Dick, Your suggestion that the ARRL fund Division Conventions is an interesting one. I have considered the same thing. But it is difficult for me to be hugely supportive because of the current financial status of the ARRL. We are working ourselves out of a financial hole. It is difficult to justify an additional expenditure without also identifying a source of income. Perhaps we can set up a foundation account to which we can donate and from which Conventions can be supported. Or, better yet, maybe we can donate to a different fund and offset enough costs to allow the ARRL to support Conventions with some measure of fiscal responsibility. As you are all aware, I’m a strong proponent of people expressing their concerns and objections whenever we are deliberating or making a decision. I’ve said that in private and I said that in public at our last Board meeting. Your view on HOAs is a stand you have taken on several occasions in our Board meetings. Your call for fiscal responsibility is a correct thing to do during a Board meeting. Consideration of responsibility is why I moved and why the Board passed my motion to require that those wishing to expend more funds on lobbying counsel provide a financial plan prior to the expenditure of funds. Your survey on HOA needs is interesting but only includes a limited audience of hams who are likely active. Those in HOAs who are not on the air because of restrictions would probably not attend a hamfest or convention. Further, what about the hams who are on the air at the moment, living outside of HOAs, but worried about their future as they age. I’m getting to the age where I’m concerned about being in a HOA-type facility in the not too distant future. I want the ability to keep operating my radios and I want to remain active in the hobby. You don’t consider people like me in your survey. We have had discussions where you indicated that the Board does not need a Code of Conduct. You said that Connecticut state law could take care of any issues. Let me respectfully remind you that Connecticut state law requires that Directors discharge their duties “with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances.” Our fiduciary responsibility is that we do no harm to the organization. I don’t think a prudent Director who is unable to find traction on an issue would take that issue to a public forum. By doing that, by raising an issue in a way that makes the Board look bad in public, you demean the Board and the organization. How many current members in the forum and how many potential members in that forum were turned away from the ARRL because you led them to believe the Board is incompetent to deal with an important issue? Those people pay dues that could fund things like Division Conventions. It is my belief, after dealing with many painful issues as the head of E&E, that you apparently violated your responsibility as a Director by having the discussion you did at the forum. Yes, any member could have raised those issues and the Board would be obliged to answer. Your special position as a Director makes a similar action untenable because in effect you are pointing at your own inability to handle an issue within the Board. I've told you several times that although I may disagree with you, I respect your tenacity in raising and arguing issues. Let’s talk about this important topic. But let’s do it as a Board with responsible members. Art K0AIZ -- Arthur I. Zygielbaum, K0AIZ ARRL Midwest Division Director Chair, Ethics and Elections Committee Member, Programs and Services Committee ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio®