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

[ARRL-ODV:7673] Re: Fwd: FW: Message from Jim Haynie
by W3KD＠aol.com 15 Aug '02

15 Aug '02

In a message dated 8/14/02 10:13:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ki4la(a)arrl.org writes: > 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at > the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part > 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. I am being kindly lobbied over Minute 64. Will this have the effect of killing AM on the bands or not? 73 Gary, Paul Rinaldo and I are beginning to struggle with the massive Part 97 changes that are called for by this motion. I think it fair to say that we are not in that process violating the cardinal rule that one should not ever take anything away from a ham by regulation, learned the hard way in the course of incentive licensing. What you all ultimately authorize to be filed may be a different thing entirely, but at this stage, elimination of AM is not the plan. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7672] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Update
by jmax＠attglobal.net 15 Aug '02

15 Aug '02

Thanks, Mark - No, I don't think the Board was given a copy of Mary's proposal. Could you post a copy on ODV/ I knew when I asked that there would be new expenses connected with administering a government grant, and I don't have any problem with that. What I am worried about is the fact that I'm not the only person in hamdom who can divide one number by another, and when our members and non-members do that and find that the cost of taking one of our courses cost $45 BG (Before Grant) but that the price is now $107 AG, what do we tell them? We should know *exactly* how to answer that question. The fact that we may be able to train folks for $100 per head while other non-profits might do some kind of training for $150 doesn't really tell the story. Our members will be looking at $107, will then compare it with $45, and the questions will fly. 73. Jim, W6CF "Wilson, Mark K1RO" wrote: > W6CF: What am I missing? (Other than $105,400) > > W5JBP: Shhhuuuss Jim. We are using the "new math" where we have to pay people to actually do work. > > ______ > > I'm pretty sure that Mary Hobart passed out copies of the grant proposal at the Board meeting. That proposal included a preliminary budget for the three years ($540k to train 5200 members). Mary and our program officer have had some back-and-forth on the details of the allocation of the $181k, but the bottom line is that CNCS is still comfortable giving us approximately $100 per student to deliver 1700 trained and certified volunteers in Year 1. This per-student cost is somewhat less than many of the other grant proposals they accepted, and is even less than our UTC Connecticut grant (250 trained and certified members for $33k, or $132 each). > > The $45 per student that we budgeted covers the expenses for CTDLC, the mentors, the clerical work that goes on behind the scenes in opening and organizing the classes, supporting the students who are having problems, printing and mailing graduation certificates, and the other administrative chores that someone will need to help Dan with to keep the program on track. > > The rest of the grant money covers things like salary and benefits and compensation for weekend travel for the program manager (Dan); printing and mailing training materials for the mentors; development and printing and mailing of materials to promote the program; an annual review of the course content; and travel (when Dan comes to your Division in the next year to give a forum about the program and meet with mentors and students in the area, it will be paid for by the grant). There is at least one required trip to a "grantees workshop" in DC for Mary and Dan and probably someone from Barry's staff to meet the CNCS staff and learn more about the program and the reporting requirements. > > There is a significant chunk for Administration. This is the piece that Mary always says "sticks to the wall". It covers things that we usually don't pay attention to, like Mary's time and my time and Rosalie's time in getting the program up and running. Barry and his staff have a significant effort in developing the tools and procedures to meet the grant financial reporting requirements. Jon Bloom is spending several days this week rebuilding the Web tools needed to register students and support the program. There will be more. > > 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7671] Re: Emergency Communications Trai
by sysop＠bfdin.com 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

Mark, That's a pretty big chunk left on the wall...over 50%. It would be interesting to see the projected itemized costs for the entire grant amount. - Bill N3LLR AR>W6CF: What am I missing? (Other than $105,400) W5JBP: Shhhuuuss Jim. We are using the "new math" where we have to pay people to actually do work. ______ I'm pretty sure that Mary Hobart passed out copies of the grant proposal at the Board meeting. That proposal included a preliminary budget for the three years ($540k to train 5200 members). Mary and our program officer have had some back-and-forth on the details of the allocation of the $181k, but the bottom line is that CNCS is still comfortable giving us approximately $100 per student to deliver 1700 trained and certified volunteers in Year 1. This per-student cost is somewhat less than many of the other grant proposals they accepted, and is even less than our UTC Connecticut grant (250 trained and certified members for $33k, or $132 each). The $45 per student that we budgeted covers the expenses for CTDLC, the mentors, the clerical work that goes on behind the scenes in opening and organizing the classes, supporting the students who are having problems, printing and mailing graduation certificates, and the other administrative chores that someone will need to help Dan with to keep the program on track. The rest of the grant money covers things like salary and benefits and compensation for weekend travel for the program manager (Dan); printing and mailing training materials for the mentors; development and printing and mailing of materials to promote the program; an annual review of the course content; and travel (when Dan comes to your Division in the next year to give a forum about the program and meet with mentors and students in the area, it will be paid for by the grant). There is at least one required trip to a "grantees workshop" in DC for Mary and Dan and probably someone from Barry's staff to meet the CNCS staff and learn more about the program and the reporting requirements. There is a significant chunk for Administration. This is the piece that Mary always says "sticks to the wall". It covers things that we usually don't pay attention to, like Mary's time and my time and Rosalie's time in getting the program up and running. Barry and his staff have a significant effort in developing the tools and procedures to meet the grant financial reporting requirements. Jon Bloom is spending several days this week rebuilding the Web tools needed to register students and support the program. There will be more. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7670] Re: Section News
by jmax＠attglobal.net 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

Mark - Thanks for the update. I note that you are now planning to introduce a "highlights" box, to be prepared by the SMs as part of their Section web page. The contents of that box, and only that box will be emailed to all registered members who have opted in for receiving email bulletins and sent by snail mail to those members who have no electronic capability. That sounds good, but will it work? We have been encouraging SMs to use the web, making it possible for them to have more complete reports, even photos, no real limit in length. But now the SMs have suddenly been assigned a brand new monthly task: fill in the box. Will they do it? The only material to be emailed, mailed, or archived, will be that special text appearing in a special text box. Quesions: What appears in that text box if the SM doesn't choose to fill it? Will Steve Ewald fill it? What information will be archived from a Section whose SM doesn't fill the box? What evidence do you have to indicate that our hardworking SMs will be pleased with this new assignment? Incidentally, I understand your reason for requiring a written request from those who have no web capability. But that also excludes the possibility of Joe Ham asking Joan Ham if we would please drop an email to HQ in his behalf, asking for mailed Section reports, an additional reason for our members to become peeved. I assume that you will also require the request to be renewed periodically. 73. Jim, W6CF "Wilson, Mark K1RO" wrote: > There has been some traffic on the SM reflector regarding Section News after January 2003, and a number of questions and suggestions have surfaced. Steve Ewald and Rosalie White prepared the following summary of where we are headed and will be sharing it with SMs via their reflector today. > > 73, Mark K1RO > > ________ > > Hello Section Managers, > > A number of you have asked about future changes to the electronic tools ARRL provides to SMs, particularly Section News, as one of you said, "in order to give the Field Organization a Section News change-over pitch." A number of you offered suggestions and questions and ideas, and here is where we are headed. > > >From the various discussions, it was apparent that there is still a strong desire to continue to distribute a monthly summary of the highlights in each section, much like the current QST Section News. Beginning in 2003, we are adding one more feature to the Section pages on the ARRL Web site, in addition to the Alerts, e-letters and the ability to publish expanded and frequently updated news and photo features. > > The new feature is a special text box where SMs will be able to upload, on a monthly basis, a summary of the most important news from their Sections (much like the current QST Section News). These summaries will then be distributed in a several ways. > > 1) Highlights will be published in a special area on each Section's Web page and remain there for a month. We're considering a deadline target of the 12th of each month to upload the previous month's news, which is what you are used to for the current QST deadlines. For example, your highlights of December's news would be published on January 12 and remain there until the next month's news is published February 12. > > 2) The monthly text you submit for the Web will be emailed to all ARRL members who have signed up for the Section/Division e-letters when it is posted on the Web. As one SM put it, "Having this option would go a long way toward pacifying members who have always read their Section News, and is a perfect answer for those who have e-mail but not Internet access." > > 3) Members who do not have e-mail or web access may request that this monthly text be printed and mailed to them. Requests must be made via US Mail and sent to HQ (we'll have more details on this shortly). Note that will be able to print this information in larger, more readable type than we use in QST. There will be some limitations (based on what will fit on a sheet of paper) but the word count will be the same for all Sections and will not be less than what the largest Sections currently enjoy in QST. You may also wish to have your OBS appointees disseminate the postings each month. > > 4) A number of people have voiced concern about future access to Section News. The monthly highlights will be saved and included in the annual QST CD-ROM, readily available for future reference. > > In the coming months, we'll share the details and tools as they are ready (and well before the January changeover to the new system). If uploading to the Web is a problem for you, or if you find once you try it that you have questions, please do not hesitate to call. We will work with you as much as possible. If you prefer, you can name a designee to post your monthly highlights. > > An article about the changes to Section News and contest reporting is in preparation for in October QST to spread the word to ARRL members. A direct mail announcement will be sent via US Mail to all ARRL appointees who are not currently registered for the Members Only Web features or signed up for e-letters to encourage them to do so. We have now updated the letter that goes to new appointees, encouraging them to sign up for e-letters. > > Please encourage your members to sign up for e-letters, and let them know that it's a great way to receive the latest news from the Section. It's easy to sign up: > > First, you need to register for the Members-Only features if you have not already done so. To register, go to http://www.arrl.org/members/ and follow the instructions. You will need to supply your call sign and membership number and a password of your choice for future visits. > > Members who are already registered may sign up to receive e-letters via the Member Data page at http://www.arrl.org/members-only/memdata.html?modify=1. Under the heading, "Which of the following would you like to receive automatically via email from ARRL?" the member would check the fifth box on the list that says, "Division/Section notices (Note: Some Divisions/Sections may not send notices.)" > > When you prepare an Alert for the Web, please consider the benefit of also sending an e-letter on the same topic to your constituents to help spread the word. To send an e-letter, link to the following page via the ARRL Section Managers' Area: http://www.arrl.org/members-only/SM/email.html. > > One SM made a particularly good suggestion: Ask your affiliated clubs to regularly publish the URL for your Web page in their newsletters. The clubs can help you promote the Section Web pages and e-letter service. To publicize that aspect, we will send a message along these lines to all ACCs and to the clubs that have e-mail addresses on file with us. > > 73, > > Steve, WV1X >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7669] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Update
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

W6CF: What am I missing? (Other than $105,400) W5JBP: Shhhuuuss Jim. We are using the "new math" where we have to pay people to actually do work. ______ I'm pretty sure that Mary Hobart passed out copies of the grant proposal at the Board meeting. That proposal included a preliminary budget for the three years ($540k to train 5200 members). Mary and our program officer have had some back-and-forth on the details of the allocation of the $181k, but the bottom line is that CNCS is still comfortable giving us approximately $100 per student to deliver 1700 trained and certified volunteers in Year 1. This per-student cost is somewhat less than many of the other grant proposals they accepted, and is even less than our UTC Connecticut grant (250 trained and certified members for $33k, or $132 each). The $45 per student that we budgeted covers the expenses for CTDLC, the mentors, the clerical work that goes on behind the scenes in opening and organizing the classes, supporting the students who are having problems, printing and mailing graduation certificates, and the other administrative chores that someone will need to help Dan with to keep the program on track. The rest of the grant money covers things like salary and benefits and compensation for weekend travel for the program manager (Dan); printing and mailing training materials for the mentors; development and printing and mailing of materials to promote the program; an annual review of the course content; and travel (when Dan comes to your Division in the next year to give a forum about the program and meet with mentors and students in the area, it will be paid for by the grant). There is at least one required trip to a "grantees workshop" in DC for Mary and Dan and probably someone from Barry's staff to meet the CNCS staff and learn more about the program and the reporting requirements. There is a significant chunk for Administration. This is the piece that Mary always says "sticks to the wall". It covers things that we usually don't pay attention to, like Mary's time and my time and Rosalie's time in getting the program up and running. Barry and his staff have a significant effort in developing the tools and procedures to meet the grant financial reporting requirements. Jon Bloom is spending several days this week rebuilding the Web tools needed to register students and support the program. There will be more. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7668] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Update
by W5JBP＠aol.com 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

Shhhuuuss Jim. We are using the "new math" where we have to pay people to actually do work. Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7666] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Update
by jmax＠attglobal.net 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

Mark - Thanks for the update. However, I don't understand the numbers. 1700 trainees x $45 each = $76,500 Value of the grant = $181,900 . What am I missing? (Other than $105,400) 73. Jim, W6CF "Wilson, Mark K1RO" wrote: > We're finishing up the details of the rollout of the national Level 1 Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Course training funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) grant. We have had several rounds of correspondence with our CNCS program officer to answer questions and pin down the details needed to begin. CNCS says that we can start the grant September 1, and we can meet that. > > Dan Miller will manage the grant and training program for ARRL, based on his experience with the CCE program from the beginning and his handling of the UTC Connecticut grant. Rosalie White, Mary Hobart, Barry Shelley and I have all been involved in working out the details and we will continue to be involved as needed to make the most of this opportunity. > > In a nutshell, under Year 1 of the CNCS grant we will be providing Level 1 EmComm training to about 1700 ARRL members between now and August 31, 2003 (200 mentors/instructors and 1500 students). Training and certification are provided using the online course we have developed during the past 18 months with updates as needed. The grant was awarded on the basis of expanding the number of members trained and certified in emergency communications, so we are paying special attention to maximizing the completion rate, not the signup rate. > > >>> Possible Controversial Issues: > > It's sometimes difficult to know what will draw fire, but here are a couple of likely areas. > > Reimbursement of Course Fee Upon Course Completion > > As discussed earlier on ODV, there are good reasons to require students to prepay the $45 course fee (via credit card during the registration process), to be reimbursed by the grant upon completion of the course (refunded via the credit card used at registration). In doing so we are following an accepted tuition reimbursement process. We included this in our implementation plan to CNCS. > > When each student has a financial stake in completing the course, each dollar of the grant will have maximum impact. Our goal is to dramatically improve our course completion rate from the current 68% to nearly 100%. When we do that, everyone benefits. The grant to ARRL pays for students who complete the training and pass the exams, not for those who start the course and drop out. > > Who Gets the Training > > There has been discussion of possible ways to ration the available seats. As we get further into the program, this will be less of an issue -- particularly if the UTC national grant and Years 2 and 3 of the CNCS grant come through. After considerable thought, we have settled on this... > > First we need to train an additional 200 mentors/instructors to coach students under the grant. As this is a national program, our goal is to have mentors in each Section, and whenever possible to pair students with local mentors. In addition to helping students through the course, local mentors are in the best position to encourage them to become active (or more active) in their Section's ARES activities. To ensure that we have sufficient mentors in each Section, we are asking each SM to nominate up to 5 candidates in their Section to receive Level 1 training and supplemental mentor training. Classes for up to 355 mentor candidates (71 Sections x 5 candidates) will begin in early September. This should ensure at least 200 mentors; if we have more, that's a good thing. > > As the mentor training is wrapping up, registration for the first non-mentor classes will open. We are planning to open registration October 1 for classes starting in mid-October. There will be 200 seats available, and these will be limited to members with Field Organization appointments on a first-come, first-served basis. If demand warrants, we will open another 200 seats for Field Organization appointees for November classes. > > The schedule for future courses will be developed based on experience gained from the initial courses and on resources available. It is likely that we will open the courses to the general membership after November, but will make that decision when we have more experience. > > >>>Timeline: > > * August 15: Announce program details to SMs and ask for their help in recruiting 5 mentor candidates. > > * August 16: Announce program rollout details to membership via ARRL Web and ARRL Letter. > > * August 30: Registration of mentor candidates complete > > * September 3: Mentors begin online training, to be completed by end of October. > > * October 1: Level 1 course registration opens for up to 200 students who currently hold Field Organization appointments. Classes to begin October 14. > > * TBD: Level 1 course registration for another 200 students who currently hold Field Organization appointments. Classes to begin November 15. > > Please contact me, Rosalie or Dan if you have questions about any of this. > > 73, Mark K1RO > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7667] Re: Section News Clarification
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

Several people asked if the monthly summaries will be saved and available on the Web site or just on the annual CD-ROM. The current month's Section News summary will be displayed on the Section pages and past months will be saved and accessible from a page on the Web site (like the ARRL Letter and Bulletins). The navigation details need to be worked out, but see http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/2002-index.html where bulletins back to 1995 are available and http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/ where ARRL Letters back to 1996 are available. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7665] Re: Emergency Communications Training Grant Update
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

We're finishing up the details of the rollout of the national Level 1 Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Course training funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) grant. We have had several rounds of correspondence with our CNCS program officer to answer questions and pin down the details needed to begin. CNCS says that we can start the grant September 1, and we can meet that. Dan Miller will manage the grant and training program for ARRL, based on his experience with the CCE program from the beginning and his handling of the UTC Connecticut grant. Rosalie White, Mary Hobart, Barry Shelley and I have all been involved in working out the details and we will continue to be involved as needed to make the most of this opportunity. In a nutshell, under Year 1 of the CNCS grant we will be providing Level 1 EmComm training to about 1700 ARRL members between now and August 31, 2003 (200 mentors/instructors and 1500 students). Training and certification are provided using the online course we have developed during the past 18 months with updates as needed. The grant was awarded on the basis of expanding the number of members trained and certified in emergency communications, so we are paying special attention to maximizing the completion rate, not the signup rate. >>> Possible Controversial Issues: It's sometimes difficult to know what will draw fire, but here are a couple of likely areas. Reimbursement of Course Fee Upon Course Completion As discussed earlier on ODV, there are good reasons to require students to prepay the $45 course fee (via credit card during the registration process), to be reimbursed by the grant upon completion of the course (refunded via the credit card used at registration). In doing so we are following an accepted tuition reimbursement process. We included this in our implementation plan to CNCS. When each student has a financial stake in completing the course, each dollar of the grant will have maximum impact. Our goal is to dramatically improve our course completion rate from the current 68% to nearly 100%. When we do that, everyone benefits. The grant to ARRL pays for students who complete the training and pass the exams, not for those who start the course and drop out. Who Gets the Training There has been discussion of possible ways to ration the available seats. As we get further into the program, this will be less of an issue -- particularly if the UTC national grant and Years 2 and 3 of the CNCS grant come through. After considerable thought, we have settled on this... First we need to train an additional 200 mentors/instructors to coach students under the grant. As this is a national program, our goal is to have mentors in each Section, and whenever possible to pair students with local mentors. In addition to helping students through the course, local mentors are in the best position to encourage them to become active (or more active) in their Section's ARES activities. To ensure that we have sufficient mentors in each Section, we are asking each SM to nominate up to 5 candidates in their Section to receive Level 1 training and supplemental mentor training. Classes for up to 355 mentor candidates (71 Sections x 5 candidates) will begin in early September. This should ensure at least 200 mentors; if we have more, that's a good thing. As the mentor training is wrapping up, registration for the first non-mentor classes will open. We are planning to open registration October 1 for classes starting in mid-October. There will be 200 seats available, and these will be limited to members with Field Organization appointments on a first-come, first-served basis. If demand warrants, we will open another 200 seats for Field Organization appointees for November classes. The schedule for future courses will be developed based on experience gained from the initial courses and on resources available. It is likely that we will open the courses to the general membership after November, but will make that decision when we have more experience. >>>Timeline: * August 15: Announce program details to SMs and ask for their help in recruiting 5 mentor candidates. * August 16: Announce program rollout details to membership via ARRL Web and ARRL Letter. * August 30: Registration of mentor candidates complete * September 3: Mentors begin online training, to be completed by end of October. * October 1: Level 1 course registration opens for up to 200 students who currently hold Field Organization appointments. Classes to begin October 14. * TBD: Level 1 course registration for another 200 students who currently hold Field Organization appointments. Classes to begin November 15. Please contact me, Rosalie or Dan if you have questions about any of this. 73, Mark K1RO

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7664] Re: Fwd: FW: Message from Jim Haynie
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Aug '02

14 Aug '02

With regard to Gary's question, here is how I answered an inquiry from one of Walt Stinson's members. Those of you with a vote at the Board table may want to express your own views in response to constituents. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 2:02 PM To: 'WILHITE, JIM' Subject: RE: Rumors Well, Jim, all I can tell you is that the ARRL opposed a 3.5-kHz bandwidth limitation the last time it was proposed, by the FCC in 1976 (Docket 20777), and I don't know anything that's changed in the meantime to alter that position. Probably what set this off was Minute 64 of the July 2002 Board Meeting which reads in its entirety: 64. On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode. The Board has given us no instruction as to what the petition should propose with regard to bandwidth. Absent instructions to the contrary, what we draft (nothing's been done on this as of now) will not propose new restrictions. But it's certainly true that in going from a regulatory regime based on mode of emission to one based on bandwidth there are bound to be consequences, intended and otherwise, that will have to be considered very carefully. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: WILHITE, JIM [mailto:w5jpwilhite@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 1:34 PM To: k1zz(a)arrl.org Subject: Rumors Hi Dave: Another rumor has surfaced about the ARRL being supportive of limiting the bandwidth of signals. The rumor is 3.5 kHz for wideband signals. If this is true, I want you to know how adamantly I am opposed to the proposal. In a time when frequency allocations are increasing and band usage is much more congenial, I find it hard to believe that anyone would support this kind of proposal. The rumor is that the ARRL is prepared to sumit a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning this issue. Can you please tell me if that is the case and is the notice being prepared? Tnx and 73 Jim Wilhite member # 0008432524 de W5JPW

1 0