Whether W2NSD was just yanking Harry Dannals chain or expressing his grandiose view of his popularity is pure conjecture. I would seem there were reasons 73 no longer exists. In any event, I agree some business activities pervasively conflict with ARRL activities as to create an automatic and continual conflict of interest. W5YI's publishing activities, Gordon West's publishing activities and perhaps WA6ITF's involvement with AR Newsline would appear o be examples. The question I am trying to raise is not whether there are Bogeymen out there (Happy Halloween) that can be conjured up or resurrected to create a worst case scenario I simply question whether it is good policy to have a provision in Article 11 that would render an otherwise qualified candidate ineligible simply because of the mere potential that a business or financial connection may give rise to a conflict with a current or future ARRL policy or activity. Maintaining such a subjective and imprecise policy while at the same time not even asking Directors, Vice-Directors and volunteer Officers to disclose potential conflicts during the term of office is inconsistent and could easily give rise to a claim Article 11 is being used to selectively exclude individuals from candidacy. 73, Jay, KØQB ----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 8:21 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13257] Re: Thoughts on Article 11 Wayne Green is a has-been, but in his day when he used to rant and rave......and we listened to him (!?!), former ARRL President Harry Dannals said a number of times that Wayne Green told him if it were not for Article 11, Wayne would run for Director and win, and would financially support a minimum of 8 director candidates with business ties to him from various divisions that would "vote" his way and change ARRL policy to his liking and business interests. Of course, Wayne was long on mouth and short on action (All hat and no cattle in Haynie-speak), but it is something to consider and to think about what might have been, or what might have been prevented, if it had not been for Article 11. Just something to think about. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:26 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:13242] Re: Thoughts on Article 11 Most associations do not address the conflict of interest issue by precluding service by anyone who might conceivably have a conflict. Instead, they require disclosure of any potential conflicts and abstention from voting on matters where personal and organizational interests are in conflict. Our current and longstanding conflict of interest policy is to preclude conflicts by basing eligibility for office on the potential for conflicts: if the potential exists, the person is ineligible for office. Kay cites a number of examples where, without such a policy, Board members' paychecks might come from our advertisers, our competitors, or our regulators. There is one recent example of a candidate being declared ineligible because he worked for a publisher of classified ads aimed at radio amateurs. However, most candidates who have been declared ineligible have not had business connections with amateur radio. For example, in one case the business connection was that the person owned a small railroad and served on the railroad association's spectrum management board. In another the person owned a private cable company. In both cases the amount of potential overlap between the ARRL's interests and the business interests of the individual was small, but was found to be sufficient to preclude their service as Vice Directors. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ