Thanks Rick Being an old specification, contract, and technical writer, let me offer the following observations. I thank Chris for his offering, but it is full of grammatical errors which would make his document optional rather than mandatory as it should be. The use of “must” and “should” in a document such as this that is to be adhered to by the body turns it into a voluntary document with no enforceability. This new document simply rearranges that already included in the committee’s version and adds administrative verbiage which does not need to be in a Code of Conduct for all members of the Body. A Code such as ours needs to be short, clear, and concise. That is not this new version. Was this presented to the committee when Document #1 was developed? If it was and rejected then we don’t need to have it put out there again because he doesn’t like the results of the committee’s efforts. Document #1 from the Committee is very clear and concise. All statements for the body are directives as they should be. A lot of time was spent by the group developing this and now is not the time to have a new document put before the body. Especially one with so many pitfalls that would allow an errant member to do as he/she wishes with no repercussions from the Board. Call the question on Document #1 and let’s be done with this. Ed B. Hudgens, P. E., Ret. – WB4RHQ Vice Director – Delta Division ARRL 1441 Wexford Downs Lane Nashville, TN, 37211 C – 615-630-2753 WB4RHQ@arrl.org From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:11 AM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:27689] Draft Code of Conduct Hi all: You may recall that VP Bellows, Dir Tiemstra, Dir Norris, VDir Raisbeck, and GC Imlay were assigned as an ad hoc committee to review the Code of Conduct and they have been working on this for quite some time. As reported back in July, this has proven to be a challenging task. Fortunately, they didn't kill each other working on it but at times I was afraid they would. (hi) I want to thank them for their hard work on this assignment. Thank you! The EC reviewed the ad hoc committee's work at its meeting last month and after lengthy discussion approved a version to be sent to the Board for consideration (Attachment 1). However, Chris also presented a version that the EC felt you should see and consider for comparison (Attachment 2). Please take time to review these documents before the January Board meeting. In fact, post your comments on ODV and let's get some discussion going ahead of time. 73 Rick - K5UR