Hello All, I’ve reread several times the report from the EC concerningwhat to do with the position of Vice Director. A very interesting analysis and a very interesting conclusion indeed. I’m in the process of preparing a commentaryon it; at the moment I’m waiting for a copy of the materials from the CT attorneys,Day, Pitney. Jay, Chris, or Tom G. – can you forward theseto me as soon as you can? WhileI wait for these materials, I do have an initial question for the EC. The following strike me as the major pointsof the proposal; consideration of each of these items in detail will be thepurpose and form of the exposition that I hope to prepare over the weekend: 1. Removingthe entitlement for Vice Directors to automatically succeed Directors 2. Removingthe entitlement for Vice Directors to vote in place of Directors who aretemporarily absent 3. MoveVice Director focus from League level to Divisional 4. Noattendance at board meetings 5. ViceDirectors to be appointed, not elected 6. ViceDirectors would be under direction of the Directors 7. ViceDirectors have ”preference” in selection to replace a Director Now, suppose instead, that the Vice Director position wereeliminated entirely, and each Director were to appoint one additional AssistantDirector. The question: What significant,substantive difference is there between these two options? If you feel the need, comment on the insignificant andtrivial differences as well – I suggest that last item in the list above fallsinto this category. Jay, Chris, and Tom G. (and the rest of the EC, if youchoose), could you please post your answers? Thanks, Mike K1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net