K=D8HB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

Fred and Bill and I are all free to have opinions on other subjects

Fred and Bill are Directors, and presumably represent all of us members.

agreed but not every thing eitehr or any of them do can be construed as
acting as NCI


When Fred, then Executive Director of NCI, makes a speech proposing reduc=
tion of
the technical content of the entry examination, that implies something ab=
out the
position of the organization which he leads.

In your mind I guess it does, not having heard the speech, in context,
I don't assmue that, any more than I assume that everything Roberts has
filled for his cleints represents his own views

When the Board of Directors does not issue a disclaimer after that speech,
observers (including the FCC) are likely presume that the statement is mo=
re than
just the personal opinion of W5YI.

obviously you do, but if he made that speech in his capity as head of
W5YI VEc group then I would be less likely to assume that

and you should KNOW what assuming does Hans

That presumption is reinforced when the same Board of Directors later
enthusiastically supports free upgrades for nearly two-thirds of all lice=
nsees
without answering a single test question pertaining to their new license =
class.

you bust the chops of NCI and Not the ARRL for this, interesting


K2UNK can express his personal opinion (and I believe him), but the actio=
ns of
NCI leadership are at direct odds with his personal disclaimers. You and=
I as
individual NCI members can freely express opposing views, but those indiv=
idual
views carry far less weight than the Board of Directors who express "offi=
cial
policy".

but only if you assume that NCI was endorsing a true lowering of
standards instead of supporting a reduction of the current mess of
differing classes. Youa re reading a great deal into the position with
very little to back it up


73, de Hans, K0HB
Member, ARRL, NCI, FISTS, VWOA, SOC, A1-Op, MWA, TCDXA, etc