Dear Rick:

As a follow-up to our prior conversations on this subject, I request that you call for a vote on conducting a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the ARRL to consider postponement of the filing of the draft petition for rule making circulated by CEO, Howard Michel, WB2ITX, until after the upcoming Annual Board of Directors meeting next month. The reason for such a postponement would be to allow the newly elected Board to participate in a potentially momentous policy decision by the League, and is based on the following considerations:

1. There is no urgency, much less an emergency, mandating an immediate filing of the draft petition a little more than two weeks before the regularly scheduled annual Board meeting.

2. Postponement is not a decision on the merits of the draft petition which should be carefully and fully considered in January.

3. It is clearly impractical, unrealistic and ultimately unhelpful to request fully informed and well considered comments on the draft petition from individual Board members before December 31, 2018.

4. The existence of prior Board authorization is a fallacy, and begs the question as to why further authority was sought as well as a request for comments; no specific timetable for or contents of the petition were provided to the Board before yesterday.

5. Filing the draft petition now might very likely be seen as an affront to the newly elected Directors, and the campaign platforms upon which they were elected.

6. The Executive Committee's decision to pursue a new request for rule making exceeded its authority which is limited to "[a]pplying existing Board policy to make decisions between Board meetings" (emphasis added, Bylaw 40).

7. The decision of the Executive Committee to proceed now has usurped the Board's authority to review and consider embarking on a new and materially different campaign to implement the Amateur Radio Parity Act.

8. The draft petition is far from being sufficiently refined for filing; it is repetitive, overly argumentative and antagonistic, exaggerates facts, is historically inaccurate, relies too heavily on the failed results of our legislative efforts and overstates the case to the detriment of its argument.

9. At this time, in its present form and absent any specifics of reliance by government officials, the draft petition poses a greater risk of damaging the interests of Amateur Radio Operators and the League than it does in accomplishing anything of near term benefit to those interests.

The proposal to move forward with a new petition for rule making is exactly the type of decision that it is incumbent upon the entire Board, and only the full Board, to make. We all have a fiduciary duty to deliberate and do what is best for Amateur Radio.

Sincerely,