Fellow Board Members, Since the selection of Howard Michel as CEO candidate wehave been searching for additional information on the candidate. What has come to light is concerning. It isn’t completely damning, but neither isit stellar. Here are some key points. Moredetailed commentary with numerous links is attached as a separate document. · Nature of the candidate’s prior CEO experience o On taking a closer look at the IEEE articlespertaining to the position of IEEE president and CEO, it would appear thatMichel’s experience is more akin to that of our own president rather than to theduties and responsibilities of a CEO · The candidate’s views on governance and Boardstructure o Much as the League did 2 years ago, in 2015 theIEEE went through a period where they considered changes to their governancestructure. The plan, subsequentlywithdrawn after considerable member society opposition, would have allowed theDirectors’ positions to be somewhat more separated from the membership atlarge. Michel was a strong supporter ofthe proposed changes. We should becautious here, lest members perceive him as supporting a less transparentgovernance model · His current CTO activities o While on first glance, the notion of robots inSTEM education is quite compelling, a look at some of the material done byMichel reveals a lackluster explanation of how the robots would contribute toSTEM education · His performance as an academic o His academic career seems unremarkable asmeasured by several metrics, including PhD students graduated, and number of publicationsauthored · His dealings with his students o There seem to be some problems with the way herelates with his students; his reviews were surprisingly negative. These could reflect on his capabilities as amentor, model, and leader of people · Extremely thin amateur radio experience o Searches for his name and callsign have producednothing that would indicate a commitment to the hobby, any recent Amateur Radioexperience, or that it is one of his passions This information is important to us for what it tells usabout the candidate, but it is equally important as an indicator that ourselection process may have been less than ideal. With only 24 hours to consider the candidatebefore a vote was called, there was little time for anyone on the Board to doany crosschecking, all the more so because it was the 24 hours before the Boardmeeting, a hectic period that offers little free time. Furthermore, the presentation of only asingle candidate deprived the Board, the ultimate deciding authority, of theopportunity to compare, contrast, and converge on the best candidate. There is also the matter of fairness to the candidate. In gauging fairness, several questions arise: · - Has Mr. Michel been made aware that the vote forhim at the Board Meeting was far from unanimous? · - Is he aware that there is continued concern onthe part of a substantial number of Board Members? · - Where is he in the process of disengaging fromhis current employer? Please consider this material carefully. We needto take a step back before we make any commitments or execute any contracts. Regards, Tom Abernethy, W3TOM Tom Frenaye, K1KI Jim Tiemstra, K6JAT Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF Kristen McIntyre, K6WX John Robert Stratton, N5AUS Although not playing a part in the drafting of this memo, Southwestern Division Director Norton, N6AA, endorses its contents