Amateur Radio Weekly is curated by Cale Mooth K4HCK. Sign up free to receive ham radio's most relevant news, projects, technology and events by e-mail each week at http://www.hamweekly.com.

Hello and welcome to Episode 573 of Linux in the Ham Shack. In this episode, the hosts talk with Sebastian Delmont, KI2D, about his Ham2K Portable Logger (PoLo) project. Topics include the code, applicable platforms, installation, configuration and use of the application. Also discussed are future upgrades, easter eggs, often missed features and much more. Thanks for listening and have a great week.

73 de The LHS Crew

Russ Woodman, K5TUX, co-hosts the Linux in the Ham Shack podcast which is available for download in both MP3 and OGG audio format. Contact him at [email protected].

The “goose and the gander” idiom is well-integrated into American culture. It means, of course, that what applies to one person should also apply to another, essentially stating that everyone should be treated equally. This article uses that metaphor with respect to how the ethics of consistent Bylaw adherence play out at the American Radio Relay League. The goose reflects the hoopla over elections of Board members at the ARRL. The gander is Bylaw 35 and its application to the League employment rules for the Chief Executive Officer.

I received an email from one of my blog readers of the CEO compensation analysis I recently published on this blog. He was really up in arms about the results of an online search. This was done after a local group of hams was heatedly discussing how the League headquarters is managed and Division Directors are selected. This included the proposed changes to that mechanism which some think will result in Directors just being appointed by the CEO. I’ll note that this person has been involved with the ARRL for many years now so he is no stranger to the ARRL’s actions over a long period of time. He sent me two online links that caught my attention as well as his repeating Bylaw 35 from the League website. Let me share what he discovered and why it matters to the membership.

To preface what he found, nonprofit Board members have several fiduciary obligations. We hear a lot about this from the League’s legal counsel and the President explaining various actions by the Board of Directors: the duties of Board members require some action, and so forth. In other words, we “must” take this action because our lawyer says it is legally required of us to do so. Well, that’s a sound argument, if it’s true and not just a cover for intended action otherwise.

One is the Duty of Obedience. This means that Board members must:

• Ensure the organization complies with laws and regulations
• Ensure the organization acts in accordance with its policies
• Ensure the organization carries out its mission
• Avoid unauthorized activities

Thus, Board members must make sure that all Bylaws are followed by the organization and that unauthorized activities are avoided. Sounds simple enough, right? But is the Bylaw policy emphasis involving elections the same as for the others? Is it, as my reader pointed out to me, the same emphasis and due diligence as for the stated employment rules for the Chief Executive Officer? This reader doesn’t think so but decide for yourself after reading below.

It seems clear that the two sets of Corporate Bylaws should be treated as equally important for the governance of the ARRL. The Duty of Obedience seems indeed to fit the goose-and-gander principle specifically. If not, are the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Directors being breached? If they do not ensure that the corporation operates in accordance with the policies (Bylaws) — especially given all of the heat on Division Director elections — are they not allowing unauthorized activities? To “look the other way” is a breach of this, no? Well, it would be up to the IRS or a court to officially decide but it surely appears so to any common sense reading.

Should not the legal counsel for the League respond to this inconsistency, if asked? Perhaps the League attorney hasn’t been asked as I am told by a sitting Board member when I inquired about the inconsistency. I am also told that Board members are not allowed to seek counsel from the paid-for attorney for the ARRL but must go through the CEO or President. Hmm. Is that really the best practice for situations like this? What does the whistleblower policy stipulate for an employee to report this violation of the League’s legal Bylaws? Well, we don’t know since that policy isn’t available to the membership.

Should the two sets of Corporate Bylaws be treated as equally important for the governance of the ARRL? If not, are the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Directors being breached?

Regarding the goose, there has been a great deal of consternation about electing of Board of Directors in recent years. It has been very heated, indeed. The League has a committee to pass judgment on the existing standards for election to the Board and how each candidate passes muster in their nomination and campaign. They have been busy in recent years, with one Board member exiting the position after a quandary over ethics rules and the practice of them by staff at HQ and by Board members.

The League Bylaws are available at their website. The current Ethics & Elections Committee, appointed by the President, consists of:

• Scott Yonally, N8SY, Great Lakes Division Director (Chair)
• Brent Walls, N9BA, Central Division Director
• Tom Frenaye, K1KI, New England Division Director

There is no need here to repeat the details but the reader may well be fully aware of many of these ethics issues regarding election candidates. (If not, check the embedded links I’ve provided or just do an online search.) The point I raise here is that with all of the heat, and only modest light, over how to operate ethically just to get Division Directors elected through a democratic voting process, shouldn’t similar emphasis be placed on the remaining Bylaws? Is it legitimate for the Board to ignore some Bylaws without formal action taken on the Bylaws themselves?

Turning to the gander, the reader of my blog pointed out some specific Internet search results regarding the CEO. He read through the publicly available information on the ARRL website and on the Internet to see that the CEO’s previous company, Talentrian Partners, was still in business, or so he thought. Here’s the website he sent me:

I checked the State of New Jersey’s corporate database but there is no mention of this company. Perhaps it’s just a stale website that, after three years, has just slipped Mr. Minster’s mind about taking it down. Easy enough to clean up very quickly. if the Board directs him to do so. It does give a clear misimpression that he’s still in the “talent training” business. But, that’s just an oversight as long as there is no further business being conducted there. Nonetheless, it should concern the Board that this public impression isn’t a good look for the League, especially with all of the ethical nuances being established for Division Director candidates.

Why would it be important if there is a side-business operated by the ARRL CEO? With all of the thunder-and-lightning over electing Division Directors, the Bylaws of the Corporation must be followed, no? Let’s look at the one pointed out to me by my blog reader.

I have put a red block around the key sentence in Bylaw 35, pages 9-10, in the Bylaw document as amended through January 2025. It shows a fairly standard employment statement that the CEO shall spend his or her “entire time” devoted to the duties of the office as paid for by the ARRL. In other words, the corporation wants this person’s full-time attention and focus on the job! That’s reasonable and appropriate, isn’t it? If Directors have to run such an ethics gauntlet to make certain that they do not gain any undue advantage with respect to any competing candidates, shouldn’t members expect that the Chief Executive Office follow the Bylaws that are plainly stated? As a former Vice President used to say, You Betcha!

The email from one of my readers, however, went on to point out that he also found a current business that the CEO operates, as a realtor for the famous Berkshire Hathaway firm. I’ve placed a screenshot below from the website address the reader sent to me. Yep, that seems to be the same name and cell number as listed on the Talentrian Partners website, now a defunct former business according to the State of New Jersey.

Moreover, the State of Connecticut shows that he is indeed an active licensed real estate salesperson with a broker he works for in Connecticut. Seems like a “real” real estate salesperson from all public appearances.

It is also very clear that being employed elsewhere is at variance with ARRL Bylaw 35 where he is supposed to devote all of his time to his duties there.

I asked a couple of current Board of Directors about this. They both gave awkward answers to what this blog reader sent me. They said they were never told about this outside employment of the CEO in terms of it happening. It was all after the fact and not anything formal. “Rumors in the hallway,” it was described as being. An associated rumor was that he was simply providing security to his spouse who is also a real estate salesperson. I get that as a husband, for assaults on real estate agents during open houses or other private showings are a known risk. The NY Times (paywall) published a story highlighting the risk, especially for female agents. There is a real estate safety education program, too. It is understandable that someone would have significant concerns about a spouse’s safety in a job setting.

It is also very clear that being employed elsewhere is at variance with ARRL Bylaw 35 where he is supposed to devote all of his time to his duties there.

It is thoroughly confusing, however, as to why the CEO needed to get an agent’s license and be listed as a paid sales agent for Berkshire Hathaway just to accompany his spouse to showings out of safety concerns. Has he been paid sales commissions? Has his wife handled real estate transactions for ARRL HQ members? I don’t know but, if so, it would represent a clear ethical issue, would it not? The Board members I asked about this say it has come up after the fact with the argument by the CEO that “everyone knew about it.” OK, so what? Did the Board modify the Bylaw to allow this? It does not seem so in the January 2025 version on the ARRL website.

The Board members I communicated with on this also mentioned that previous CEO Howard Michel was given permission by the Board to retain his consulting job with an Asian technology company. This was mentioned such that the Board had precedent for giving such permission. But the Bylaw has remained in force! Such “look the other way” actions by the Board do seem at variance with the Duty of Obedience that is legally required for them. There’s little “looking the other way” in some of the Division Director races in recent years with social media being searched for negative comments about the League or the other candidate. Hear that goose honking? This is what it’s about.

Well, is it ethical or not? Can the Board just waive Bylaws without formal action? Since the League and its lawyers have pushed such clear and explicit concerns over the elections process Bylaws, why hasn’t there been a similar concern over Bylaws governing the employment policies of other Officers, like the CEO? Does the CFO also hold a side-gig? We do not know.

This appears to have been an open secret to the Board, the facts of which though are fully public (a blog reader found them in a simple Internet search). Is the Board of Directors failing their fiduciary duty to the corporation by effectively rendering Bylaw 35 null and void if and when they wish to by just looking the other way? Why is there such a different emphasis on election ethics while allowing a clear and specific violation of Bylaw 35 to go unchecked? I believe that inquiring minds would want to know. If you are an ARRL member, let your Division Director know your sentiments. But thus far they have looked the other way.

Frank Howell, K4FMH, is a regular contributor to AmateurRadio.com and writes from Mississippi, USA. Contact him at [email protected].

Listen Now

Spin the Random Topic Wheel (Segment 1)

• What Browser Extensions Do You Use and Why?

This Weekend in Hedonism (Segment 2)

• Cheryl’s Recipe Corner

• Banana Bread Pancakes

• Description

• This week I picked a Pancake recipe, as we are coming up on “Shrove Tuesday” (March 4th).  In the United Kingdom, Ireland and parts of the Commonwealth, Shrove Tuesday is also known as Pancake Day or Pancake Tuesday; otherwise it’s known as Fat Tuesday or Mardi Gras!  And what’s better than Banana Bread flavored pancakes!

• Ingredients

• 1-1/4 cups all-purpose flour

• 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt

• 1/2 teaspoon baking powder

• 1/4 teaspoon baking soda

• 1 large ripe banana

• 1 large egg

• 1/3 cup white sugar

• 1/4 cup milk

• 1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract

• 1/4 cup unsalted butter, melted

• 1/2 cup finely chopped walnuts

• 1 tablespoon unsalted butter, or as needed

• Directions

• Combine flour, salt, baking powder, and baking soda in a small bowl with a whisk. Reserve until needed. Place banana in a mixing bowl and mash into a smooth paste with a potato masher. Add egg and sugar and whisk thoroughly until sugar is dissolved and mixture is smooth and creamy, about 2 minutes. Add milk, vanilla extract, 1/4 cup melted butter, walnuts, and flour mixture. Whisk until just combined. Let batter rest for 10 minutes. Melt 1 tablespoon butter in a large, nonstick pan or skillet over medium-high heat. Once the pan is hot, transfer in about 1/3 cup of the batter per pancake. Reduce heat to medium and cook until edges start to look dry and small air bubbles pop up through the surface, about 3 minutes. Flip and cook until golden brown, about 3 minutes more. Serve immediately. Chef’s Note: While an almost-black banana is recommended here, as long as your banana is fully ripe, and you’re able to mash it fairly smooth, it should still work for this recipe. If you want these a little more decadent, sprinkle on a little chopped dark chocolate before you flip the pancakes — which, of course, is the secret ingredient in our famous banana bread recipe.

• Cheryl’s Mixed Drink Corner

• Brandy Crusta

• Description

• Continuing on the Mardi Gras trend… this drink was established as one of the oldest classic cocktails on record (and a direct forbear of the popular Sidecar) in New Orleans; it was invented in the 1850s by Joseph Santini, an Italian bartender plying his trade in New Orleans

• Ingredients

• 2 ounces brandy

• 1/4 ounce orange curaçao

• 1 teaspoon maraschino liqueur

• 1/2 ounce lemon juice, freshly squeezed

• 1/2 ounce simple syrup

• 1 dash Angostura bitters

• Garnish: lemon twist

• Garnish: sugar rim

• Directions

• Rim a coupe glass with sugar and set aside. Add the brandy, orange curaçao, maraschino liqueur, lemon juice, simple syrup, and bitters into a shaker with ice and shake until well-chilled. Strain into the prepared glass. Garnish with a lemon twist.

• Russ’s Drink Corner

• Beards Town Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey

• Description

• There wasn’t much detail to be found about this particular bourbon. It was one I’d never heard of and sitting on the shelf at a larger convenience store outside St. Louis. Bottled at 90 proof with a price tag in the mid-20 dollar range it seemed like it was worth a shot. A little investigation led to the discovery that it’s produced by Sazerac but nothing about it really speaks to it. It might be on off brand product. It’s a Kentucky straight bourbon with no age statement so it’s most likely aged more than 4 years. Being from Sazerac, that seems likely further confirmed. I picked it up hoping it might be a nice alternative for making cocktails or sipping from a whiskey found on the bottom shelf. Beards Town, by the way, is apparently an old name for Bardstown, a place where many fine Kentucky whiskies originate.

• Details

• Mashbill: Undisclosed

• Region: Bardstown, Kentucky

• Proof: 90 (45% ABV)

• Color: Light amber

• Nose: Toasted oak, clover honey, cinnamon, vanilla

• Taste: Vanilla, honey, slightly grassy, barrel spice

• Finish: Medium length, drying with notes of oak, baking spice and honey

• Price: $25 (750ml)

• Rating: 83

Segment 3 (Announcements & Feedback)

• Comment on Episode 571 from Ross, KD0VHN

• RE OBS: There’s an acronym conflict between Open Broadcaster Software and SUSE’s Open Build Service. It’s annoying because you have to pay attention to context, something AIs still don’t manage very well. The AI model was probably trained on material that doesn’t include Open Broadcaster. RE Linux on the iMac w/32bit EFI image: Debian 12.x (Bookworm) has i386 installation media, but I believe upcoming version 13 (Trixie) will not support i386. At least, there’s currently no installation image for testing on that architecture. For long term paths forward for older 32 bit systems Linux is probably not a good choice at this point even though some distros do have some years left in the support life cycles. Many distros and software projects are phasing out legacy x86 support to lighten their support burden. Instead people may want to look at NetBSD or OpenBSD (not FreeBSD because they’re also phasing out 32 bit x86 legacy support). However, it would be a good idea to check software compatibility support for their chosen BSD because not all ham radio projects support the BSDs. If the software isn’t already in their package repositories or an equivalent isn’t available, porting might be necessary which may or may not be as easy as running ./configure && make especially when it comes to audio subsystem API support.

• Please Help Support the Show

• Patreon

• Paypal

• Merch

• Topics

Segment 4 (New Subscribers, New Supporters & Live Participants)

• Subscribers and Patreons

• David, W4DPE

• Mastodon

• @jessdail

• Discord

• Jack_Ripkin

• Magus Zeal

• YouTube

• KW4G

• Mark Trebian

• Live Chat

• Steve, KJ5T

• Mike, K6GTE

• Darren, VK6EK

Russ Woodman, K5TUX, co-hosts the Linux in the Ham Shack podcast which is available for download in both MP3 and OGG audio format. Contact him at [email protected].

AmateurLogic.TV Episode 202 is now available for download. A review of emergency power sources. W5SLA Winter Field Day activities. Icom’s new small business radio package. A highly effective noise blanker. Canarduino Christmas goodies arrived. And more… Download YouTube
George Thomas, W5JDX, is co-host of AmateurLogic.TV, an original amateur radio video program hosted by George Thomas (W5JDX), Tommy Martin (N5ZNO), Peter Berrett (VK3PB), and Emile Diodene (KE5QKR). Contact him at [email protected].

Amateur Radio Weekly is curated by Cale Mooth K4HCK. Sign up free to receive ham radio's most relevant news, projects, technology and events by e-mail each week at http://www.hamweekly.com.

Lots happening...

You will find some great articles in this issue, along with our regular columnists.

Now read in over 165 countries, this issue brings you 115+ pages of Amateur Radio content from the Southwest corner of Canada and around the globe. With less fluff and ads than other Amateur Radio publications, you will find Amateur Radio related articles, projects, profiles, news, tips and how-to's for all levels of the hobby.

Download the January - February Communicator in 
LARGE or SMALL format, or read it on-line like a magazine

Previous Communicator issues:

Search for past Communicator issues

We are working on providing you with a comprehensive searchable index,
but in the meantime a searchable topic index is HERE.  

As always, thank you to our contributors, and your feedback is always welcome. 

The deadline for the next edition is April 15th.

If you have news or events from your club or photos, stories, projects or other items of interest from BC or elsewhere, please contact us at [email protected]

73,

John VE7TI
'The Communicator' Editor

The Table of Contents for the March - April 2025 Communicator issue: