get the full "flavor" ...
73,
Carl - wk3c

[W2VW]

Why not let the voters decide?

Because they're afraid he'd be elected.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist/nut/Wayne Green/ but the ARRL recongized a potential maverick director in Carl who may not toe the party line.  Original thinking and a full/open/transparent election process have never been the ARRL's strong points.
Guys, this REALLY pisses me off.  After a long haiatus I re-joined the League mainly because of the outstanding work Ed Hare has done countering the BPL juggernaut.  However, the present Atlantic division director responds to member questions with one-liner sequitors re-stating the party line with condescending "we know better" attitude when I questioned him about that stupid bandwidth proposal.

Instead, because the dickweeds in the ol' boy network know they have their election locked, they don't need to be responsive to their members. 
 

.

You and Carl should exchange phone numbers if this has not already happened. You don't sound like NSD

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Why not let the voters decide?

Because they're afraid he'd be elected.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist/nut/Wayne Green/ but the ARRL recongized a potential maverick director in Carl who may not toe the party line.  Original thinking and a full/open/transparent election process have never been the ARRL's strong points.

You and Carl should exchange phone numbers if this has not already happened. You don't sound like NSD.
Guys, this REALLY pisses me off.  After a long haiatus I re-joined the League mainly because of the outstanding work Ed Hare has done countering the BPL juggernaut.  However, the present Atlantic division director responds to member questions with one-liner sequitors re-stating the party line with condescending "we know better" attitude when I questioned him about that stupid bandwidth proposal.

Instead, because the dickweeds in the ol' boy network know they have their election locked, they don't need to be responsive to their members. 
 

Not to P & M, but I keep seeing this happen frequently. When you quote someone, and/or someone's else's quote, or multiple quotes, and then write your response within the quote boxes, it's very difficult to see who is responding to what and what "your" response(s) actually are.

[W2VW]

Why not let the voters decide?

Because they're afraid he'd be elected.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist/nut/Wayne Green/ but the ARRL recongized a potential maverick director in Carl who may not toe the party line.  Original thinking and a full/open/transparent election process have never been the ARRL's strong points.

You and Carl should exchange phone numbers if this has not already happened. You don't sound like NSD.
Guys, this REALLY pisses me off.  After a long haiatus I re-joined the League mainly because of the outstanding work Ed Hare has done countering the BPL juggernaut.  However, the present Atlantic division director responds to member questions with one-liner sequitors re-stating the party line with condescending "we know better" attitude when I questioned him about that stupid bandwidth proposal.

Instead, because the dickweeds in the ol' boy network know they have their election locked, they don't need to be responsive to their members. 
 

Not to P & M, but I keep seeing this happen frequently. When you quote someone, and/or someone's else's quote, or multiple quotes, and then write your response within the quote boxes, it's very difficult to see who is responding to what and what "your" response(s) actually are.

Right. Solly. Lack of proofreading.

[w3jn]

I had a very pleasant, if disturbing (from the nefarious crap the ARRL is pulling) hnyellowphone conversation with Carl last Friday.

Hey.  Trolling ARRL forums at hamfests can be fun.  Done it before, I can do it again.

[Paul, K2ORC]

When my ballot arrives, I will write in Carl's name for Director. I hope some of you in the Atlantic Division will join me in writing in
CARL R. STEVENSON[/b]

To me, this is about fairness and from everything I've learned, what happened to Carl Stevenson was plenty unfair.  And it has also been plenty unfair to Atlantic Division members.

Whether we agree or disagree with Carl's positions, I hope that we would at least agree that Carl should have been on the ballot.   That is what this boils down to for me and that is why, as a protest, I will be writing in Carl's name. 

[wk3c]

When my ballot arrives, I will write in Carl's name for Vice Director. I hope some of you in the Atlantic Division will join me in writing in
CARL R. STEVENSON[/b]

To me, this is about fairness and from everything I've learned, what happened to Carl Stevenson was plenty unfair.  And it has also been plenty unfair to Atlantic Division members.

Whether we agree or disagree with Carl's positions, I hope that we would at least agree that Carl should have been on the ballot.   That is what this boils down to for me and that is why,  as a protest,  I will be writing in Carl's name. 

For clarification, I was running for Director (not Vice-director) ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

[Paul, K2ORC]

Sorry, Carl.   I will be writing Carl in for Director and hope others join me.

[w3jn]

Outstanding idea, Paul.  Count me in!

73 John

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I haven't seen a ballot in several years, but unless there is a spot for a "write-in" candidate. I would assume the ballot would be disregarded (Carl, maybe you know?). Although the "current process" is unfair to Carl, but you really want to throw your vote away because you're pissed at the ARRL's decision?

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done at this late date to help Carl’s position, but you all (Atlantic Division members) need to take a good look at the remaining candidates and try to make a choice that you can live with for the next 3 years. However, blasting the ARRL and the legal counsel with a barrage of e-mails citing your displeasure at what appears to be a biased decision probably would be a good thing. Pointing out similar backgrounds of other Directors or Vice Directors, past and present, should be included.

[Paul, K2ORC]

I haven't seen a ballot in several years, but unless there is a spot for a "write-in" candidate. I would assume the ballot would be disregarded (Carl, maybe you know?). Although the "current process" is unfair to Carl, but you really want to throw your vote away because you're pissed at the ARRL's decision?

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done at this late date to help Carl’s position, but you all (Atlantic Division members) need to take a good look at the remaining candidates and try to make a choice that you can live with for the next 3 years. However, blasting the ARRL and the legal counsel with a barrage of e-mails citing your displeasure at what appears to be a biased decision probably would be a good thing. Pointing out similar backgrounds of other Directors or Vice Directors, past and present, should be included.

Hi Pete.  Contact of Directors and counsel is already underway here and I urge others to do so, too.  The Directors' email addresses can be found on Carl's website.  http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

If there is no provision for write ins, I plan on writing Carl's name somewhere on the ballot, and let the chips fall where they may. 
As far as throwing my vote away, the way I see it, by accepting what's on the ballot, I'd be doing that anyway.  As far as I'm concerned, in this situation there is nothing to lose. To me this is like one of those corrupt Third World "elections" in which there is only one candidate on the ballot and everyone is urged to vote as a sign of support for free elections.   The way I see it, anyway.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I haven't seen a ballot in several years, but unless there is a spot for a "write-in" candidate. I would assume the ballot would be disregarded (Carl, maybe you know?). Although the "current process" is unfair to Carl, but you really want to throw your vote away because you're pissed at the ARRL's decision?

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done at this late date to help Carl’s position, but you all (Atlantic Division members) need to take a good look at the remaining candidates and try to make a choice that you can live with for the next 3 years. However, blasting the ARRL and the legal counsel with a barrage of e-mails citing your displeasure at what appears to be a biased decision probably would be a good thing. Pointing out similar backgrounds of other Directors or Vice Directors, past and present, should be included.

Hi Pete.  Contact of Directors and counsel is already underway here and I urge others to do so, too.  The Directors' email addresses can be found on Carl's website.  http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

If there is no provision for write ins, I plan on writing Carl's name somewhere on the ballot, and let the chips fall where they may. 
As far as throwing my vote away, the way I see it, by accepting what's on the ballot, I'd be doing that anyway.  As far as I'm concerned, in this situation there is nothing to lose. To me this is like one of those corrupt Third World "elections" in which there is only one candidate on the ballot and everyone is urged to vote as a sign of support for free elections.   The way I see it, anyway.

I thought the return ballots went to an auditing house for counting so the ARRL doesn't see them until the counting is completed. As far as I can tell, the election doesn't allow for write-ins. They(auditors) count the check marks against the candidates on the ballot. No checkmark is a null vote. And, actually you might have a lot to lose. If you don't vote for one of the eligible candidates, and the wrong one gets the position (i.e. anti AM, loves WINLINK, wants digital everywhere, etc.), you'll wind up being stuck with him for the next three years. So, would you rather risk this happening because you're pissed at the ARRL's election candidate process, or try to get someone in there that won't screw you.

[wk3c]

I haven't seen a ballot in several years, but unless there is a spot for a "write-in" candidate. I would assume the ballot would be disregarded (Carl, maybe you know?). Although the "current process" is unfair to Carl, but you really want to throw your vote away because you're pissed at the ARRL's decision?

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done at this late date to help Carl’s position, but you all (Atlantic Division members) need to take a good look at the remaining candidates and try to make a choice that you can live with for the next 3 years. However, blasting the ARRL and the legal counsel with a barrage of e-mails citing your displeasure at what appears to be a biased decision probably would be a good thing. Pointing out similar backgrounds of other Directors or Vice Directors, past and present, should be included.

Hi Pete.  Contact of Directors and counsel is already underway here and I urge others to do so, too.  The Directors' email addresses can be found on Carl's website.  http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

If there is no provision for write ins, I plan on writing Carl's name somewhere on the ballot, and let the chips fall where they may. 
As far as throwing my vote away, the way I see it, by accepting what's on the ballot, I'd be doing that anyway.  As far as I'm concerned, in this situation there is nothing to lose. To me this is like one of those corrupt Third World "elections" in which there is only one candidate on the ballot and everyone is urged to vote as a sign of support for free elections.   The way I see it, anyway.

I thought the return ballots went to an auditing house for counting so the ARRL doesn't see them until the counting is completed. As far as I can tell, the election doesn't allow for write-ins. They(auditors) count the check marks against the candidates on the ballot. No checkmark is a null vote. And, actually you might have a lot to lose. If you don't vote for one of the eligible candidates, and the wrong one gets the position (i.e. anti AM, loves WINLINK, wants digital everywhere, etc.), you'll wind up being stuck with him for the next three years. So, would you rather risk this happening because you're pissed at the ARRL's election candidate process, or try to get someone in there that won't screw you.

While I am NOT an attorney, it is my understanding that CT corporate law allows write-ins ... as long as the candidate is a member in good standing (I'm a life member).

[Pete, WA2CWA]

While I am NOT an attorney, it is my understanding that CT corporate law allows write-ins ... as long as the candidate is a member in good standing (I'm a life member).

I'm not sure this would fall under the CT corporate law umbrella for write-in candidates based on the current ARRL by-laws. I would think the election process and the ballots would have to indicate write-in votes are permissible and would be counted as valid votes. Although you indicate you are "a member in good standing (I'm a life member)", the ARRL Election Committee has already given their decision that you don't meet their requirements (even as vague as they are). Further, at this juncture, do you really think that by fighting your way to the Director's seat with write-in votes, even if you received a majority, you could gather the ARRL senior management support and the support of the majority of the Directors going forward for the next three years.

[W3SLK]

I wouldn't put anything past those bastards up in Newington. This is precisely why tons of good amatuers, myself included, refuse to be part of this oneway institution. With this action, I believe the 'good ol' boys' have proven that they have gotten too damn big fer their britches!

[WA3VJB]

try to get someone in there that won't screw you.

Good one, Pete !

I had a 20 minute conversation with Fuller's hand-picked successor, Bill Edgar, and his running mate, Tom Abernathy. Both had materialized at the AM Festival Station at Gaithersburg Saturday evening, and somebody pushed me toward them while I was eating one of Chuck's hi hi FB hamburgers.

I'll provide a summary here shortly.

------------

Here are some notes I took after an extended conversation with two of the candidates being allowed to run for office as volunteers representing the "Atlantic" region of the group in Newington.

Neither Bill Edgar nor Tom Abernathy initially indicated any prior knowledge that the AM community has been chronically neglected in several key areas of the League's activities.

But after I detailed our lack of visibility in ARRL publications, its political dealings, and its regulatory deliberations, both men said they had not heard any specific "anti-AM" sentiment in the group's leadership. However, both men acknowledged the concept of benign neglect, and as I pressed the point, neither could provide an example of something the League owns that signals the group's support for AM.

Baiting them a bit, I offered up the W1AW-AM station as one example. Neither man indicated they were aware of the station until I reminded them it comes as a gift of prominent donor Joe Walsh, WB6ACU. I quickly followed up with a short history of our unsuccessful proposals for a WAS-AM, (at a time there is an "SSB" endorsement) and to have the W1AW bulletin station use AM on 7290Kc, the frequency that the League's Considerate Operator's Guide defines as an "AM Calling Frequency."  The most specific response to this litany was "we can look into it."

Just to add some piss & moan, I recounted Haynie's blatantly incorrect claim that the Harris commercial transmitter the W1AW station uses is incapable of DSB-AM, and included Joe Carcia's (W1AW's Station Manager) claim he was being prohibited from using AM by the group's highest paid unelected official, Dave Sumner.

The more I talked, the less they talked, so it was time to try to pin them down on a few things. I asked them to explain why the AM community should support the League when there is little evidence of a return. I pointed to the group of us who were at the station, and I said only a few had chosen to become subscribers. The others, I surmised, found little "in it" for them, and many signs their specialty had been neglected.

Neither man had much of an answer. One, I think it was Abernathy, said that many groups want more from the League, and that one way to ensure that is to, say, write articles or offer other material to be included. Edgar, for his part, was unaware that Rinaldo as editor of the ARRL Handbook in the 1980s single-handedly saw to it all AM material was removed, supposedly to provide page space for other subjects against a publishing limitation. We were told that people could go to older Handbooks for material on our subject, and I asked them if they saw how this gives us a bad impression. Both men agreed.

They asked me what I meant about our being missing from regulatory deliberations that the group in Newington may hold from time to time.  Examples I provided off the top of my head included our unaccepted overture to participate in one of the League's "ad hoc" committees on a possible 160 meter band plan a few years ago. I noted that the AM community comprises the largest number of regular operators who are a distinct and prominent identifyable group on 160. Yet, the panel was populated by weak-signal advocates who eventually uttered a Petition for federal protection that was rejected.

The ARRL's threatened bandwidth petition came up next. Edgar tried to portray it as a proposal that takes nothing away from anyone. He walked right into that one. I countered that it DOES take something away from the AM Community, substituting a prescribed bandwidth where there now is none. Abernathy, his face clearly showing skepticism, asked me how much bandwidth an AM station should be allowed to have.  I replied that it's not an alloted standard many of us would accept, it is the concept of losing the flexibility we now enjoy in adapting to levels of operating activity on the bands.

Bottom line, I'm not convinced either of these guys is any different or offers any prospect of being more receptive to the specialty of AM than any of the existing crop of losers, misfits and self-directed experts now running this little non-profit group. I said if they want our support, they should already have some sort of record of serving us in a specific, identifyable way, to help counter some specifically negative moves we instead draw conclusions from.

One bright note, one of them indicated Haynie is on his way out. I earlier received this information from a non-ARRL source. The successor is reportedly Joel Harrison. I know nothing about him.