Myth busting

Myth Busting - Hudson Division Style

My opponent loves to play fast and loose with the facts. I intend to always set the record straight.

Claim: He says, "I have always been available to the membership. Let’s look at my record. I have held six Cabinet meetings every single year to discuss League business." and "At each and every one of these meetings I have not just kept members up to date on all League business but have always solicited and welcomed complaints and suggestions both formally and informally. "

Reality: I attended the most recent meeting, as a representative of an ARRL affiliated club as the NJ/NY chair. He (my opponent) really did not want me to speak or ask questions. I raised my hand, and he says, "I see your hand." After that, no acknowledgement. He carried on into a break. In fact, he did not make eye contact with me the whole time. To me, a discussion is a two-way flow of information and ideas. He had no interest in discussing this with me, or other dissenting opinions. His idea is that he and a few select people who agree with him get to discuss business in the Hudson Division, and those who don't agree with him are pushed aside.

Claim: He says, "I sponsored the first ever Hudson Division Town Hall online meeting with participation from all areas of the Hudson Division. "

Reality: This "town hall" came about 6 years after he was elected, and only after massive uproar over his and other proposals and decisions were made public by a watchdog group known as my ARRL Voice. Some of his proposals would have weakened the power of your vote by giving votes to appointed ARRL officials who don't face the electorate. Also, a good portion of the "town hall" was devoted to bashing his fellow director who he seconded the motion to censure. Many weren't pleased at this censure, and I publicly questioned my opponent on it.

Claim: He says, "I support a “Code of Conduct” that makes sense. A grouping of protocols that is flexible so that it can adapt to the needs of the Board and the League. A Code that establishes ground rules that deal with the way Board members coexist with staff. A Code that allows a deliberative body the ability to regulate itself. A Code that provides the tools that allows for the accomplishment of these required tasks. A Code that satisfies our legal requirements and, therefore, allows the Board to fulfill our responsibilities to the membership and the League."

Reality: The "Code of Conduct" was heavily criticized by other directors and some believed it to be copied and pasted from a for-profit board template. It also heavily restricted a director's ability to have a publicly dissenting opinion. In fact, one director was censured for talking about the code. The Code was so bad that the BoD agreed to suspend large portions of it because of outcry from the membership and the fact that members didn't like where their league was going.

Claim: My opponent labels me as an elitist contester and DXer because I wrote a letter to him asking that he should listen to what My ARRL Voice is saying about ARRL governance.

Reality: The whole text of the letter to him included listening to contesters and DXers but also included listening to emcomm leaders. And in reality there is nothing wrong with being a contester and DXer. But those who know me know that I am also active on local repeaters, DMR and weak signal VHF/UHF. Oh, and I worked specifically in the past with my opponent as an ARECC examiner for the EC001 emergency communications course, and participated in emcomm drills with him when he was an ARES DEC.

Claim: My opponent claims that I don't support the Amateur Radio Parity Act.

Reality: I support a strong, meaningful parity act. The current legislation is anything but a strong, meaningful law and I do not support it. Nationally recognized, practicing antenna law attorneys agree with me. Additionally, the current bill creates additional requirements that do not currently exist and takes away the option of stealth from many HOA dwellers. Several provisions of this law have the potential to turn hams into criminals. This makes the current iteration a very bad bill. I do not ever support bad bills, nor I do not support passing legislation for the sake of "doing something." This is how we get bad laws on the books. A proper bill, even with reasonable compromise is something I would support.

Claim: My opponent claims I don't understand how ARRL works as a corporation because he has the experience and I do not

Reality: Nobody is born director, are they? The "inexperience" argument is very thin. But my opponent should look at his own experience - I don't believe he's actually ever spent a day in corporate America. I have had to chase down deadlines, budget projects, deal with personnel issues and regulatory compliance. I work with and have managed teams across the globe. Starting from scratch, I am far better equipped than he ever was on day 1, or even today.

Claim: My opponent claims that because I have a tower so I don't care about whether you get one

Reality: Typical divide and conquer. I am a contester. More antennas means more contacts for me during a contest. Not for nothing, I want you to have the antennas you need so I can work you during the contest. I also want us to be prepared to help out with emergency and disaster response. You need proper antennas to do that. I support your right to have an antenna. Do you see how absurd my opponent is stretching with this?