All: Now that the smoke has sort of settled, let's take a step back and view the scene. Before we begin responding to members with our varied opinions as to how and why this happened, let's remember that Mr. Bellows is indeed correct; we as a Board are not responsible for micromanaging. That being said, and as 'policy makers/setters', and in light of a couple other controversial items of publication over the past year, maybe we could take a look at how these sort of things come about. Is there a policy of review by upper management prior to the insertion of ads or articles that certainly will cause our members to react in the way some are reacting now? Surely we can't be paranoid about things - we will never publish 100 percent of ads and/or articles that everyone agrees with, but there must be a way of mitigating such negative impact. My concern is how we appear to our membership, not staff, management or Board members. We recently have had discussions about trademarks/copyrights. In those discussions, it was clear to me that some members of the Board did not know what the actual policy was in regards to advertising use or fee for use of our trademarks/copyrights. Those discussions clearly posed the question of ARRL endorsement or perceived endorsement. Harkening back to those discussions, to place a full page ad for RHR right opposite our CEO's editorial on Remote Operations, seems to reflect a failure in or lack of a policy on 'perceived endorsement'. Let me be very clear: I do not blame or accuse Mr. Sumner or anyone else, on this issue, as it appears to be a 'policy' issue rather than a conscious deliberate and approved placement by management, to subtly endorse RHR. I think we may at times forget the complexity of operations within our organization. Any organization of our magnitude, should periodically review strategic and operating policies, to make sure that they are up-to-date and appropriate for the times. The only constant in a 'strategic or operational plan' is change! Let's review these policies and see if any change is needed. Thank you for allowing me to rant a bit. I have made the decision that when contacted by members on the RHR matter (and there have been many), my response at this time is: "I'm confident that it was not an intentional effort to endorse RHR, and we are reviewing the matter". Should the evidence change and show a different picture later, I will update my response - but only after reviewing the facts. 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX ARRL the National Association for Amateur Radio Northwestern Division Director