I thank Director Frenaye, whose full message is below, for again bringing my efforts toward honesty, accuracy, and above-board communication to ODV's attention.

Mr. Frenaye reported that, "I'm told the three candidates were sent information on the newly adopted policy a few weeks after the January Board meeting by the assistant secretary."

Concerned about the accuracy of what I had written, I rechecked with two of the three Southwestern Division candidates last week. They both confirmed that they had not received anything about the Code from the League.

Mr. Frenaye was at last weekend's Visalia DX Convention, and I reported this to him. I also mentioned that two candidates were present at the event, and suggested that he check with them and report what he learned to the board. I hope he followed through, and will  share his findings here.

If the League's assistant secretary believes that the information about the Code was conveyed to the candidates, it would be helpful to know how. Were hard copies of the Code sent by postal mail? Was a vague statement something like, "All candidates should find and review any League policies relating to Vice Directors," deemed to be notification of the Code? If the candidates were notified by E-mail, it would be helpful to have a copy of the E-mail forwarded to ODV.

If there are flaws in the League's communications processes, we should be aware of them and work to correct them.

------------

Communication from another party, alerted me that my message was, "skewed and biased characterization regarding the adoption of the Code of Conduct .. " Disappointingly, no corrections to facts were proffered. Therefore, I took the message as affirmation that the facts as presented were correct.

--------------

Unfortunately, Director Vallio had family issues that prevented him from attending the Visalia  DX Convention. He was scheduled to moderate the ARRL Forum, so I took that role in his absence. Also present were Director Frenaye, Vice Director Tiemstra, and Vice Director Luetzelschwab.

The topics covered were similar to those covered at two Southwestern Division forums held earlier this year, and audience reaction was quite similar.

The Code of Conduct was covered first, including primary director allegiance now being to the Corporation, not to the members, or to Amateur Radio. The necessity of fully supporting the board decisions was covered, where I affirmed that I now did of course, as required by the Code. The inability to disclose how directors voted on issues was also mentioned.

Reaction from the audience to the Code was very negative, the same as experienced at other forums. There was one attendee who did seem to support a part of the Code, and another who suggested checking with the League's attorney about the Code.

Director Frenaye, who the minutes show supported adoption of the Code, made no comment to the group.

At the conclusion of that topic, I asked the audience of about 120 three questions:

1) Where did you learn about the Code?

Responses:

ARRL - 0, zero

CQ Magazine editorial  ~30

This Forum  ~90

2) How many of you support the Code?

Responses:

0, zero

3) How many of you essentially agree with the CQ Magazine editorial position?

Responses:

~115+ (all but a few)

---------------

I’m sure you all know my view that the ARRL is primarily a membership organization with the objective of serving the members and Amateur Radio that happens to be organized as a non-profit corporation in Connecticut. Although this is a minority position on the board, it appears to represent the almost unanimous view of the members and other Radio Amateurs who, once they have heard about it, have made their opinions known..

The participant reaction to the Code at the 2017 Visalia DX Convention ARRL Forum, as witnessed by three other ODV members, clearly illustrates the factual basis for my statements that the Code has been poorly disclosed to the members, and that the members who learn about it almost unanimously oppose the Code.

73,

Dick Norton, N6AA