I totally agree. If the determination when the Vice Director position was valid and in compliance with CT law, as it was, then there should be no problem now. Let’s put this to bed and move forward. The bigger issue here is the need to reduce costs. We are spending a lot of money unnecessarily by holding Board and Committee meetings in person. With the current electronic meeting platforms, the League needs to embrace the same practices used in industry. CT law can be satisfied by using these methods. Go-to Meeting or Skype could be used and save a bundle in travel and lodging costs. No to mention the cost of the meeting facilities. We don’t need to be bringing over 30 people to CT twice a year or smaller groups to various sites around the country for committee meetings when all of the business can be conducted electronically. This needs serious consideration and not be ignored. Should the above proposal be not implemented, serious consideration should be given to the reimbursement of travel to these meetings, and travel in general. In all of the other national non-profit organizations I am involved with, all travel is on the individual volunteers. This includes all Board members and National and State officers. We simply handle our travel as a deduction to an approved organization and submit a detailed accounting at tax time. Think of all of the additional funds that could be made available to the SMs if these proposals were implemented. Ed B. Hudgens, P. E., Ret. – WB4RHQ Vice Director – Delta Division ARRL 1441 Wexford Downs Lane Nashville, TN, 37211 H – 615-333-9859 C – 615-630-2753 WB4RHQ@arrl.org From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Mike Raisbeck Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:28 AM To: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:26387] Currrent status of Vice Directors Hi All, I've spent some time and energy looking carefully at the current status of Vice Directors in our scheme of governance. The attached 2 page report is the (final?) result. It will be, I hope, interesting not only for light it sheds on the legitimacy of current practice, but also to inform any decisions about the future role of Vice Directors. In brief, my conclusions are that: 1 - Vice Directors are, from the perspective of Connecticut law, members of the Board 2 - There is no particular reason to believe that our current practices vis-a-vis Vice Directors are in violation of Connecticut law This isn't to say that our Articles (in current Connecticut parlance, "Certificate of Incorporation") are perfect. Their arrangement seems a bit chaotic to me, and there are no doubt several opportunities in there for salutary cleanup. There might even be a few details that don't perfectly comport with Connecticut law, though I haven't found them. But the basic scheme is reasonably sound, in my judgment, and fears that we risk some huge liability or embarrassment because of our rather interesting form of governance strike me as overblown. I will note that my views has changed here. In the past, based on statements and comments made to and relayed to me, I was afraid we had a large problem. That concern, as expressed by me to Rick and others, was one, though certainly not the only, impetus for revisiting Vice Director status. Now, having spent some considerable time looking at the matter (time which I would rather have spent fixing my SteppIR, preparing the vegetable garden, and walking my dog Archey), I feel confident that we have no immediate or serious issues. But there is still work to do. I think we would be well served by taking another look at the status of Vice Directors, possibly to clarify and strengthen their position. There are plenty of people better equipped than I to do this. And I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong in my conclusions, if that is how it plays out, though I would expect detailed reasons, rather than bald assertions, to back up such a rebuttal. Thanks for combing through my comments, K1TWF Mike Raisbeck k1twf@arrl.net <mailto:k1twf@arrl.net>