28 JAN 2008 - 1300 CST As you all know, I don't post a lot of miscellaneous comments (other than the very occasional bit of government humor) to either the OD or ODV reflectors. However, the subject listed in the header above has caught my attention and I offer the following food for thought: 1. My understanding of the ARRL governance structure is that all ARRL policy- making is done by the ARRL board of directors. The buck stops with us. 2. The section managers are not ARRL policy-makers. This is a major part of the rationale for our current parallel governance structure. Section managers supervise ARRL field operations; primarily in public service, emergency communications, the ARRL Official Observer program, and local public information activities. 3. To a degree, this is reflected in our discussions of and policies concerning conflicts-of-interest and the conduct of ARRL elections. SM candidates are not held to standards quite as strict as those for our directors and vice- directors because they are not considered to be ARRL policy-makers. 4. If they are to be involved in ARRL policy-making, our current parallel governance structure needs to be changed so there is only one line of authority. Section managers would have to be held to the exact same conflict-of-interest standards - including loyalty to ARRL policies and operations. I'm not going to name names or specific sections, but a few of you know we have a very few section managers who are often anti-ARRL in their actions or lack of same. 5. We all should confer with our section managers on various issues. I seek direct opinions from the three Central Division section managers on issues that could change their section obligations and authority. If there is a legitimate issue the section managers want considered by the board, we should consider it. We just did that at our last board meeting. However, it's not a good idea for section managers to vet our board meeting agenda because they are not the ARRL policy-makers. - Dick, W9GIG