After some mind searching, memory now has kicked in and I clearly recall when, as Vice President Field Services, I was present as Mr. Bartlett, at the time a member of the RAC Executive, gave a presentation on this EXACT same matter during the RAC Annual Board of Directors meeting at Cornwall, conducted May 1-3, 2008.

Of course, the president at the time was someone else. However, the Bartlett presentation is a documented fact and required only that the minutes be read, surely something that any new member of the RAC executive, especially the president/ board chair, would wish to do in order to undertake his/her job with due diligence, especially a newcomer having absolutely no previous experience in this or any other elected RAC position.

Following is an excerpt from the minutes of that May 2008 meeting, as displayed on the RAC website but which, for inexplicable reasons, may be viewed only by RAC members:

“21. Radio Amateurs of Canada’s Future: VP Public Relations, John Bartlett, gave a presentation concerning RAC’s future, proposing the leadership team initiate a 5 year strategic planning process to revisit the organization’s vision, mission and goals and ultimately refocus the organization.” End quote.

Does that description sound familiar?

Two of the present Board members were there, as was most of the current Executive. Did no one think to advise the current president that this matter was, in fact, initiated by Mr. Bartlett over two years ago? Or, perhaps someone did.

I recall that Mr. Bartlett’s presentation received short (rude?) shrift and, to my knowledge, nothing ever came of it other than John’s subsequent resignation, to the ever lasting shame of those present, including me.

Is RAC history repeating itself? Can it afford to do so?

73,
Bob Cooke
VE3BDB
ve3bdb@sympatico.ca

With all due respect, this is semantics.

Whether Mr. Bartlett was “invited” or not, it was he who came up with this plan and therefore it is fair to say he initiated it.

I submit that playing with words won’t change that fact.

Surely it is a slap in Mr. Barlett’s face to dismiss him as simply being “a part of the process”?

If the president can provide that documentation, I shall apologize most profusely. If not, I shall have no option but to question the veracity of the claim. But then, I suppose that is what I am already doing.

Surely there can be no dispute with an open question from a RAC member to the RAC president.

Can there?

73
Bob
VE3BDB