More than two weeks have passed since the Board did not renew the previous ARRL CEO's contract. There appears to be no notice of solicitation for the job shown on the ARRL web-site. Why? The Board's action was well publicized, resulting in a storm of comment on the ham radio blogosphere. Every suitable candidate for the position should have heard about the upcoming vacancy. Every suitable candidate should have decided that he or she is interested in the position by now, with resume material either prepared or under preparation. A requirement for the position should be knowledge of and interest in Amateur Radio and the ARRL. We do not need someone who has a ham license and who has a record of achievement in an unrelated field to get talked into taking this position. We need someone who understands Amateur Radio, the League, and the requirements of the position, and who wants that position. All Board members had a printed copy of the previous CEO job description given to them at the Board meeting. It should have been a simple and rapid task to polish this and post it to the ARRL site. (I would remove the last two subsections, "Required and Preferred Education and Experience" and simply use the points as criteria to evaluate each candidate.) I doubt if the exact wording of the solicitation will either encourage, discourage, or impact a candidate from applying. Is the CEO Search Committee active? Additional comment from members - The Southwestern Division ARRL Forums are two-way interchanges between the Director and the membership. At the recent Quartzfest Specialty Convention, approximately 150 participants brought their own chairs to an outdoor venue and participated. A member video-recorded the event and posted it on the web so that any of you can verify what I report here. Also, the ARRL Atlantic Division Director and the new International Vice President were there for you to consult. As the CEO non-renewal had been a hot topic on the blogosphere, I dedicated some time to attempting to quell some of the wild speculation about the Board's actions. At the conclusion, I discussed the options of 1) performing a new search for a replacement and 2) immediately selecting from the candidates vetted eighteen months ago. Approximately 30 people voted for a new search, 40 voted for immediate use of the last search, and 80 did not care or did not wish to express an opinion. Posting the job description on the ARRL site with something like a thirty-day deadline for applications would certainly satisfy the minority who desire a new search. I hope the committee will expeditiously move forward on this matter. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA