All: It occurs to me that we may be barking up the wrong tree (for all you Southern boys) in regards to various arguments - pro or con. The matter should never be about individuals, but about the ARRL, a fact that I fear has been lost in this debate. While I understand that some Vice Directors may feel that they are about to lose their job - or become less relevant, I don't see it that way. Ms. Altus, the Northwestern Division Vice Director is quite relevant today and will be in the future. A change of status/title will not change her importance to me or to the members of the Northwestern Division or the ARRL. In addition, I doubt that any member of the EC, or any Director for that matter, looks forward to leaving the legacy that they were members of the Board that removed the Vice Directors, regardless of the reason. In our system of governance, we have committees, officers (paid and un-paid) who are charged with certain responsibilities; none of those responsibilities include making or changing policy. That task is left to the 15 Directors. It appears, however, that there is a belief that the EC has or is making policy. I was a guest at the last EC meeting and heard clearly that they planned on bringing recommendations to the Board, for ratification or rejection, not making policy. Now I read that they are wrong! Not from one person but a few, extending viewpoints that seem to disagree with the position of the EC and their advisers. Who's right? The EC, with support of our Connecticut Attorneys, or the Attorneys from the Vice Director ranks, who truly are trying to present a view that they believe to be correct? I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But, I do understand business and am capable of understanding legal briefs and memorandums - recommendations from lawyers who are paid to give us advice. As a businessman, I see a disaster point at which the stockholders (our members) may rise up in opposition as they feel disenfranchised. To the Vice Directors who are reading this: There isn't a Director in the group that believes you are not important! If there was, you would have never been asked to run for the position. Our Divisions could not run as efficient as they do, without you. Your advice and counsel is very valuable and welcome. To the Directors: We have a problem! And it's not the law, the cost or the value of Vice Directors; it's our membership, who despite the fact that the matter hasn't been adjudicated yet, or even a recommendation put before the Board, the word is out and we once again have a black eye in the minds of our membership. Yep, the hounds are barking at one tree and then the other and the members are standing there looking to see if there is a raccoon up either tree; and there's not. We are at a point that is truly a difficult one that could bring down the current leadership, in the eyes of the members, if we continue in this direction. I see no resolution, at this time, and believe that the two webinars that have been set up, will just drive bigger wedges between two sides. This is not a lawyer program and it's time we hear from some of the non-lawyers. We also need some cool heads and I'm not seeing that right now. Mr. President: I recommend that we go back to the table, with 4 Directors and 4 Vice Directors, to attempt some dispute resolution and simply do a Brief 101 exercise, with calm heads and an eye toward our membership, not the preservation of our jobs. Let's carve out: What are the actual Issues? What are the rules that govern the Issues? What is the simple analysis of the issues verses the governing rules? What conclusion(s) can we draw from that analysis and what recommendation(s) can be taken back to the Board? Two terms that we should charge ourselves with: consensuses and congeniality. The Board Room is not a battle field and this is not a contact sport. Getting along is not my concern....getting the job done for our members is. I will participate in the two webinars, but I think they may be premature. Thank you for reading, 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace K7CEX