Announcement Date: October 5, 2016
E&E “Issue 1”
“The practical effect of the defendant’s action would be to preclude those who are sharply critical of the leadership from running for an elective office, thereby insulating the leadership from all but the most tame and ineffectual criticism.” Kelsey v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., 179 Conn. 606 – Conn: Supreme Court 1980
E&E has previously recognized that freedom of speech is required. The January 2013 E&E Report states, “When people oppose each other as candidates in an election, they can be expected to say unflattering things about each other. This, by itself, is not cause for E&E involvement.”
Statements (E&E “Issue 2”)
After rereading the E&E “Report” against me I double checked the Exhibits pdf to see if my communications with E&E were contained in it—they were not and their omission, combined with the rest of the “Report”, mischaracterizes what was requested of me and what I did. Below is the email chain between E&E and me.
There were a total of three emails on the topic:
- E&E Demand that I remove a SPECIFIC statement.
- My reply that I had done so.
- E&E email thanking me for the removal.
There was no request for removal of additional statements and my next indication of an issue was the email notifying of my disqualification.
E&E “Issue 3”
The very first knowledge I had of any ethics complaints against me was when I received the notice of disqualification from E&E. I was never asked about any communications with REDACTED, instead Sarratt’s allegations were taken as factual. Had E&E contacted me for further information, they would have learned that REDACTED and I sat beside each other at REDACTED just prior to our email exchange. At dinner, REDACTED indicated that he had run a couple of unique ads in QST in the past and also indicated a potential issue with ARRL advertising. Our email exchange began with REDACTED emailing me which QST issues the ads had been in. It continued with a discussion of the potential advertising issue and it concluded with my letting REDACTED know about the issue of Sarratt’s campaign website being hosted on the REDACTED server and its potential to come out in the election.
It is clear that REDACTED didn’t feel threatened or intimidated, “I think Doug honestly wants to do the right thing and, at best, is operating under a misconception, and at worst making the most of an issue to improve his chances of winning.” (Exhibits A-D.PDF, page 15, paragraph 3)
Yet, E&E wrote the following with no attempt to discover my relationship with REDACTED or the context of the communications, “Election Candidate Sarratt’s complaint against Mr. Rehman deals with intimidating conduct of Rehman relative to REDACTED and the threats that Rehman made to REDACTED to make an issue out of REDACTED hosting of a web site for Sarratt. This is viewed by the Committee as an unfair election tactic. While REDACTED is not an ARRL advertiser at present, Mr. Rehman’s attempted intimidation of REDACTED to cease any web hosting or other support for Mr. Sarratt’s candidacy for ARRL Director stands to create an antagonistic attitude between ARRL and REDACTED that is damaging to ARRL’s industry relations.” (Report to the Board Concerning Doug Rehman K4AC FINAL.PDF, page 8, first paragraph)
No request was made or implied for REDACTED to “cease any web hosting or other support for Mr. Sarratt’s candidacy…”. In fact, my statements about the hosting were concluded with, “I provide the foregoing only as a heads up to an interested party. I’m not asking for any action, complaining to you, or seeking a reply on it.”
10-5-2016 Special Meeting
Thank you for the information you provided. I remain uncertain about what will be discussed though. Is the proposed Resolution the only allowable subject? In other words, are changes to the Resolution itself the only permissible discussion topic?
As I have no idea how the process will work, I’ll state now that I request a roll call vote on all votes taken in the Special Meeting of the Board today.
I again renew my requests that:
- For all contacts between E&E and Sarratt, the specifics of those communications must be released to the full Board, not just a broad generalization that “no useful information was obtained…”.
- If E&E contacted REDACTED from REDACTED, the contents of those communications must be released as well.
- Sarratt’s 2010, 2013, and 2016 nominating petitions be provided to the Board (Note: the side containing the signatures of other amateurs is not needed, just the side with his disclosures)
- Sarratt’s annual disclosure forms from 1-1-2010 through 12-31-2013 be provided to the Board
I will be attending the Special Meeting in approximately 20 minutes.
[Note: no reply was received to this email and none of the requested information was ever provided.]