Serving on the E&E is a challenging and difficult job. Although I disagreed with the particular E&E decisions you mention, I would not characterize them as “left field.” They were reasoned and defensible actions. The present system has the protection of board review of E&E decisions. I am concerned that electing the E&E would politicize the selection process without any measurable benefit. Cliff K0CA From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Doug Rehman Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:51 AM To: 'G Widin'; 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:22868] Re: Bylaw 41 change--making E&E elected Greg: In the past 3 months a significant amount of man-hours were lost dealing with two decisions of the E&E: notification of the membership concerning ballots (3-0) and Dwayne’s situation (2-1). Between emails, phone calls, and GoToMeeting sessions, I personally expended dozens of hours. While Dwayne’s situation was complex, I believe that E&E could have reached the same end result as it took the entire Board to do. The decision concerning ballot notifications was, pardon the colloquialism, just plain wrong. By making the E&E elected, the committee will better reflect the thought process of the entire Board and thereby eliminate left field decisions that cause the entire Board to become involved in a review/repair of the situation. E&E is perhaps the most important of the committees. Just as the EC is chosen by a plurality of the Board, the best selection of committee members for E&E would be done by a plurality of the Board. 73, Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of G Widin Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:08 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:22867] Bylaw 41 change--making E&E elected Doug et al., What problem is being solved by making E&E elected, rather than appointed? Greg, K0GW