Hi Mike, Thank you for the feedback. I would like to specifically address this:

"I would not expect new materials or arguments to be presented as part of such an appeal, but that is what appears to be going on"

There wasn't an argument presented on my end to E&E, ase there was not a sufficient opportunity for me to present it. When I presented my initial query, Dir, Baker, chair of E&E, asked me a few questions. I did not answer them immediately as I was determining the proper way to answer the questions presented including asking ARDC for specific information about their organization. A couple of days later they met and came up with this determination, without first getting my response. Attached is the questionnaire from E&E Chair Dir. Baker. (attachments are easier since they don't get lost in text emails). Since they had made the determination, I now present my facts which I was going to present to them initially as an appeal since I was not given sufficient opportunity to do so in the initial inquiry. I hope this is clear. Ria N2RJ On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:50 PM Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for asking, Ria.

I'm presuming that this will be a non-paid volunteer position?

I believe that to appropriately evaluate this, I believe we need the following to create a record that can be objectively evaluated:

1. Organizational information for ARDC. Are they a 501(c)(3) corporation type? State of nexus, directors and officers, website URL. 2. As formal as you can get it, descriptions of roles and responsibilities of the position. 3. Your logic as to the absence of conflict, and how you propose to avoid conflict if it arises.

The committee will discuss this, seek appropriate advice and get back to you soon as possible.

Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:43 AM Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:

Folks,

A couple of very quick observations on this:

1 - We need to step back and look at the reasons why we have have ethics standards. They are to protect the League, pure and simple. Although I suppose that in the present case one might come up with a few scenarios in which Ria's stance as an advisor to ARDC might somehow lead to substantial conflict, such scenarios are more than a little contrived. When lawyers are having a few beers at the local pub after a hard day of beating each other up in court, they refer to such a contrived list as a "Parade of Horribles." They are generally invoked by litigants who haven't another leg to stand on.

2 - the stance of this matter at the moment is an appeal to the Board. I would not expect new materials or arguments to be presented as part of such an appeal, but that is what appears to be going on.

Mike K1TWF 1st VP _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv