Jay, I think Kay has most eloquently pointed out most of the problems with any proposed changes as I see them. It is with the paragraph below that I encounter real problems: "I suggest that the appropriate parties to make the decision of who should represent them on the ARRL Board are the members of a Division in the election process, not the Board of Directors.. With full disclosure any concerns can be discussed during the election process and the members can make that judgment. If the members are concerned that a Director may have to recuse him or herself due to a conflict they can certainly factor that into the decision of whom to vote for. In any event the choice ought to be theirs." This is a real leap of faith that I am unable to make. For the nearly ten years I have spent on the board I am reminded time and time again that not all members understand what directors do and just what our function and responsibility is at board meetings. It is not a prefect world and I just do not see the mechanism you outline in broad strokes working in the one in which we swim. I really have a very hard time handing that job over to "membership" as I view that as dereliction of duty on our part. I think that most of us had very little understanding of the entire nature of a directors job before we came on the board. That was certainly true in my case although I had served on boards before. That said, I really do not see "members" being able to juggle all sides of this issue in an election which in most instances they seem to view as a name recognition contest. Whatever changes are proposed I think we need to continue to have an Elections Committee which has the ability to rule that a candidate is ineligible because of their day job or occupation. I don't think we want Icom, Yaesu, Heil, FCC, BPL, World Radio etc. employees or owners serving on the ARRL Board. Not that there aren't some fine people in that list list (two exceptions) but we simply do not want to create links that will cause perception problems. Frank...N2FF...