August 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7609] Re: Planning Committee
by Joel Harrison 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Let me stick my neck on the chopping block here for some thought. I'm OK with seeking committee participation outside the board. What concerns me just a tad is that we seem to be recruiting individuals who are successful business men (nothing wrong with that) in a for-profit environment. Let's not forget that we are a non-profit membership organization and our planning and steering should keep that in mind. I trust Coy will keep everyone calibrated. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok.ok@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:53 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7600] Re: Planning Committee Joel, Me too! Jim made the selection on the committee. I know David, K5RQ. He was at the Patterson AFB reception as one of our major contributors. He is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company in the Dallas area. Carl, WU6D was suggested by Art. Art said he was a great organizer of conventions. Brian, N0BM, was suggested by Jay Bellows. I have a limited knowledge of Brian since Jay worked directly with Jim on his appointment. I have asked each of them to share a little about their backgrounds on the Plan-Com reflector. I'll pass along what I can. Coy ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <wb5igf(a)ipa.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:01 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7597] Re: Planning Committee No question with the direction, Coy, but I would like to know a little bit about three of the people on the committee I'm not familiar with: Brandenburg, David, K5RQ Gardenias, Carl, WU6D McInerny, Brian, N0BM 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok.ok@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 9:47 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7595] Planning Committee Greetings, I want to make sure that the planning committee accomplishes what the board would like. From chatting with different board members, I feel the following to be our charge: (1) Identify planning deficiencies within the ARRL. (2) Prioritize these deficiencies. (3) Recommend actions to the BoD/Staff for immediate fixes. (4) Make recommendations to the BoD to insure that we don't have deficiencies in the future. I also know that our President would like for us to look at planning in the area of membership, its numbers, what we provide, and what else we could do for the membership. And how we could entice those who are not members, to want to join. Do any of you have a problem with any of the above? Are there any additional concerns that you feel the committee should address regarding planning? Coy... ------ Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director, RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 (405) 483-5632 mailto:n5ok@arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7608] Re: IN-News
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

dARTh, The other 13 divisions. The codeless Tech comment can be interpreted as assailing the Pacific Division. I was going to say "aircraft carrier" rather than the Queen Mary but decided it wasn't a good idea to take on the military. Perhaps I should have said Exxon Valdez. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@attbi.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:27 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7607] Re: IN-News Dave, with the references to the Queen Mary turning radius and no-code techs in CA, I demand equal swipes and slights to the other 14 divisions! dARTh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7605] Re: IN-News Failure rates are generally higher on the Morse exam than on the written exams. The differences in percentages may have more to do with how many Morse exams are given than with anything else. A codeless Tech license doesn't do you much good in Alaska but it's pretty popular in California. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Gary Johnston [mailto:ki4la@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:01 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Lisa Kustosik Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7601] Re: IN-News on 8/6/02 9:39 AM, Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ at lkustosik(a)arrl.org wrote: > John Johnston spoke up stating that he thought the rule may be broad enough to > allow reinterpretation as to what "present" and "observing" means. He noted > that the three VEs would themselves be putting their licenses on the line if > any concern about the requirements were an issue. He asked who are we to say > that the VEs wouldn't meet the requirements through a video link with a local > proctor of appropriate trustworthiness credentials. Further he said the term > test "session" is not defined as an in-person activity. > > When Bill Cross was asked to provide a written statement to authorize such an > activity, he replied it wasn't necessary as the rule was broad enough to > encompass this application. Again, recognizing three VEs must agree to the > use of such procedures. An interesting statistic is the pass/fail rate. Looking at the VEC stats spreadsheet with a pass rate (%) column added, and then sorted by pass rate, Alaska doesn't do so well (~47% failure rate!). (If I were Riley, I might take a closer look at the 77 and 80% pass rate groups). 73, Gary KI4LA VEC Pass rate N - Sandarc 80.2% G - Sunnyvale 77.0% L - W5YI 75.9% A - Milwaukee 75.7% Q - Jefferson 75.0% B - Laurel 74.7% J - GEARS 73.5% (AVERAGE) (71.9%) D - ARRL 71.3% H - WCARS 70.7% M - MoKan 69.9% F - Greater LA 67.9% K - CAVEC 65.9% E - W4VEC 60.1% C - Anchorage 53.3%

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7607] Re: IN-News
by Art Goddard 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Dave, with the references to the Queen Mary turning radius and no-code techs in CA, I demand equal swipes and slights to the other 14 divisions! dARTh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7605] Re: IN-News Failure rates are generally higher on the Morse exam than on the written exams. The differences in percentages may have more to do with how many Morse exams are given than with anything else. A codeless Tech license doesn't do you much good in Alaska but it's pretty popular in California. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Gary Johnston [mailto:ki4la@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:01 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Lisa Kustosik Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7601] Re: IN-News on 8/6/02 9:39 AM, Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ at lkustosik(a)arrl.org wrote: > John Johnston spoke up stating that he thought the rule may be broad enough to > allow reinterpretation as to what "present" and "observing" means. He noted > that the three VEs would themselves be putting their licenses on the line if > any concern about the requirements were an issue. He asked who are we to say > that the VEs wouldn't meet the requirements through a video link with a local > proctor of appropriate trustworthiness credentials. Further he said the term > test "session" is not defined as an in-person activity. > > When Bill Cross was asked to provide a written statement to authorize such an > activity, he replied it wasn't necessary as the rule was broad enough to > encompass this application. Again, recognizing three VEs must agree to the > use of such procedures. An interesting statistic is the pass/fail rate. Looking at the VEC stats spreadsheet with a pass rate (%) column added, and then sorted by pass rate, Alaska doesn't do so well (~47% failure rate!). (If I were Riley, I might take a closer look at the 77 and 80% pass rate groups). 73, Gary KI4LA VEC Pass rate N - Sandarc 80.2% G - Sunnyvale 77.0% L - W5YI 75.9% A - Milwaukee 75.7% Q - Jefferson 75.0% B - Laurel 74.7% J - GEARS 73.5% (AVERAGE) (71.9%) D - ARRL 71.3% H - WCARS 70.7% M - MoKan 69.9% F - Greater LA 67.9% K - CAVEC 65.9% E - W4VEC 60.1% C - Anchorage 53.3%

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7606] Re: Minutes on paper
by K5ur＠aol.com 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Dave: With all the effencies and savings we are achieving going to more electronic means, no hard copies, etc., are we going to be able to reduce staff? Just kidding.... But, FWIW, I have had member questions along those lines given our recent action relative to QST. Different subject..... ins't it a shame we don't have sufficient talent on the Board or on Staff to do management/strategic planning such that we have to go get people to help us do it. 73, Rick - K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7605] Re: IN-News
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Failure rates are generally higher on the Morse exam than on the written exams. The differences in percentages may have more to do with how many Morse exams are given than with anything else. A codeless Tech license doesn't do you much good in Alaska but it's pretty popular in California. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Gary Johnston [mailto:ki4la@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:01 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Lisa Kustosik Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7601] Re: IN-News on 8/6/02 9:39 AM, Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ at lkustosik(a)arrl.org wrote: > John Johnston spoke up stating that he thought the rule may be broad enough to > allow reinterpretation as to what "present" and "observing" means. He noted > that the three VEs would themselves be putting their licenses on the line if > any concern about the requirements were an issue. He asked who are we to say > that the VEs wouldn't meet the requirements through a video link with a local > proctor of appropriate trustworthiness credentials. Further he said the term > test "session" is not defined as an in-person activity. > > When Bill Cross was asked to provide a written statement to authorize such an > activity, he replied it wasn't necessary as the rule was broad enough to > encompass this application. Again, recognizing three VEs must agree to the > use of such procedures. An interesting statistic is the pass/fail rate. Looking at the VEC stats spreadsheet with a pass rate (%) column added, and then sorted by pass rate, Alaska doesn't do so well (~47% failure rate!). (If I were Riley, I might take a closer look at the 77 and 80% pass rate groups). 73, Gary KI4LA VEC Pass rate N - Sandarc 80.2% G - Sunnyvale 77.0% L - W5YI 75.9% A - Milwaukee 75.7% Q - Jefferson 75.0% B - Laurel 74.7% J - GEARS 73.5% (AVERAGE) (71.9%) D - ARRL 71.3% H - WCARS 70.7% M - MoKan 69.9% F - Greater LA 67.9% K - CAVEC 65.9% E - W4VEC 60.1% C - Anchorage 53.3%

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7604] Re: Minutes on paper
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Dick is correct. Sometimes we have the turning radius of the Queen Mary. Dick, please let me know what else you received in hard-copy form and we'll correct it. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:12 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7602] Re: Minutes on paper 6 AUG, 2002 - 1200 CDT In view of the fact that I withdrew a seconded motion at our last board meeting to make it a policy to send all documents and correspondence via electronic means unless a hard-copy signature is required, I want to know why we are still receiving a stream of paper via the U.S. mail. I with- drew my motion with the agreement of Dave Sumner that he would put this policy into effect immediately. In addition to the two copies of the minutes that came in separate envelopes, I have received a couple of other items that I know are computer-generated and could have easily been sent as email attached files. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7602] Re: Minutes on paper
by dick＠pobox.com 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

6 AUG, 2002 - 1200 CDT In view of the fact that I withdrew a seconded motion at our last board meeting to make it a policy to send all documents and correspondence via electronic means unless a hard-copy signature is required, I want to know why we are still receiving a stream of paper via the U.S. mail. I with- drew my motion with the agreement of Dave Sumner that he would put this policy into effect immediately. In addition to the two copies of the minutes that came in separate envelopes, I have received a couple of other items that I know are computer-generated and could have easily been sent as email attached files. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7602] Re: Planning Committee
by W5JBP＠aol.com 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Gary, look at minute 52 of the second meeting. I think this could be the avenue for your suggestion. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7601] Re: IN-News
by Gary Johnston 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

on 8/6/02 9:39 AM, Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ at lkustosik(a)arrl.org wrote: > John Johnston spoke up stating that he thought the rule may be broad enough to > allow reinterpretation as to what "present" and "observing" means. He noted > that the three VEs would themselves be putting their licenses on the line if > any concern about the requirements were an issue. He asked who are we to say > that the VEs wouldn't meet the requirements through a video link with a local > proctor of appropriate trustworthiness credentials. Further he said the term > test "session" is not defined as an in-person activity. > > When Bill Cross was asked to provide a written statement to authorize such an > activity, he replied it wasn't necessary as the rule was broad enough to > encompass this application. Again, recognizing three VEs must agree to the > use of such procedures. An interesting statistic is the pass/fail rate. Looking at the VEC stats spreadsheet with a pass rate (%) column added, and then sorted by pass rate, Alaska doesn't do so well (~47% failure rate!). (If I were Riley, I might take a closer look at the 77 and 80% pass rate groups). 73, Gary KI4LA VEC Pass rate N - Sandarc 80.2% G - Sunnyvale 77.0% L - W5YI 75.9% A - Milwaukee 75.7% Q - Jefferson 75.0% B - Laurel 74.7% J - GEARS 73.5% (AVERAGE) (71.9%) D - ARRL 71.3% H - WCARS 70.7% M - MoKan 69.9% F - Greater LA 67.9% K - CAVEC 65.9% E - W4VEC 60.1% C - Anchorage 53.3%

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7600] Re: Planning Committee
by Coy Day 06 Aug '02

06 Aug '02

Joel, Me too! Jim made the selection on the committee. I know David, K5RQ. He was at the Patterson AFB reception as one of our major contributors. He is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company in the Dallas area. Carl, WU6D was suggested by Art. Art said he was a great organizer of conventions. Brian, N0BM, was suggested by Jay Bellows. I have a limited knowledge of Brian since Jay worked directly with Jim on his appointment. I have asked each of them to share a little about their backgrounds on the Plan-Com reflector. I'll pass along what I can. Coy ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Harrison <wb5igf(a)ipa.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:01 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7597] Re: Planning Committee No question with the direction, Coy, but I would like to know a little bit about three of the people on the committee I'm not familiar with: Brandenburg, David, K5RQ Gardenias, Carl, WU6D McInerny, Brian, N0BM 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok.ok@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 9:47 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7595] Planning Committee Greetings, I want to make sure that the planning committee accomplishes what the board would like. From chatting with different board members, I feel the following to be our charge: (1) Identify planning deficiencies within the ARRL. (2) Prioritize these deficiencies. (3) Recommend actions to the BoD/Staff for immediate fixes. (4) Make recommendations to the BoD to insure that we don't have deficiencies in the future. I also know that our President would like for us to look at planning in the area of membership, its numbers, what we provide, and what else we could do for the membership. And how we could entice those who are not members, to want to join. Do any of you have a problem with any of the above? Are there any additional concerns that you feel the committee should address regarding planning? Coy... ------ Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director, RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 (405) 483-5632 mailto:n5ok@arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/

1 0