" leaking confidential information, for example, or promoting public opposition to policy voted by the Board, or bullying/harassing staff." I see this as more of a problem than article 11. I agree that making sure those who are interested in serving the ARRL should have this brought to their attention. On the other hand the above is something that I have had to deal with on several occasions since being elected president. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie <n3kn@comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:37 -0500 Subject: Wade's thoughts on Article 11 I think Wade's analysis hits the target dead-center and covers the ground very well, if you'll pardon a mixed metaphor on a Monday morning. The concept of a code of ethics that Rev brought up is a separate issue, because people who have passed through the Article 11 screening process and been elected to the Board can still conduct themselves in ways that harm the League -- leaking confidential information, for example, or promoting public opposition to policy voted by the Board, or bullying/harrassing staff. It may be worthwhile trying again to compose a clear statement of where the lines are that must not be crossed. That, as I said before, depends on whether or not we have the will to adopt a code that's consequential rather than decorative. 73 - Kay N3KN