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