June 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10805] Re: VEC meeting
by Kay Craigie 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

X-GANYMEDE-MailScanner-SpamScos X-MailScanner-From: wt3p(a)comcast.net Return-Path: wt3p(a)comcast.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2004 22:46:19.0809 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5132110:01C45E2A] I've been to quite a few NCVEC meetings and plan to attend the one this year. Bart doesn't just sit there mute like a tree stump. He actively participates in discussions and is seen as an important resource person. He does abstain on votes that would put him in the position of making policy decisions on behalf of the ARRL, just as any one of us on this reflector would do. He votes on non-policy matters (such as administrative stuff) or if the Board has already established a policy that his vote can conform to. At least, that's my recollection of how he deals with voting. I remember Bart leaning over to W3ABC at one of his first meetings and whispering, "Can I vote on this one, or not?" The abstentions struck other VECs as odd in the beginning, because they are accountable to absolutely no one and can vote any way they please. Eventually they seemed to get the message that Bart's position with ARRL/VEC was different from their positions with their VEC's. Of course they didn't like it and were resentful when the League wouldn't go along with some of their schemes, especially back in the days when John Johnston was using NCVEC as a ventriloquist's dummy. I don't know any Board member whose sleep habits were altered by that. Does the League seem foolish at NCVEC meetings? That isn't my impression. I've certainly seen foolishness at NCVEC meetings, but it wasn't coming from the ARRL/VEC! I am convinced Bart has more than enough experience and intelligence to know when something is a sensitive issue that he shouldn't try to read the Board's mind about. However, if the Board gives Bart the go-ahead to do as he sees fit and not abstain on policy issues about which the Board hasn't adopted a position, we can't turn around in the future and beat him up for "taking it on himself to make policy." If he should make a mistake and cast a vote the Board does not support, then we have to forgive him his trespasses and take the awkwardness upon ourselves. Otherwise, what looks like giving him a free hand is really giving him a free hand with a gun aimed at his own kneecap. The real question for me is how far the Board wants to go towards giving *any* individual -- staff member or volunteer elected official -- authority to make policy or to appear to make policy for the League? Where, and with whom, does it stop? I can hear it now: "If you let Bart Jahnke do it, then why won't you let me do it?" 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10804] Re: VEC meeting
by JBellows 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

My understanding has been that the NCVEC Question Pool Committee prides itself on encouraging proposed questions from the Amateur community. Isnt this closed preparation of an Entry level question pool contrary to the stated openness? How effectively can NCVEC work on an Entry level Question Pool without knowing the parameters of a yet to be defined entry class license? I agree that Bart is the ideal person to represent the League at NCVEC. Has anyone asked Barts opinion on this? Is there a benefit in participating in the discussion, being able to offer an unofficial opinion, but not having authority to commit the League? Im not opposed, it just seems we should be able to answer questions such as these. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Wilson, Mark K1RO [mailto:k1ro@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10799] VEC meeting Jim Haynie asked me to send this to the reflector. -- Mark K1RO _______ I want to "float" (8 inches of rain here in 3 days) something by you that I think needs attention. Ever since the VE program was developed, we have taken the position that Bart Jahnke was to abstain from any votes during their meetings. I think all of us will agree, he IS Mr. VEC and few, if any of us knows as much about the system. This July the VEC meeting will among other things start working on a question pool for the "entry class" of license. Yes, it looks as if they agree with us on the need. I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes us look foolish at best. The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an "olive branch" as well. What are your thoughts? Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10803] Re: VEC meeting
by W3KD＠aol.com 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

In a message dated 6/29/2004 4:05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, k1ro(a)arrl.org writes: > > I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in > their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes > us look foolish at best. > > The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an > "olive branch" as well. > > What are your thoughts? > > Jim Haynie > A bit of historical perspective on this for those who don't go back to the early 80s with ARRL. When the NCVEC was formed, the ARRL officers then presiding dispatched Jay Holladay, me and one or two others to the organizational meeting of the group. No one on the Board was happy about the formation of this group, which was fomented by John Johnston, W3BE, then chief of the Personal Wireless Branch, Private Radio Bureau. John felt that the amount of influence ARRL had in Amateur Radio policy matters at FCC was unhealthy. In fact, at the time, it was extensive, since Jim McKinney, and largely, Bob Foosaner and Ralph Haller after him allowed ARRL to have what it wanted, with few limitations (spectrum issues being foremost among the exceptions). Jay Holladay and I were charged with insuring that, since the ARRL administered the vast majority of the examinations, the voting in this organization should be based on the percentage of examinations administered. That was our pitch at the time. It wasn't taken well, to say the least. The NCVEC group had some rather strident personalities at the time, and we were told it was one VEC, one vote. This was long before Bart's time running the VEC. So we retaliated by not voting in this organization. We participated, because we really had no choice. But dignifying the NCVEC by voting in their group was deemed improper. There was an undercurrent of having staff vote on issues about which the Board may not have spoken, but which relate to regulatory policy, but the initial impetus for the abstentions was the voting structure of NCVEC itself. This goes back a lot of years. NCVEC in the meantime, through the machinations of Fred Maia and others, attempted to expand their area of regulatory influence, and our quandary about the extent of participation seemed to worsen. Now, though, NCVEC is somewhat more "tame" than it was, and at least somewhat less overtly political. The purpose of that recitation is to note that the Board policy on abstentions in the NCVEC was never reflective of any lack of confidence in Bart or his predecessors. I am sure everyone on the Board realizes what a real prize we have in Bart Jahnke, who is one of my favorite people, and whose judgment and is beyond doubt. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10802] Re: VEC meeting
by Andy Oppel 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

X-GANYMEDE-MailScanner-SpamScos X-MailScanner-From: andy_oppel(a)earthlink.net Return-Path: andy_oppel(a)earthlink.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2004 21:24:35.0684 (UTC) FILETIME=[79FD0A40:01C45E1F] Sounds right to me. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 01:05 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote: >Jim Haynie asked me to send this to the reflector. -- Mark K1RO > >_______ > >I want to "float" (8 inches of rain here in 3 days) something by you that >I think needs attention. > >Ever since the VE program was developed, we have taken the position that >Bart Jahnke was to abstain from any votes during their meetings. I think >all of us will agree, he IS Mr. VEC and few, if any of us knows as much >about the system. > >This July the VEC meeting will among other things start working on a >question pool for the "entry class" of license. Yes, it looks as if they >agree with us on the need. > >I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate >in their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes >makes us look foolish at best. > >The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an >"olive branch" as well. > >What are your thoughts? > >Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10801] AMSAT-OSCAR Echo Satellite Launched!
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

I have sent a brief congratulatory FAX to AMSAT-NA President Robin Haighton, VE3FRH. Dave K1ZZ SB SPACE @ ARL $ARLS010 ARLS010 AMSAT-OSCAR Echo Satellite Launched! ZCZC AS10 QST de W1AW Space Bulletin 010 ARLS010 >From ARRL Headquarters Newington, CT June 29, 2004 To all radio amateurs SB SPACE ARL ARLS010 ARLS010 AMSAT-OSCAR Echo Satellite Launched. The AMSAT-OSCAR Echo Amateur Radio satellite and several other payloads launched on schedule June 29 at 0630 UTC from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Ground controllers made their first contact with Echo at 1452 UTC and collected some telemetry to analyze before shutting down the 435.150 MHz digital downlink transmitter. ''This achievement is due to many individuals around the world, who have helped in the design, building, integration, testing and launching of this satellite,'' said AMSAT-NA President Robin Haighton, VE3FRH. Earth stations should not attempt to transmit on the satellite's uplink until checkout and commissioning are complete and AO-Echo has been made available for general use. The satellite could be available in 10 days or so. AMSAT will release a bulletin when the satellite opens. A telemetry decoding program, TLMEcho, is available for those who would like to view and report data from Echo. It may be downloaded at web.infoave.net/~mkmk518/echo.htm. Send CSV telemetry files to Mike Kingery, KE4AZN, ke4aznamsat.org. AO-Echo's sun-synchronous orbit is some 800 km (nearly 500 miles) above Earth. Among other capabilities, the 10-inch-square microsat--equipped with a transmitter capable of up to 7 W output--will allow voice communication using handheld FM transceivers. Echo will feature V/U, L/S and HF/U operational configurations, with V/S, L/U and HF/S also possible. FM voice and various digital modes--including PSK31 on a 10-meter SSB uplink--also will be available. Visit the AMSAT AO-Echo Web page, www.amsat.org/amsat-new/echo/, for additional details. NNNN /EX

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10800] Re: VEC meeting
by Dennis Bodson 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

X-GANYMEDE-MailScanner-SpamScos X-MailScanner-From: bodsond(a)worldnet.att.net Return-Path: bodsond(a)worldnet.att.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2004 20:59:26.0784 (UTC) FILETIME=[F69D2C00:01C45E1B] Jim: I agree. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Wilson, Mark K1RO [mailto:k1ro@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:06 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10799] VEC meeting Jim Haynie asked me to send this to the reflector. -- Mark K1RO _______ I want to "float" (8 inches of rain here in 3 days) something by you that I think needs attention. Ever since the VE program was developed, we have taken the position that Bart Jahnke was to abstain from any votes during their meetings. I think all of us will agree, he IS Mr. VEC and few, if any of us knows as much about the system. This July the VEC meeting will among other things start working on a question pool for the "entry class" of license. Yes, it looks as if they agree with us on the need. I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes us look foolish at best. The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an "olive branch" as well. What are your thoughts? Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10799] VEC meeting
by Wilson, Mark K1RO 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Jim Haynie asked me to send this to the reflector. -- Mark K1RO _______ I want to "float" (8 inches of rain here in 3 days) something by you that I think needs attention. Ever since the VE program was developed, we have taken the position that Bart Jahnke was to abstain from any votes during their meetings. I think all of us will agree, he IS Mr. VEC and few, if any of us knows as much about the system. This July the VEC meeting will among other things start working on a question pool for the "entry class" of license. Yes, it looks as if they agree with us on the need. I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes us look foolish at best. The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an "olive branch" as well. What are your thoughts? Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10798] Kerry's broadband deployment plan
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Two months ago, Tom Frenaye asked if we knew where the Kerry campaign stood on BPL. The Kerry campaign has made no statement either pro or con with regard to BPL. However, last Thursday the campaign released a nine-page paper on "Investing in High-Tech" that includes universal broadband deployment. The announcement is at http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0624.html and the paper itself is at http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0624b.pdf. The technical focus is on wireless broadband, including access to unassigned TV channels as recently proposed by the FCC. A search of the Kerry Web site for "power line" and its variants got no matches. Of course, none of this suggests that Senator Kerry is opposed to BPL, only that he isn't promoting it. However, he is promoting ultra-wideband, which has the potential to cause us some heartburn (though not the same as BPL). As for bringing broadband to rural areas, the paper mentions a "marketplace solution that was successful in bringing broadband to Western Massachusetts." A bit of research revealed that the reference is to Berkshire Connect based in Pittsfield, http://www.bconnect.org/. Basically it is a purchasing collective that aggregates demand for telecommunications services to negotiate the best price and service for its members. I called and spoke to the Business Manager, Sharon Ferry, to ask if they were using or planned to use BPL. She said that she was familiar with BPL but that they were not using it and didn't see it as a solution. They use a combination of fiber and wireless broadband to reach their customers, who are small- and medium-sized businesses (including home-based businesses) rather than consumers. She said Berkshire Connect is in the process of analyzing broadband requirements in all of Berkshire County and will look at BPL only as part of their due diligence. She was interested in hearing about the interference issue and I sent her the appropriate URLs. I'm just providing this for internal information to address Tom's question. The ARRL itself, and its officials when acting in an organizational capacity, can play absolutely no role in distributing candidates' statements or otherwise becoming involved in a campaign. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10797] Re: FW: PLANNED MOTION
by JBellows 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

-----Original Message----- From: JBellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:50 AM To: 'arrl-odv(a)arrl.org' Subject: RE: [ARRL-ODV:10794] Re: PLANNED MOTION Tom is absolutely correct, we don't track our history carefully enough. I certainly didn't recall the Minute 30 2001 Committee Report until I saw his message. The committee recommendation that there be a 3 year interval between National conventions presents a problem if the Hamvention is seeking approval for a 2005 National convention. If we are going to incur any significant additional expense to present the forums and presentations suggested by the ad hoc Committee we will need to justify that expense on the heels of a 2003 National Convention and find a funding source in a time of ongoing tight finances. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10794] Re: PLANNED MOTION I guess we don't track our history very carefully. This is from early 2001... >Report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee > >The charter of the ad hoc committee on National Conventions is derived from >the following minute item from the Minutes of the July, 2000, meeting of the >Board of Directors which is repeated here: > >30. On motion of Mr. Race, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was unanimously VOTED >that an Ad Hoc Committee on National Conventions shall be appointed by the >President. The task of this committee shall be to articulate the purposes >and goals for holding ARRL National Conventions and to identify appropriate >ways to measure the success of National Conventions. The committee will >submit its report to the Board at the Annual Meeting in January, 2001. > >To this end, President Haynie appointed the following to this committee: >Wade Walstrom (Chair), Evelyn Gauzens, and Gary Johnston. > >The committee met several times via conference call to determine what the >purposes and goals for holding National Conventions. > >The committee offers the following statement of purpose and goals. > >PURPOSE: >Establish the ARRL as a visible entity representing the interests of amateur >radio to members, non-members, and the general public. > >Discussion: A national convention is an opportunity for the ARRL to touch >more hams directly and for the membership and the rest of the ham community >to meet the HQ staff, the ARRL officers, and the directors. > >GOALS: >The committee recommends, as a minimum, the following as goals for an ARRL >National Convention: >1. An ARRL National Convention should be held every three (3) years. >Discussion: If the time between conventions is longer than three years, >interest in the convention dwindles. If they occur more often, they tend to >be taken for granted and interest dwindles. > >2. The site selected for a National Convention should be an established >convention/hamfest with a demonstrated two (2) year attendance historical >average of at least 10,000. >Discussion: The committee discussed this goal at length. This stated goal >would essentially limit the site of future National Conventions to one >location and would exclude all other locations from hosting a National >Convention. However, for a National Convention to be where the major >equipment manufacturers will be present, a location with proven attendance >is essential. > >3. An ARRL National Convention should host activities that are unique to a >National Convention and nowhere else. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Establish the National Convention as a gathering where cutting edge >technological forums are presented. >1) Include presentations by the top technical authors who have been recently >published in QST, QEX, etc. >2) Present an award for technical excellence to the best technical >presentation at a National Convention. >b) Establish and present National Awards for exemplary achievement of >volunteers in all phases of amateur radio, such as Club of the Year, Section >Manager of the Year, Emergency Coordinator of the Year, QST Article of the >Year, etc >c) Insure the presence of exhibits of all major amateur radio manufacturers >and dealers. > >4. An ARRL National Convention should maintain an atmosphere that will cause >members to take pride in their ARRL membership and, hopefully, inspire >non-members to become members. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Continue and enhance forums on the use and benefits of amateur radio in >education, amateur radio in space, new operating modes, public service, etc. >b) Continue to encourage participation by the FCC, but expand to include >sample state and local agencies on how amateur radio plays a part in their >operations. >c) Emphasize ARRL efforts preserving and expanding frequency allocation, >establishing relief from public and private antenna restrictions, protection >of the amateur radio spectrum, etc. >d) Use every means possible to allow current members to keep their ARRL >membership current and encourage non-members to become members. > >SUCCESS MEASUREMENT: >If the stated purpose and goals are met, the National Convention will be a >success. >If the attendees leave the National Convention talking about how "awesome" >the convention was, the new technology that presented, the award they >received, or how they are already looking forward to the next National >Convention, the National Convention is a success. > >An additional recommendation that the committee presents is that in the >intervening years between ARRL National Conventions, the ARRL sponsor at >least one "regional" convention, moving the location to different parts of >the country. A "regional" convention would not necessarily be bound by >Section or Division boundaries and would have the same stated purpose as the >National Convention, but with appropriately scaled back goals. > >Respectfully submitted: > >Wade Walstrom >Evelyn Gauzens >Gary Johnston At the January 2001 Board meeting the following was noted: >18. Mr. Race, as Chairman, presented the report of the Volunteer Resources Committee. He described the committee's work on the terms of reference for ARRL's three technical awards, the Certification program, and Section Manager guidance, as well as guidance for other volunteers in the field. He yielded the floor to Mr. Walstrom, who, as Chairman, described the report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee which sets forth recommended minimum requirements for an established convention/hamfest to be considered as a possible site for an ARRL National Convention. So, the report was not formally adopted, though it appears to have some good guidance. I believe there was an earlier report (maybe 1998?) on the same subject, and that's when we chose not to have a national convention every year. What could we do at Dayton next year that would be special? To do something special we have to be ready and willing to spend more money than usual - maybe $20k or so. A separate BPL educational display/seminars/demo would have been the right thing this year. Maybe next year should be the year for getting hams really involved with their state and Congressional representatives. In really poor countries where there are lots of people who don't know how to read or write, there are entrepreneurs who make a good living by writing letters. You go to the village letter-writer, tell him (usually a him) what your problem is and they write the letter for you and make sure it gets mailed to the right place. Today, in the USA, we pay lawyers lots of money to do similar things when we have a serious dispute. How about some kind of on-the-spot letter-writing booth to promote our legislative and FCC agendas? Maybe a germ of an idea there... To me, the real question about Dayton as a national convention site for 2005 is not what they will do for us, but what we want to do for ourselves. Then we can see if it works for those running the show in Dayton. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10795] Re: PLANNED MOTION
by Jim K8JE 29 Jun '04

29 Jun '04

Tom, A-MEN! Whether one thinks of this is "Dayton" doing something for us, it always would end up being whether we do something for ourselves. Well said. Jim W. "In really poor countries where there are lots of people who don't know how to read or write, there are entrepreneurs who make a good living by writing letters. You go to the village letter-writer, tell him (usually a him) what your problem is and they write the letter for you and make sure it gets mailed to the right place. Today, in the USA, we pay lawyers lots of money to do similar things when we have a serious dispute. How about some kind of on-the-spot letter-writing booth to promote our legislative and FCC agendas? Maybe a germ of an idea there... "To me, the real question about Dayton as a national convention site for 2005 is not what they will do for us, but what we want to do for ourselves. Then we can see if it works for those running the show in Dayton." "Tom" Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10794] Re: PLANNED MOTION I guess we don't track our history very carefully. This is from early 2001... >Report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee > >The charter of the ad hoc committee on National Conventions is derived from >the following minute item from the Minutes of the July, 2000, meeting of the >Board of Directors which is repeated here: > >30. On motion of Mr. Race, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was unanimously VOTED >that an Ad Hoc Committee on National Conventions shall be appointed by the >President. The task of this committee shall be to articulate the purposes >and goals for holding ARRL National Conventions and to identify appropriate >ways to measure the success of National Conventions. The committee will >submit its report to the Board at the Annual Meeting in January, 2001. > >To this end, President Haynie appointed the following to this committee: >Wade Walstrom (Chair), Evelyn Gauzens, and Gary Johnston. > >The committee met several times via conference call to determine what the >purposes and goals for holding National Conventions. > >The committee offers the following statement of purpose and goals. > >PURPOSE: >Establish the ARRL as a visible entity representing the interests of amateur >radio to members, non-members, and the general public. > >Discussion: A national convention is an opportunity for the ARRL to touch >more hams directly and for the membership and the rest of the ham community >to meet the HQ staff, the ARRL officers, and the directors. > >GOALS: >The committee recommends, as a minimum, the following as goals for an ARRL >National Convention: >1. An ARRL National Convention should be held every three (3) years. >Discussion: If the time between conventions is longer than three years, >interest in the convention dwindles. If they occur more often, they tend to >be taken for granted and interest dwindles. > >2. The site selected for a National Convention should be an established >convention/hamfest with a demonstrated two (2) year attendance historical >average of at least 10,000. >Discussion: The committee discussed this goal at length. This stated goal >would essentially limit the site of future National Conventions to one >location and would exclude all other locations from hosting a National >Convention. However, for a National Convention to be where the major >equipment manufacturers will be present, a location with proven attendance >is essential. > >3. An ARRL National Convention should host activities that are unique to a >National Convention and nowhere else. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Establish the National Convention as a gathering where cutting edge >technological forums are presented. >1) Include presentations by the top technical authors who have been recently >published in QST, QEX, etc. >2) Present an award for technical excellence to the best technical >presentation at a National Convention. >b) Establish and present National Awards for exemplary achievement of >volunteers in all phases of amateur radio, such as Club of the Year, Section >Manager of the Year, Emergency Coordinator of the Year, QST Article of the >Year, etc >c) Insure the presence of exhibits of all major amateur radio manufacturers >and dealers. > >4. An ARRL National Convention should maintain an atmosphere that will cause >members to take pride in their ARRL membership and, hopefully, inspire >non-members to become members. >Discussion: The committee makes that the following recommendations to >achieve this goal: >a) Continue and enhance forums on the use and benefits of amateur radio in >education, amateur radio in space, new operating modes, public service, etc. >b) Continue to encourage participation by the FCC, but expand to include >sample state and local agencies on how amateur radio plays a part in their >operations. >c) Emphasize ARRL efforts preserving and expanding frequency allocation, >establishing relief from public and private antenna restrictions, protection >of the amateur radio spectrum, etc. >d) Use every means possible to allow current members to keep their ARRL >membership current and encourage non-members to become members. > >SUCCESS MEASUREMENT: >If the stated purpose and goals are met, the National Convention will be a >success. >If the attendees leave the National Convention talking about how "awesome" >the convention was, the new technology that presented, the award they >received, or how they are already looking forward to the next National >Convention, the National Convention is a success. > >An additional recommendation that the committee presents is that in the >intervening years between ARRL National Conventions, the ARRL sponsor at >least one "regional" convention, moving the location to different parts of >the country. A "regional" convention would not necessarily be bound by >Section or Division boundaries and would have the same stated purpose as the >National Convention, but with appropriately scaled back goals. > >Respectfully submitted: > >Wade Walstrom >Evelyn Gauzens >Gary Johnston At the January 2001 Board meeting the following was noted: >18. Mr. Race, as Chairman, presented the report of the Volunteer Resources Committee. He described the committee's work on the terms of reference for ARRL's three technical awards, the Certification program, and Section Manager guidance, as well as guidance for other volunteers in the field. He yielded the floor to Mr. Walstrom, who, as Chairman, described the report of the Ad Hoc National Convention Committee which sets forth recommended minimum requirements for an established convention/hamfest to be considered as a possible site for an ARRL National Convention. So, the report was not formally adopted, though it appears to have some good guidance. I believe there was an earlier report (maybe 1998?) on the same subject, and that's when we chose not to have a national convention every year. What could we do at Dayton next year that would be special? To do something special we have to be ready and willing to spend more money than usual - maybe $20k or so. A separate BPL educational display/seminars/demo would have been the right thing this year. Maybe next year should be the year for getting hams really involved with their state and Congressional representatives. In really poor countries where there are lots of people who don't know how to read or write, there are entrepreneurs who make a good living by writing letters. You go to the village letter-writer, tell him (usually a him) what your problem is and they write the letter for you and make sure it gets mailed to the right place. Today, in the USA, we pay lawyers lots of money to do similar things when we have a serious dispute. How about some kind of on-the-spot letter-writing booth to promote our legislative and FCC agendas? Maybe a germ of an idea there... To me, the real question about Dayton as a national convention site for 2005 is not what they will do for us, but what we want to do for ourselves. Then we can see if it works for those running the show in Dayton. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0