We are five weeks out from the January meeting of the Board. I keep hearing rumors of an effort by a group of Directors to replace the ARRL CEO and perhaps others at the January meeting. Considering that transparency and the need to gather input from members has been the theme of several Directors for the past year or so, it is surprising there does not appear to be any public discussion of such an effort. If any Directors are planning to support a change in headquarters leadership, perhaps they would be willing to let the rest of the Board know by posting on odv their reasons, plans and the efforts they have made to discuss and secure input from members on how ARRL would benefit from such a change, to enable the Board members an opportunity to fully consider the advisability and impact of such a change. If any Director has discussed and sought input from members regarding such a change, perhaps they should share with the Board if they discussed the following with a cross-section of members in open forums such as club meetings, hamffest talks or Division cabinet meetings and the members responses to these questions: 1. How would a change in Headquarters leadership benefit ARRL and its members? 2. What consideration has been given as to how another change would impact the stability and morale of ARRL staff? Keep in mind if there is a change ARRL will have 5 CEOs in 3 years or 6 CEOs if an interim CEO is appointed while searching for a new permanent CEO. 3. If there is a change in Headquarters leadership what thought has been given as to the skills, experience and ability of any potential Interim or Acting CEO? 4. What is the expected time frame to find a new CEO? Keep in mind it has taken a year just to replace the ARRL Emergency Management Manager. 5. If there has been discussion of an interim CEO, does that individual have experience managing an organization the size of ARRL? 6. How would the change impact ARRLs pending or ongoing ARRL initiatives? If any Director considering a change in HQ leadership cant provide feedback to the Board because he or she hasnt discussed the potential change and sought broad input from members, perhaps transparency remains a handy slogan not a reality. Up to now requests for broader discussion beyond sub-groups within the Board have been met with stony silence. If this persists it will be necessary to ask what happened to the promise of more transparency in broader and more public forums. There are several other Issues that are likely topics of discussion at the January Board Meeting that I will leave to a subsequent ODV. 73, Jay, KØQB