Kay, thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on these proposals. Re. Minute 27, I support the proposal on the basis that Vice Directors must be prepared to take an active role in Board deliberations and vote on matters before it in the event the Director is not able to do so. An uninformed vote resulting from exclusion of the Vice-Director from earlier discussions would be a disservice to the members. We all undergo the same vetting process and are subject to the same requirements and obligations as our respective Directors, so there is no apparent underlying reason that we should be excluded from any Board discussions. Even then, this proposal provides a mechanism to so exclude Vice-Directors, but it becomes a conscious decision assented to by a majority of Directors rather than the result of oversight or individual whim. Re. Minute 28, I would like to hear arguments pro and con before weighing in, as I believe others have given this matter more thought than I have to date. Re. Minute 37, I see this as an idea whose time has come as a result of change in licensee demographics and changing technology. It is not analogous to the old Novice CW bands in that the purpose is not primarily training for higher-level privileges. Among the advantages are the increased exposure of the now-majority Technician population to HF propagation and the related possibilities, the consequent incentive to upgrade for additional HF privileges, and the more effective employment of digital resources in public-service applications by licensees who cannot legally do so now. It could also expand the pool of Amateurs for whom being able to erect effective HF antennas becomes an issue of importance, one they will be willing to lobby for, rather than an issue that is only something the "old folks" worry about. The slight increase in non-Phone 80m allocation is a plus, too. The major caution to be taken is that training and exam material for technicians would have to be expanded to encompass HF band characteristics, international rules, etc. that are not covered sufficiently at present and that are not understood by most Technician licensees. 73, Marty N6VI -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Kay Craigie Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 6:28 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23143] EC study motions At the Board meeting, three items were referred to the EC. Two have to do with internal governance matters, and one has to do with a possible FCC Rules change. They are as follows. Minute 27 - Addition of a Bylaw affecting Vice Director attendance at meetings. The proposed language from Mr. Rehman's motion says: "Unless a majority of the Directors vote to exclude the Vice Directors from a specific meeting, Vice Directors have the right to be present at all formal meetings of the Board including Special Meetings, Electronic Meetings, and meetings of the Committee of The Whole." Minute 28 - Change of the final paragraph in Bylaw 44. The proposed language from Mr. Rehman's motion says: "The members of the committee shall be elected at the Annual Meeting of the Board from among those Directors not subject to election during the year of service. The Director receiving the greatest number votes will be the chairman of the committee. Should two or more Directors tie, an election will be held between the tied Directors to determine the chairman." Minute 37 - Petition the FCC to change Technician privileges, granting more digital privileges. The operative part of Mr. Rehman's motion says: "Create a 10 kHz Technician Digital Subband with a limit of 200 watts in the 80m, 40m, and 15m bands. Digital modes would be limited to RTTY and PSK. The subbands would be 3,600-3,610 kHz (moving the bottom of the Extra phone band to 3,610 kHz), 7,115-7,125 kHz, and 21.190-21.200 MHz." Additionally, there is the matter of Bylaw 45. After the events of this past spring, it's evident that the Bylaw should be reviewed to make sure it clearly embodies the principles that are necessary and sufficient to the organization's best interests *and* that the Board will objectively and consistently apply not only to candidate wanna-bes but also to incumbents as our life situations change. The appeal process also needs attention. The motion proposing revision to this Bylaw was not introduced and thus not formally referred to the EC, but we don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. We need to think about principles and processes. The principles become the yardstick to which we compare the existing COI policy and any proposed revisions of it. The processes for application of the Bylaw (particularly with regard to appeals) should be explicit, with reasonable deadlines. Directors, Vice Directors, and Officers are encouraged to post input on any or all of these items at your earliest convenience so the EC will have the benefit of your thoughts well in advance of their in-person meeting. Thanks & 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv