[SFDXA] ARRL Rebuttal

[Pete Rimmel N8PR]

On Monday, ARRL President K5UR posted a response to the furor that has
risen around the upcoming ARRL Board Meeting next week.

That response is viewable here

http://www.arrl.org/news/a-note-to-members-from-arrl-president-rick-roderick-k5ur

K6LA, whom many of you have worked from his station in LAX or from his
vacation home at VY2TT, has posted a rebuttal to President Roderick's note.
In case you're not subscribed to CQ-Contest, below is the text of his
rebuttal:

From: Ken Widelitz [mailto:kwidelitz at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:02 PM
*To:* k5ur at arrl.org
*Cc:* ARRL Board of Directors and Officers
*Subject:* Note to Members from Rick Roderick, K5UR



Dear Mr. Roderick,



Your note of January 15, 2018 is disingenuous, misleading, devoid of facts
and itself consists of much misinformation.



Most disturbing is your implication that because none of the proposed
revisions of the Articles of Association and Bylaws “… has yet been
addressed by the Board of Directors” it is improper and a
mischaracterization for members to comment on the proposals.  Yet later in
your note you state “ARRL member input is welcome on all such subjects.”  It
is at this point, prior to the BOD discussion, that members can and should
give their input. How do you reconcile those two conflicting statements?



You go on to state “… other equally and erroneous and false statements have
been made with respect to completely unrelated issues …” What are those
statement to which you are referring? Why are they erroneous and false? An
argument such as yours requires details, not blanket statements unsupported
by facts.



You state that criticism that the “… ARRL operates under some “cloak of
secrecy” … is unfair and undeserved.” Yet later in your note you state

“Unfortunately, it was necessary for the Board to take the highly unusual
action of publicly censuring one of its members recently.” You state the
Board “..took action to protect the organization’s integrity based on the
information presented…This is not a procedure that any nonprofit
organization would conduct publicly.” While the procedure may be conducted
privately, the reasons for results should be public. It strikes me that the
reasons are not “personnel” as has been stated by a couple of directors,
but rather “personal.”



You state “that it is not fair to members, or to the representative
Directors who have yet to evaluate them collectively, to have the proposals
mischaracterized or misrepresented.” You fail to state what proposals have
been mischaracterized or misrepresented and in what way. Again, your
proposition requires details, not blanket statements unsupported by facts.



Quite frankly, you note only serves to underscore the need for the campaign
which not only is well-intentioned, but accurate.



Ken Widelitz, K6LA