[Ground-station] AMSAT "Don't Rock the Boat" rule

[John Ackermann]

Consider sending registered mail, receipt required.  If they don't claim it, it Would be good evidence that the procedure is a sham.

On Apr 20, 2021, 8:48 PM, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>Written objection, in a paper stamped letter must be received from at
>least
>10% of the members within 30 days of the postmark, or they will go
>ahead.
>IMO, that's engineered to prevent any viable objection.
>
>The address on the top of the letter is
>Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT)
>712 H Street NE, Ste 1653
>Washington DC 20002
>
>I really wonder if anyone is at that address any longer.
>
>
>
>On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:42 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
>
>> IMO you can't claim to represent US Radio Amateurs regarding
>satellite
>> issues if you are selective about who you represent. So, if this is
>enacted
>> we should talk with ARRL, IARU (and maybe even ITU) about their no
>longer
>> qualifying as a national organization.
>>
>> ARRL can expel a member for cause (in Articles of Association, not
>> Bylaws), but it requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and I
>am
>> not aware that in a century of history anyone has involuntarily lost
>their
>> ARRL membership for anything but not paying dues. In addition, ARRL
>claims
>> to represent all US Amateurs, so they have to listen to non-members.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Bruce
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:38 PM Michelle Thompson <
>> mountain.michelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Understood. ORI board is currently in session and I'll ask them to
>help
>>> write something on paper and find a stamp and send it to all the
>addresses
>>> listed.
>>>
>>> Here's some background. There was a bylaws committee. Ironically,
>I'm the
>>> one that made the motion to establish it. The committee was tasked
>with
>>> fixing the electronic voting "problem", in that the wording of the
>bylaws
>>> was kind of not great and needed to be modernized.
>>>
>>> Those bylaws revisions, from that committee, were accompanied by a
>nice
>>> report from Brennan Price (the secretary at the time) explaining the
>rules
>>> changes. Those bylaws are not the ones that appeared for a
>short-notice
>>> vote this past March. Those original bylaws revisions were skipped
>over.
>>>
>>> Instead, these "Don't Rock the Boat" rules, along with the 3 year
>>> membership requirement to run for the board, were substituted in the
>week
>>> prior. There was no accompanying explanation or writeup.
>>>
>>> There are no regular board meetings at AMSAT. They are only ad-hoc
>>> meetings like this.
>>>
>>> Choosing members is what this is about. There's no definition of
>>> "undesirable", there's no procedure here, and there's no hearing, or
>>> appeal, or any of the other mechanisms that exist in every other
>club or
>>> organization bylaws that I'm aware of. This is subjective as
>written.
>>> There's ways to write membership removal rules.
>>>
>>> The "3 year minimum membership to run for the board" rule works in
>here
>>> because once your membership is interrupted, then the clock starts
>over and
>>> you can't run for 3 more years.
>>>
>>> There isn't any reason to require a 3 year membership to run for the
>>> board. The vast majority of people that have run recently are life
>members
>>> or long-serving. Honestly, I think it would help the board to have
>recent
>>> members elected.
>>>
>>> I objected to these bylaws being substituted in instead of what I
>>> considered to be the authentic committee work. I pointed out that
>without
>>> standards/cause, a process, and an appeal that these rules were way
>too
>>> easily abused.
>>>
>>> In order to stop this, according to Patrick Stoddard, 10% of the
>members
>>> would have to object in writing. Without a coordinated campaign and
>>> spending some money, I do not believe that enough members will clue
>in to
>>> this in time.
>>>
>>> I believe they'll "review" ORI's Member Society membership as soon
>as it
>>> comes up. It is really sad to see things like this happen, but it's
>not
>>> surprising given the other choices leadership has made since the
>Reno
>>> Symposium.
>>>
>>> We should object to these rules and be prepared to simply be
>eliminated
>>> as a Member Society. Currently, senior leadership refuses to even
>list us
>>> in the AMSAT Directory with the other Member Societies, has
>interfered with
>>> presentations at AMSAT Symposium, and has interfered with our news
>>> submissions to ANS Bulletin. I believe AMSAT should be holding up
>its end
>>> of the bargain as the major advocacy organization in amateur
>satellite, and
>>> actively helping us, supporting our work, and being fair and kind to
>our
>>> volunteers. Most of which happen to also be AMSAT members. This
>bylaws
>>> revision is not the right direction.
>>>
>>> We need to stay focused on publishing good work and helping projects
>in
>>> our space be successful. We offer no threat or harm to AMSAT. Our
>work
>>> directly benefits AMSAT in a wide variety of ways. In the future,
>things
>>> may improve. In the meantime, sending a paper letter objecting to
>the
>>> bylaws would be a positive step.
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing this up, Bruce. If you have any specific
>advice on
>>> constructive wording and instructions on exactly what the "right"
>address
>>> is, to avoid any misdirected mail, then that might be helpful to
>those
>>> reading.
>>>
>>> -Michelle W5NYV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:49 PM Bruce Perens via Ground-Station
>>> <ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ORI is an AMSAT member organization, and I submit that ORI should
>file a
>>>> written objection to the proposed AMSAT "Don't Rock the Boat" rule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
>>>> 4:44 PM (1 minute ago)
>>>> to AMSAT
>>>> The proposed modifications to the bylaws of AMSAT include a
>provision
>>>> for the secretary and the board members to deny membership renewal
>to any
>>>> member or member society. This is included in Article 1, Section 2.
>The new
>>>> rule is:
>>>>
>>>> Section 2. Applications for membership or renewal as Member or
>Member
>>>> Society shall be submitted to and in the manner prescribed by the
>>>> Secretary. *In the case of any applicant whose character,
>reputation,
>>>> or conduct might make him or her an undesirable member, the
>Secretary shall
>>>> refer the application to the Board of Directors (the "Board") for
>review;
>>>> in all other cases, the Secretary shall have the authority to grant
>>>> membership.*
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, this is aimed at the folks who dared to challenge the
>board
>>>> (and win) in a democratic election, and of course me, for daring to
>>>> campaign for them. It is a fact that many non-profit boards have
>never
>>>> learned about the fact that there *should* be contentious elections
>-
>>>> that's what democracy is about. They just see them as a threat. So,
>here's
>>>> a rather undemocratic rule which allows them to purge opposition,
>so that
>>>> they will not be able to vote in the next election.
>>>>
>>>> Because the board doesn't want you to interfere with their addition
>of
>>>> this rule, they have required that you register any objection to
>this, and
>>>> other new rules, by writing a letter on paper and mailing it with a
>stamp.
>>>> Objections you post to this list and the AMSAT BBS are useful for
>>>> discussion and I encourage you to do so, but the board will not
>count them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> uce Perens - Board Partner, OSS Capital LLC Venture Capital
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is
>eventually
>> :-)
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Bruce Perens - CEO at stealth startup. I'll tell you what it is
>eventually
>:-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20210421/a349d3c2/attachment.html>