WK3C's Personal Website

Hi, I'm Carl, WK3C, and I WAS Seeking the ARRL Atlantic Division Directorship in the upcoming ARRL Election

(NEW: The history to go with the heading above is below, but see the "Election Issues Update" link to the left for the latest, possibly encouraging news for the long-term ...)

I have had a tremendous number of inquiries as to why the ARRL website article and e-mails regarding the upcoming elections did not include my name as a candidate for Atlantic Division Director.

I did NOT "drop out" of the race, as a few have suggested on qrz.com, because of either a lack of interest or a lack of support.

In fact, I had garnered a great deal of support and I wish to publicly thank the many, many individual hams and clubs throughout the Atlantic Division who expressed their vigorous support for my candidacy and to let you all know "what happened on the way to the ballot box."

To be blunt, the ARRL "inner circle" froze me off of the ballot with a "ruling of ineligibility" which I believe to be totally unfair and unjustified for reasons that I'll outline factually below.

First, let me state that whether you may have supported my candidacy or not, I believe what you will find - if you read all of the information I'm publishing here, including the details behind the links - is a very disappointing story relative to fair and open ARRL elections, equal treatment, due process on appeals, etc. (I will give the "5 cent" version here, with links to relevant documentation, in the interest of keeping this page from getting too, too long.)

Here is the story ...

First, despite a 2 hour telephone conversation with George "Dick" Isely, the Chairman of the "Elections and Ethics Committee," during the afternoon of August 23rd, the day on which the 3 man committee was to hold their teleconference meeting at 8:00 pm, in which I gave him firm assurances that I have NO "conflict of interest" and that, if elected, my fiduciary responsibility to the League and its membership would preclude me from entering into any client relationship that would present a conflict, followed up with an e-mail summarizing the substance of that conversation, the Committee sent me a message on August 24th stating that I was "... ineligible as a candidate for ARRL Atlantic Division Director because of a conflict of interest ..." (emphasis added.) A link to the entire message from the "E&E Committee" is here.

Next, by return e-mail, I notified Mr. Isely (and everyone else in the distribution list of that message) that I intended to vigorously appeal the Committee's decision and asked for them to detail the appeals process to me, since the ARRL Articles of Association and Bylaws are silent on an appeals process. (It appears that the Executive Committee is, effectively, free to "make up the rules as they go, on a case-by-case basis, as it suits them" - something that I'd find disturbing as a member, whether I was a would-be candidate or not.)

In response to that message, I received an e-mail from Chris Imlay, the ARRL's general council, which, in essence said "... submit any materials that you deem relevant to the Executive Committee of ARRL ..." "The Executive Committee will consider these materials immediately thereafter." and "Following the Executive Committee's review of the Elections and Ethics Committee eligibility determination, you will be informed of the Executive Committee's decision in writing."

Then, I submitted a 9 page appeal package (please click here and read this document), which:

1st, politely questions process (or lack of due process), then

2nd, reitterates my previous assurances that I HAVE NO "conflict of interest," and that, if elected, my fiduciary responsibility to the League and its membership would preclude me from entering into any client relationship that would present a conflict, then

3rd, cites 3 examples (a current Director, a current Vice-director, and a past Vice-director who are (as a lawyer would put it) "similarly situated" with respect to their business or employment situations who were CLEARLY not subjected to the same presumptive, proscriptive, and prejudical application/interpretation of "the standard of Article 11" as has been applied to me, and

4th, requests an appeal to the ENTIRE Board, with the due process of being able to address the appeals panel and answer any questions they might have before they rendered a determination.

Finally, I included - of my own volition - a signed, notarized affidavit (last page of the appeal) where I swore under penalty of perjury that I had NO conflict of interest and, if elected, would not enter into any client relationship that would present a conflict of interest.

Rather than honoring my request for an appeal before the entire Board and the the due process of the opportunity to address that appeal panel and answer any questions they might have, the Executive Commitee instead met in a closed teleconference call meeting and decided to uphold the E&E Committee's ruling - apparently ignoring all of the facts presented in my appeal, including the sworn affidavit.

The following day, I received an e-mail from Mr. Imlay containing a letter in .pdf format on behalf of the Executive Committee notifying me that they were upholding the ruling of the E&E Committee - however, "the story" changed from "You are ineligible due to a conflict of interest." to You have no conflict of interest now (and nobody associated with ARRL said or believes that you do) ... and continues that "Article 11, as can be seen from reading it, deals with potentialities (emphasis added), not current circumstances."

I then replied to Mr. Imlay's e-mail on behalf of the Executive Committee with this message.

On September 9th , I received another message from Mr. Imlay stating:

"Greetings, Carl. The Board of Directors of the ARRL has been asked whether or not it will hear an appeal of the Executive Committee's decision to affirm the determination of the Elections and Ethics Committee that you are not qualified as a candidate for Atlantic Division Director. The Board has determined that it will not hear the appeal.

73, Chris Imlay, W3KD
General Counsel, ARRL

cc: Board of Directors "

After consulting with several attorneys in Connecticut on the practicality of seeking judicial relief from what I believe to be a gross injustice (not only to me, but to the voting members of the Atlantic Division), and finding that the least expensive quote was "At least $6,000 for starters.", I reluctantly concluded that that level of expense was beyond what I could justify. (Especially in light of my expectation that, if I "won round one," the ARRL "inner circle" with their access to the comparatively unlimited resources of the League, might choose to use those resources to appeal any decision in my favor.)

If, after reading the entire story (by following the links to the "meat"), you find this situation to be even a fraction as outrageous as I do, I encourage you to voice your views to the ARRL Board and Officers.

For your convenience, I am providing a "cut and paste" list of the e-mail addresses of all of the ARRL Directors and the Officers who sit on the Executive Committee here:

n3efn@arrl.org; w6rgg@arrl.org; n5ok@arrl.org; k1zz@arrl.org; w4pwf@arrl.org; w4rh@arrl.org; n2ff@arrl.org; w9gig@arrl.org; w7oz@arrl.org; k0qb@arrl.org; w5jbp@arrl.org; k8je@arrl.org; w5zn@arrl.org; n6aa@arrl.org; k5ur@arrl.org; k1ki@arrl.org; w0ej@arrl.org; ws7w@arrl.org

If you do write them, please "cc:" me at wk3c@wk3c.com

This is about FAR more than "me" ... I believe that the larger issues of fair and open ARRL elections, with equal treatment of candidates, and an appeals process with "due process" are the TRULY important issues at play here.

73,