July 2005 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:12816] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Frank Fallon 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Dave, I propose we take a vote to oppose S 786 (The NWS Bill) either by the full board or the EC. I think it would be more PC if the full board voted unanimously to oppose it. And then play up up on web site. Frank...N2FF..... W3KD(a)aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 7/25/2005 12:44:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, > dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > > >> >> It would have been difficult for the EC to discuss S.786 on April 9, >> as it was introduced on April 14. >> >> Like Kay, I think Chris was thinking of HR 298 and HR 1183. >> >> Dave > > > > > Whoops, I was, Sorry. And my comments on Chwat's views were with > respect to 298 and 1183. Not enough coffee this AM, sorry. > > Per Emily Latella, "Never Mind". > > Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12815] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

In a message dated 7/25/2005 12:44:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsumner(a)arrl.org writes: > > It would have been difficult for the EC to discuss S.786 on April 9, as it > was introduced on April 14. > > Like Kay, I think Chris was thinking of HR 298 and HR 1183. > > Dave > Whoops, I was, Sorry. And my comments on Chwat's views were with respect to 298 and 1183. Not enough coffee this AM, sorry. Per Emily Latella, "Never Mind". Chris

1 0

[arrl-odv:12814] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

It would have been difficult for the EC to discuss S.786 on April 9, as it was introduced on April 14. Like Kay, I think Chris was thinking of HR 298 and HR 1183. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Craigie, Kay (2nd Vice President) Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:30 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12813] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786 I'm confused. It sounds as if Chris is referring to the legislation that would force the national wildlife service to let DXpeditioners do their thing on those islands that are now off-limits. I can see why that proposal would create some bad karma for ham radio on the Hill and why its existence would annoy John Chwat. However, I think Tom was talking about the Santorum legislation that would make the national weather service stop "competing" with the private sector weather outfits, the biggest of which is helping Santorum fund his re-election campaign. From the article Tom cited, it's not so clear to experts what the effects of this legislation would be, but one potential down-side would be hampering the Skywarn program that's an important part of ham radio public service in many areas of the country. Seems to me that hams do have a dog in this fight and that the ARRL might reasonably oppose the legislation because it could hinder amateurs from performing life-saving service to our communities during severe weather emergencies. It's not jumping out at me why the Santorum legislation per se would be perceived on the Hill as showing ham radio in a negative light at the present time or how our taking a position against this unpopular proposal would have any harmful effect on our overall legislative effort. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12813] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Kay Craigie 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

I'm confused. It sounds as if Chris is referring to the legislation that would force the national wildlife service to let DXpeditioners do their thing on those islands that are now off-limits. I can see why that proposal would create some bad karma for ham radio on the Hill and why its existence would annoy John Chwat. However, I think Tom was talking about the Santorum legislation that would make the national weather service stop "competing" with the private sector weather outfits, the biggest of which is helping Santorum fund his re-election campaign. From the article Tom cited, it's not so clear to experts what the effects of this legislation would be, but one potential down-side would be hampering the Skywarn program that's an important part of ham radio public service in many areas of the country. Seems to me that hams do have a dog in this fight and that the ARRL might reasonably oppose the legislation because it could hinder amateurs from performing life-saving service to our communities during severe weather emergencies. It's not jumping out at me why the Santorum legislation per se would be perceived on the Hill as showing ham radio in a negative light at the present time or how our taking a position against this unpopular proposal would have any harmful effect on our overall legislative effort. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:12811] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by W3KD＠aol.com 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

In a message dated 7/25/2005 8:14:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > I guess the bottom line was that we (John, Chris, etc) didn't think there > was a real chance if it becoming law, so we didn't take any action. > > I'm second-guessing that now after reading an article about it in > Information World: > http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702845 > > I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the > NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us > to publicly state that we do not support S.786. > I should note that though John Chwat thought that this bill created difficulties for his efforts and left a rather negative impression about Amateur Radio with those on the Hill that were aware of it, the Executive Committee reviewed the matter during The Big Snow meeting in Denver this "Spring" and decided to simply abstain. Not wanting to speak for John Chwat who perhaps should be asked directly, I do feel that he would think Tom's suggestion a good one. It really doesn't have much support, but that is not really the issue; the issue is what the effect is of this Bill on our legislative effort. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[arrl-odv:12810] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Jay, now that the ARRL Letter is out this may be moot, but I've asked that the second and third stories that are frozen at the top of the Web news crawl (Senate bill and BPL additional authorities) be dropped and the Board meeting story be inserted. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:00 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12809] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting Dave: I referred to the link in my original note. The point is what appeared w/o the link was 9 lines and the ARRL diamond. Nothing that would attract attention and even that scrolled off in 4 days. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:59 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12806] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting Jay, the story had a lot more than nine lines, and more photos. Check again. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/19/3/?nc=1 You may be thinking of the brief story Rick put up when the meeting got underway. Dave K1ZZ _____ From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 9:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12805] Web Piece on July Board Meeting What are we saying to our members about the importance of ARRL Board Meetings, when the Web Story about the meeting is an unremarkable nine lines (with a link), posted on July 19th and scrolled off just 4 days later? The stories about educators talking to the ISS astronauts and the ARISS repeater had better graphics and more space. For that matter just about every story in the past week was more eye-catching. There was more information about the meeting in Tuck Miller's piece on Pasternak's "Amateur Radio Newsline" and he wasn't even there. I was under the impression that when we pulled the Board minutes for QST that a real effort would be made to keep members apprised of Board activities. If ARRL is truly the National Association of Amateur Radio and we are serious about trying to keep members informed, interested and engaged in nuts and bolts Amateur issues, our Web Page, as well as, QST ought to reflect that belief. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:12809] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting
by John Bellows 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Dave: I referred to the link in my original note. The point is what appeared w/o the link was 9 lines and the ARRL diamond. Nothing that would attract attention and even that scrolled off in 4 days. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:59 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12806] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting Jay, the story had a lot more than nine lines, and more photos. Check again. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/19/3/?nc=1 You may be thinking of the brief story Rick put up when the meeting got underway. Dave K1ZZ _____ From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 9:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12805] Web Piece on July Board Meeting What are we saying to our members about the importance of ARRL Board Meetings, when the Web Story about the meeting is an unremarkable nine lines (with a link), posted on July 19th and scrolled off just 4 days later? The stories about educators talking to the ISS astronauts and the ARISS repeater had better graphics and more space. For that matter just about every story in the past week was more eye-catching. There was more information about the meeting in Tuck Millers piece on Pasternaks Amateur Radio Newsline and he wasnt even there. I was under the impression that when we pulled the Board minutes for QST that a real effort would be made to keep members apprised of Board activities. If ARRL is truly the National Association of Amateur Radio and we are serious about trying to keep members informed, interested and engaged in nuts and bolts Amateur issues, our Web Page, as well as, QST ought to reflect that belief. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:12808] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

Procedurally the Executive Committee either can decide to do this, or can order a mail vote of the Board, the result of which would be binding on the EC. Dave ________________________________ From: Fallon, Frank (Dir, Hudson) Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 3:49 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12803] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786 I would like to second Tom's suggestion here. I think we need to go public here and I do not see any downside from this action. But I do think there could be a downside if we do not take a position; our members expect it. Even if we think the bill is going to go nowhere, which I hope it will, I think we need to be on the record as opposing this bill. Frank...N2FF..... Tom Frenaye wrote: > >I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us to publicly state that we do not support S.786. > > -- Tom > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:12806] Re: Web Piece on July Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

Jay, the story had a lot more than nine lines, and more photos. Check again. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/19/3/?nc=1 You may be thinking of the brief story Rick put up when the meeting got underway. Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 9:02 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12805] Web Piece on July Board Meeting What are we saying to our members about the importance of ARRL Board Meetings, when the Web Story about the meeting is an unremarkable nine lines (with a link), posted on July 19th and scrolled off just 4 days later? The stories about educators talking to the ISS astronauts and the ARISS repeater had better graphics and more space. For that matter just about every story in the past week was more eye-catching. There was more information about the meeting in Tuck Miller's piece on Pasternak's "Amateur Radio Newsline" and he wasn't even there. I was under the impression that when we pulled the Board minutes for QST that a real effort would be made to keep members apprised of Board activities. If ARRL is truly the National Association of Amateur Radio and we are serious about trying to keep members informed, interested and engaged in nuts and bolts Amateur issues, our Web Page, as well as, QST ought to reflect that belief. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[arrl-odv:12805] Web Piece on July Board Meeting
by John Bellows 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

What are we saying to our members about the importance of ARRL Board Meetings, when the Web Story about the meeting is an unremarkable nine lines (with a link), posted on July 19th and scrolled off just 4 days later? The stories about educators talking to the ISS astronauts and the ARISS repeater had better graphics and more space. For that matter just about every story in the past week was more eye-catching. There was more information about the meeting in Tuck Millers piece on Pasternaks Amateur Radio Newsline and he wasnt even there. I was under the impression that when we pulled the Board minutes for QST that a real effort would be made to keep members apprised of Board activities. If ARRL is truly the National Association of Amateur Radio and we are serious about trying to keep members informed, interested and engaged in nuts and bolts Amateur issues, our Web Page, as well as, QST ought to reflect that belief. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0