The following is subject to the attorney-client privilege and is work-product and is confidential. As you know, Carl Stevenson, WK3C, has been found by the Elections and Ethics Committee to be ineligible pursuant to Article 11 of the ARRL Articles of Association to run for Atlantic Division Director in the current election. This decision was affirmed by the Executive Committee. Carl asked that the full Board review the decision of the Executive Committee. Mr. Haynie polled the Board on the subject to determine the Board's wishes. A majority of the Board has decided not to review the EC decision. Carl had previously retained counsel to advise him about this matter. We were asked by the law firm Carl retained not to make any public announcement about Carl's eligibility determination until it was final, because to do so might harm his business reputation. While they cannot dictate what announcements we make, and we are under no obligation to act consistently with that admonition, we have in fact refrained from any public reference to Carl's eligibility, other than to announce the qualified candidate list, without mention of Carl at all. The election is proceeding according to the normal schedule. In the meantime, however, after the EC review, but before we informed Carl that the Board had decided not to review the issue, Carl "went public" with this and has attempted to enlist the "court of public opinion". In doing so, Carl himself has made very public the eligibilty determination. He has, in effect, mooted the admonition from his lawyers (who have indicated that Carl is handling this issue himself, and they are not now involved, but they and Carl have been sending mixed signals about this, and the nature of their involvement is not entirely clear). Carl has achieved some modest success in getting a few people to send messages, some really quite impertinent, some more polite, but each saying that the Board should review Carl's eligibility determination. Dave Sumner drafted in his usual masterful way, a really good standard response to these folks, who have heard only Carl's version of the issue. Dave's response is short, and precise, and should be used in response to all written or e-mail inquries about this. But because of the continued threat of litigation by Carl, individual Directors and Vice Directors are asked to consider refraining from responding individually, even to the point of avoiding even forwarding Dave Sumner's response to the correspondent yourselves. It would be best if all responses were routed through Dave Patton. We don't expect many, but this could be a tactic by Carl, rather than a bona fide effort to persuade the Board to change its mind. There are few of these messages, but you may have received one, typically from an Atlantic Division member, sent to the whole Board. Please forward such to Dave Patton at HQ for response. Thanks. 73, Chris W3KD