ARRL Censures Dick Norton, N6AA

(1/7) > >>

W. Lee McVey:
After having read the Minutes of the special ARRL Director meeting, I was left with nothing more than who voted for and who voted against censure.

I would think that the membership, and the "censured" Director deserve a hearing of the details of what allegedly occurred. Especially with a less than unanimous decision as to his censure.

For all we know, he could have pointed out where, in his opinion, (and perhaps that of others, too) that the League had erred in its policies, activities or actions in a manner that harmed amateur radio.

Without "naming names," the complainant accusation(s) and those from members who supported the Director via submitted written statements should have been posted for members to better understand the circumstances and decide for themselves.   Members deserve to see the details, not just the vote.

At this point, for all we know, this could have been another Kangaroo Court of "Newington-Proportion," where the victim was truly a hero on behalf of amateur radio, yet was vilified in order to discourage anyone else similarly inclined from coming forward or speaking out.  Our former Southeastern Division Director had fought for change, and they bounced his candidacy for re-election.  He was a Director who represented his constituency and fought hard for issues important to his fellow amateurs.  Some of which were not popular with other Directors and officers.

Many times in the past I've seen the League sponsor changes in FCC regulations that don't benefit the majority of amateurs.  The latest being the proposed digital mode bandwidth expansion for digital protocols; so that the League's favorite sole-source hardware, manufactured by SCS-GMBH (alias the Pactor IV Modem) will be permissible for use on US HF bands.  Their recent request and grant of a temporary waiver of existing rules for its Puerto Rican deployment is but another example of getting their foot in the door.


 
73,

Lee

james baxter:
Well I don't know anything about this man or the issues around him. But I do know your blanket statement about the league proposed expansion of the digital segments of bands especially the 80 meter band is not beneficial to amateur radio is wrongheaded.  The taking of the lower portion of the phone segment for digital is sorely needed and should never have been allocated for phone in the first place.  So there.

W. Lee McVey:
Quote from: K0UA on December 01, 2017, 10:07:41 AM

Well I don't know anything about this man or the issues around him. But I do know your blanket statement about the league proposed expansion of the digital segments of bands especially the 80 meter band is not beneficial to amateur radio is wrongheaded.  The taking of the lower portion of the phone segment for digital is sorely needed and should never have been allocated for phone in the first place.  So there.

I couldn't agree with you more, with respect to allocation.  That particular erred reallocation seriously harming CW space on 80 meters.

Not what I was referring to, though.  Bandwidth not to be confused with band mode allocation.  ARRL wants to expand the amount of bandwidth for certain digital modes, to the taking of overall available space for other digital modes.  There should have instead been a proposal to further limit bandwidth and promotion of narrow digital modes like CW, various JT modes, PSK-31, etc.



james baxter:
Quote from: W6EM on December 01, 2017, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: K0UA on December 01, 2017, 10:07:41 AM

Well I don't know anything about this man or the issues around him. But I do know your blanket statement about the league proposed expansion of the digital segments of bands especially the 80 meter band is not beneficial to amateur radio is wrongheaded.  The taking of the lower portion of the phone segment for digital is sorely needed and should never have been allocated for phone in the first place.  So there.

I couldn't agree with you more, with respect to allocation.  That particular erred reallocation seriously harming CW space on 80 meters.

Not what I was referring to, though.  Bandwidth not to be confused with band mode allocation.  ARRL wants to expand the amount of bandwidth for certain digital modes, to the taking of overall available space for other digital modes.  There should have instead been a proposal to further limit bandwidth and promotion of narrow digital modes like CW, various JT modes, PSK-31, etc.






Oh,  Ok.. sorry.  Sounds like we are in agreement.. 73

:
What put Dick on the hot seat in the first place?

Carl

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page