Hi Rick, 1 - the motion passed in January referred to a committee to be appointed by the President.  Who are the members of this committee ?2 - the purpose of the committee (if indeed that committee was ever established) was to identify changes to Articles and Bylaws that would enforce the intent of the motion.  The letter from Connecticut Counsel could be viewed as going beyond that. Just what was the question to which Connecticut Counsel was responding?   Although we have not seen that question, one could easily infer from their response that the question itself was beyond the scope of the committee. Some clarification seems to be in order. MikeK1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> To: rjairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 7:45 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:28418] Re: Vice directors Yes, it was contained in the Connecticut Counsel Report, item 7.b.ii, Doc #9, but it will default to the EC because they have tasked themselves to review Articles/Bylaws (May 20 EC meeting, item 10), which has always been a more challenging task than one would think (having been down that road a few times myself). Interestingly, after reading Ed's comments, I thought of that scenario about poking a bear, especially after the VD motion in January was to have cleared things up and hopefully was sufficient to have achieved our expectations. But once you start working on the Articles, and considering the difficult CT statutes, you could create more issues. It's like when you pull on a ball of twine. When will it end?  Anyway, it's something the EC will need to turn attention to now that the symbol rate matter, which was taking an enormous amount of EC time, was acted upon by the Board.  73Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> To: ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Jul 22, 2019 10:43 am Subject: [arrl-odv:28416] Vice directors

From the January minutes:

“3. The President shall appoint a committee with the responsibility to determine whether or not amendments to the Articles of Association or Bylaws are necessary or advisable to enforce or solidify this policy. The committee shall report at the July 2019 meeting of the Board of Directors, and shall, if it determines such to be advisable, present at least 60 days before that Board meeting any proposed amendments to the Articles and Bylaws to effect this policy.” All I saw was the connecticut counsel report which wasn’t even discussed. What’s the latest on this? RiaN2RJ_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv