ARRL Conflict of Interest Policy Refined

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Although the minutes of the BoD July meeting have yet to be posted, here's one outcome of the meeting concerning Direct and Vice-Director candidate eligibility:

"In its most complex action of the weekend, the Board agreed to amend the League's Articles of Association and By-Laws, to clarify conflict of interest criteria as they apply to ARRL directors and vice directors (or candidates) as well as to the League's president, vice presidents and treasurer. Dakota Division Director Jay Bellows, K0QB, offered the three separate motions necessary to put the changes into effect.

"This is really an attempt to open up candidate eligibility and to make sure our members are aware of any conflicts that might arise," Bellows said after the meeting. "These changes clearly define conflicts of interest, establish an affirmative obligation on the part of covered individuals to disclose conflicts of interest -- actual and potential -- and now provide a mechanism to address them as they arise.""

For the rest of the story, go here to the heading, "Conflict of Interest Policy Refined"
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/07/31/1/?nc=1

[W3SLK]

Pete quoted:

"These changes clearly define conflicts of interest, establish an affirmative obligation on the part of covered individuals to disclose conflicts of interest -- actual and potential -- and now provide a mechanism to address them as they arise.""

And to what does this mean?? Probably that they will fudge their by-laws just the same way when Carl ran for Atlantic Director. I wouldn't trust these hoodlums as far as I could throw them.

[WA3VJB]

Mike,
They got scared by the Carl thing, don't you see?

Sure, they successfully put down his candidacy, but the outcry likely prompted them to check whether they left themselves open to litigation.

SO, they examined their by laws, and retroactively established what they felt they needed to have the next time someone dares to challenge their handpicked successors.

Maybe we will see a blown bowel incident and someone named Raul will be the next top official their Board offers up.
He would be a CO2xx, presumably.

[w3jn]

Let's codify our actions AFTER we unjustly disallow someone from running for office... 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Let's codify our actions AFTER we unjustly disallow someone from running for office... 

The original by-laws and Articles of Association for this topic where open to several types of interpretation depending on what side of the fence you were on. I guess the intent is to clear the air and have no confusion when they judge someone’s eligibility for candidacy. The corporate world does it all the time. It’s called “covering your ass”. Carl’s challenge brought it to a head. I guess the real point here is that the membership can sometimes bring upon "changes" to a corporate structure if all the issues are brought to light.

[WA3VJB]

Pete,

I would swap the word "occasionally" rather than "sometimes" to indicate how rare it is for League subscribers to directly affect Newington's political doings.

I am not convinced that such feedback prompted the changes this time, either.  Carl is a sharp cookie, and his test case provided an excellent template for his own follow-up (had he chosen to do so) and challenges from others that may come against the existing ARRL politburo.

No membership input needed to be involved before the threat was clear to them, and it is a transparent spin to suggest these changes offer a better chance to air such concerns in the future.

If anything, it has firmed up their process of imposing electoral bias on those the ruling party disagrees with.

[w3jn]

Let's codify our actions AFTER we unjustly disallow someone from running for office... 

The original by-laws and Articles of Association for this topic where open to several types of interpretation depending on what side of the fence you were on. I guess the intent is to clear the air and have no confusion when they judge someone’s eligibility for candidacy. The corporate world does it all the time. It’s called “covering your ass”. Carl’s challenge brought it to a head. I guess the real point here is that the membership can sometimes bring upon "changes" to a corporate structure if all the issues are brought to light.

All well and good to clarify rules where there was an issue.  However, Carl got screwed pure and simple. 

If it wasn't prohibited then it's allowed.  Except where a director candidate disagrees with the ol' boyz network.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The membership input I was referring to was Carl’s; who chose not to sit idle after the initial decision was made. I have no background on how many, if any, other potential candidates in recent past years were rejected due to possible conflicts of interest. It seemed clear to me that Carl’s calling to attention of the ambiguities and fuzziness of the current Articles and by-laws, even applying it to current and/or past Directors, was not consistent or fair. If Carl hadn’t questioned and reacted to the decision of the candidate committee, I doubt we would have seen any changes made to the Articles or the by-laws in this arena.

The Minutes of the latest BoD meeting are now posted on the ARRL web site at http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/board-0607/
Check out motions 11, 12, and 13 that deal with the Articles and the by-laws. They have been revised so that now existing Board Members will have to sign off each year stipulating that nothing in their life would be a “conflict of interest” while serving on the ARRL Board.

Personally, it’s a start in making the ARRL and the “Board”, more accountable for the things they do or propose to do going forward.

John: You’re correct; Carl got screwed based on the existing rules, but on the bright side, his ability not to go down without a fight, got the Articles and by-laws revised.

Steve (HUZ) mentioned recently somewhere in a post it would be nice to see the ARRL strategic plan or 5 year plan. Such a plan does exist. The July06 BoD meeting makes mention that a 2003 strategy plan brought to the Board Members at the Jan. 2004 meeting, was discussed to revise and update. I don’t recall ever seeing a text version of the current "ARRL strategy plan". Maybe we’ll get lucky this year.

[WA3VJB]

Yes it was nice of Carl to point out the problems in the closed-door electoral process.
Then it was a kick in his ass and he was on his way.
Too bad such a complaint was needed in the first place, or that we won't know how many potential candidates are dissuaded by the whole masonic-style backroom cryptic secret double pat on the back system in Newington.

Here are documents that shed light on why they felt the need to make it easier to exclude future candiidates they consider unsavory.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Sometimes someone has to take the "boot" in order to get changes rolling.

[W1DAN]

Hi All:

I do not feel that anyone needed to be booted or excluded because of seletive predjudice in order to have a change made. Changes should be positive, not selective or destructive.

To me this is clearly a double standard as well as selective managing. Also, according to the ARRL web site:

"The new policy provides that Board members must promptly disclose any conflicts and recuse themselves from being present for discussion or from voting in any matter in which they have a material financial interest."

This does not say these guys who are in office that have a "conflict of interest" must immediately resign. They can stay in office WITH a conflict that meets the same definition as Carl's. Am I reading this correctly?

Hmmm.....

Maybe a competing national amateur organization would keep the ARRL on it's toes. Carl could be president if a critical mass could be created to support such an effort.

73,
Dan
W1DAN

[WA3VJB]

Dan you are probably right in concluding this reworked language still falls short of fairness.

It is a distraction, perhaps deliberate, to view the League's problem as a bonafide conflict-of-interest. This will continue to be a matter of how their policy is being used to pre-empt the candidacies of people deemed unacceptable by the existing regime.

It is obvious in Carl's appeal letter that both sides knew there were "other issues" at play having nothing to do with ethics. The unstated conclusion anyone would draw is that his campaign was thrown out on a technicality that persists as a tool that can be used in the future.

[W1DAN]

Hi Paul:

Yeah, I get the idea that the board is saying "this is our game and we will play it any way we want".

And another good candidate (who actually tried hard) gets tossed away to keep the status quo.

You pays your dues....

73
Dan
W1DAN

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Yea, the ARRL sucks. I hate it. QST sucks too. I wouldn't line the bottom of my bird's cage with it (if I had one). They're all evil. The world is soon going to end.