Hello folks, Lately I’ve experienced, as I suspect a number of you haveexperienced, a variety of comments and criticisms of our new Code of Conduct. Initially, I responded to these by listeningpolitely and uttering a few generic platitudes about loyalty, honor, and goodgovernance. Yesterday I was at a symposium put on by the HarvardWireless Club, W1AF. It was anoutstanding event, with speakers such as Dr. Paul Horowitz, a/k/a Mr. SETI, andour own Tom Gallagher. The attendees werean articulate, educated, and intellectual bunch of hams, more so than isusually the case at your average hamfest. During the course of the event, several of the attendees buttonholed me totalk about the Code of Conduct, and their concerns about it. This time I paid better attention. I should have done so much earlier. First, let me say that the vast bulk of the Code isexcellent. Outstanding, in fact, and Iwhole-heartedly support it. In fact, allof it is outstanding. The problem isthat there are a few bits that to me seem inappropriate for a membershiporganization such as ours. I suspect(more than suspect) that these snuck in because we started with existing Codesof Conduct as models without taking into account the difference between amembership organization such as ours, and an organization with a closedboard. I believe we can resolve thiseasily, with a few tweaks. But before Imake suggestions, let me describe a somewhat analogous situation that mayillustrate the issue. ----------------------------- When election day comes along, I cruise down to my pollingplace, get my ballot (we still use paper here in Chelmsford, MA) and retire toa booth where I fill out the ballot in private. I then take the ballot and insert it, face down, into a countingmachine. Nothing on the ballot indicatedthat it is mine. No one knows how Ivoted except me. I cannot be. And so, a senator gets elected. Now my senator goes to Washington. She stands up on the floor of the senate,states her case, beats up on some hapless republican senator from a coal state,and, when it comes time to vote, places her vote. All of this is public. It has to be if there is to be anyaccountability, if there is to be any chance for me to determine if she isdoing a good job, and to decide if I’m going to vote for her again. I’m not privy to the conversations that go onin the Senate cloak room (how many of you remember what a “cloak room” is?) but when the formal debate and vote come up,it is public knowledge. If I’m enough ofa masochist, I can watch it on Cspan. Furthermore, my senator can go on a road trip, stand up on astump somewhere, and roundly criticize the same hapless republican senator froma coal state, along with the policies he has supported and which the Senate hasenacted. ----------------------------- The ARRL Board is not the US Senate. But it is also not an organization with aself-perpetuating board and a private or semi-private agenda. Insofar as the form of an organization likeours is reflected in the conduct policies it promulgates, we need to positionourselves somewhere in between. I would suggest the following: I. Disclosure of votes Section 6.c, concerning disclosure of votes, needs a majorchange. We could do one of two things a. Eliminate the paragraph entirely b. Allow suppression of voting information for aparticular vote only after a roll-call vote to suppress that information Either of these should work. Option b) gives the Board an out in those very rare situations (I can’tthink of many) in which some privacy is warranted. II. Support of Board decisions We need to find a way in which a Director can be publicly opposedto a Board action in a respectful way. Respecting the final decision of the Board must not be equated with agreeing with that decision. While I would agree that Directors should notundermine decisions of the Board (Code of Conduct, 8.d), we must not forbid aDirector from expressing opposition to it. Some people are reading section 8 of the code to say just that. It is unclear to me what the real intentionis of section 8 in this regard, and I suspect that different members of theBoard, and certainly of our membership, have differing and conflicting views. One way to clear this up, I hope, would be toadd a section 8.g: g. Nothing in this Code of Conduct shall beinterpreted so as to forbid a Director from respectfully and publicly expressingopposition to or criticism of an action of the Board, providing that he or shedoes not hinder its implementation A few more notes. Tom, NY2RF, and I sat for most of an hour basking in the late afternoonsun at table in Harvard Yard (it don’t get much better than that!!) He pointed out to me that our current Code ofConduct is firmly and soundly based on other similar Codes. He named several examples. Of course, he is correct. I would ask, however, how many of these otherCodes are in effect for membership organizations with elected boards such asours? One good example to investigate might be the IEEE. I have not yet found their Board Code ofConduct. Does anyone know if they haveone? And are there other similarorganizations we might look to? Jay and Chris, any thoughts? I believe you were the drafters of the Code of Conduct. Do these suggested changes align with yourideas? Any other thoughts or criticisms? Thanks and 73, Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF k1twf@arrl.net