KØHB wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote


It might be informative, if only to demonstrate that none were
in jobs which presented a conflict of interests.



I was a successful candidate (twice) for Vice Director, both times while
employed in the same industry segment as Carl.

I'm not sure what you mean by "employed in the same industry segment",
Hans. Were you in a position to influence the outcome of issues before
the ITU or any similar body?

What is particularly interesting (to me) is that the Executive Committee did not
reject Carl's candidacy because he HAS a conflict of interest, but because he
COULD (in the future) HAVE such a conflict. This, in spite of his sworn written
promise not to accept any client which might lead to a possible conflict.

I don't know that a sworn promise ever cut any ice. It certainly
doesn't in governmental elected office. Blind trusts and divestitures
are the order of the day.

As is well known around these parts, Carl and I have not always seen eye-to-eye
on every subject, but I have never doubted he was a person of integrity and a
true-to-his-word kind of guy. That the Executive Committee discounts that
solemn promise is very telling, and that the full BoD distanced themselves from
the issue by letting it be decided in committee diminishes their honor in my
eyes.

I don't see it that way at all. By letting the committee's decision
stand, the Board is affirming the decision of the committee.

When I questioned my Director on the matter by email he declined to answer me
and passed the buck down to the Secretary, who blew me off with a scholarly
explanation/recital of Article 11 of the Articles of Association.

Interesting. I think I'll zap Dennis Bodson and note and see if I get
the same treatment.

Dave K8MN