November 2006 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:14775] Re: Omnibus Comments Web Page
by Tom Frenaye 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

At 01:14 PM 10/16/2006, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote: >The ARRLWeb page that has been collecting member comments on the FCC omnibus proceeding is now available for viewing by Board members at: http://www.arrl.org/members-only/mailresp.html > >It will properly display the text of any message that contains a plain-text version of its contents. It will NOT show HTML messages in HTML because of the potential for spam/phishing. >Dave K1ZZ After WT 04-140 came out a month ago, the Bandplan Committee decided it would be useful to ask members for input on revisions to the existing bandplans as a result of the changes the FCC made. Newington set up an e-mail address for comments to be sent to, and has had a web news item on the home page for the last month. The original deadline that was set for comments was October 31st, but that was extended until the FCC decision is published in the Federal Register. I'm pretty sure VP Roderick (committee chairman) didn't expect to get what has come into the e-mail address. Me either.... There are about 600 e-mails so far, and another couple are coming in daily. I've read more than 90% of them and thought it might be useful to give the Board some feedback - since a lot of the input does NOT have to do with revising band plans. 1) All of those sending in comments received a brief reply message saying: >Thank you for taking the time to respond to the ARRL's request for >comments on the FCC's recent "omnibus" proceeding. Although we cannot >reply to individual e-mails, rest assured that your comments ARE being >read and considered by the ARRL Board of Directors. 2) Only about 5% of the messages have any useful information related to band plans. Most of them are comments about the FCC Report & Order, some in favor, some not. 3) Since most comments are about the R&O and specific likes and dislikes, all Board members ought to at least review the comments from members in their own Divisions. 4) The quickly-put-together tool for viewing incoming messages is not very good. There is no easy way to quickly go through the messages or to just select those in a particular Division. 5) A lot of people voiced strong opinions about the FCC and the ARRL - much stronger than I expected (plus and minus). This R&O, as "minor" was it may be (mostly impacting 80/75m) has generated a lot of emotion. This should probably tell us something about what will happen when the FCC rules on the Morse Code and regulation by bandwidth petitions. We should probably work out some plans to handle the "controversy" (change). 6) A large number of those who commented have some facts wrong, even with our web stories. They also do not understand that we gathered considerable input on the refarming proposal a few years ago, and that at this point the FCC action is final (barring a Petition for Reconsideration). 7) It's interesting that some General Class licensees see 04-140 as a reversal of what happened with incentive licensing (that must mean they are SSB operators, not CW/digital). 8) As might be expected, there are lots of comments critical of moving SSB down to 3600, though most appear to be willing to settle for 3650. There is a lot of concern about wide digital modes like Winlink - some coming from people in state EOCs, etc. If the R&O in the Federal Register does not resolve the wide digital issue, I think we need to file for Reconsideration. I'm also pretty convinced we should do the same for SSB down to 3650. In any case, I found that I wanted to reply to all of those in New England that had submitted comments. In order to do that, I had to scan through all of the comments... So I extracted them all, put them in a MS Word document so they could be read more easily and looked up each one so I could tell what Division they were all from. Mr Weaver gets the gold star for the most comments submitted from a Division, probably as a result of his newsletter (he also got the most comments from never- or former members). Not sure why the SW Division had so few comments. So, the attached file is about 1.3mb - 170 pages. If you find it too cumbersome to go through to look for your constituents, let me know and I'll extract the comments from just your Division and send them in a separate message. Note there are comments from 28 former members and 11 who have never been members - an opportunity to sign them up... I highly recommend that you at least acknowledge each one from your Division. My remaining questions: 1) Should we modify anything about our bandwidth petition based on what the FCC did in 04-140? 2) Will W1AW be moving on 80m? -- Tom DivisionTotal messagesFrom former membersFrom never members ATL4331 CEN351 DAK10 DEL251 GL6571 HUD291 MID363 NE541 NW5622 PAC2611 RM282 ROA5531 SE5722 SW1921 WG461 UNK6 5802811 ===== 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

RE: [arrl-odv:14765] More on Red Cross background checks
by John Bellows 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

Mike asks the question what should we, as the governing board of ARRL, to protect those of our members who volunteer their services to ARC local chapters? He suggests we haven't done enough. It seem to me that our obligation is to alert our members that the information requested goes well beyond the information need for a criminal background check and provides inquiry as the members credit and "lifestyle." My understanding is that is precisely what has been done. Much as I would like to tell members that they should tell the ARC to "take a hike" because the other information being requested is simply none of its' business, it seems to me that decision best left to each individual member. There are underlying questions from an organizational standpoint such as, should the MOU with ARC be renewed without substantial revision and; is the ARC seeking to co-opt our member volunteers through this and similar policies? We should keep these questions in mind but I don't think weneed to answer them today. 73, Jay. KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 4:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14765] More on Red Cross background checks It is heartening to hear that so many of us are concerned about these checks, though knowing you all to some degree, I'm not a bit surprised :-) However, all this chatter serves no one but ourselves. We need to DO something. I suggest the following: 1 - understand what the ANRC is really trying to accomplish In my earlier email I suggested two questions. I repeat them here. a - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? b - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. Joel and Dave - can you or someone at HQ make a direct inquiry to the ANRC with these questions? If the response you get is not a clear and direct answer (ie., is more political spin-doctoring ala Ms. Howe), could you tell them so, and insist on bumping the matter up the chain of command to someone who can and will answer directly? Let them know, if they do not honestly and directly address the issue, that the failure to do so will have negative impact on their ability to get Amateur Radio volunteers. 2 - determine if they are concerned that they might lose volunteers As above, this is also a direct question, though its purpose is more to get a read on whether or not the ANRC is seriously reconsidering their position. 3 - strengthen our statements to our members. Joel's October 24 statement is pretty good, if you read the whole thing. However, the presentation in the article that's up on the site today seems weak to me. PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I am not suggesting that we tell people not to consent to the check. What I am suggesting is that we highlight the problem very much more bluntly. Perhaps large, bold letters saying something like: "You should consider very carefully whether you wish to consent to these requests for information. A substantial number of your League officials consider them unnecessary and over reaching." I believe we have an obligation to our members to warn them in no uncertain terms. Telling them to read the fine print is just a cop-out. Come on, guys!! Remember this C&W classic? How about "A Little Less Talk and a Lot More Action" Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

1 0

[arrl-odv:14772] Re: Red Cross background check
by Henry R. Leggette 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

Jim, I agree on the issues discussed concerning the ARC background checks. Working for the FAA, I have never had a background check completed by anyone other than a law enforcement agency. I have been in two areas of my Division and I have heard two differant concepts about background checks. One group was saying they are only asking for criminal checks and the other group said they want the three checks in question. I called the ARC and it appears they maybe wanting to do all three checks. I called the ARC and I didn't get a clear understanding if they wanted to do only criminal background checks for ARES and hams. This is going to be a hard issue to sell. I believe everyone will more or less agree with a criminal background check is needed. Someone in LA told me it was bad business in LA and MS; however, the ARC is trying to cover their mistakes. Jim, I saw somewhere the MOU between ARC and ARES (us) is up for renewal in early 2007. 73, Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Weaver" <k8je(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:54 PM Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check Mike, I'm not planning to up the ante on ODV, but I've already discussed the stupidity of the Mybackgroundcheck.com requirement that people "us" volunteers must give approval for Credit and mode of living checks via my monthly (or more often) newsletter to members. I've also drafted a letter to the local Chapter with copies to my friend, the Disaster Chairman in which I give approval for RC to do a criminal check only on me and chastise them for their abysmal business practice regarding the other checks. This attitude (as Joel knows) has not been popular with a couple of Great Lakes Division members, but is supported by most of them who have expressed an opinion. I have no idea how other members of the Board Family feel regarding any possible outright recommendation against giving permission to the checks, but I do not intend to recommend against any GLD member giving approval to the whole enchilada. Conversely, I certainly will not recommend to any of them that they give such OK. I suggest that the caution Joel gave to members is as far as we ought to go under existing circumstances. Having said this, I understand fully that the National office of the ANRC is about as arrogant as any group of people can be. (My familiarity with the Cincinnati Area Chapter is delightfully different.) Nonetheless, I am a little disappointed that our supposed good relations with ANRC don't seem to have provided any benefit (including prior warning and the ability to discuss the pending situation) whatsoever. I realize I am naïve when it comes to many practices monitored and managed by HQ, but I would have hoped we would have had some mechanism for initiating productive discussions before a bomb of this type had been dropped. It would seem to me that our MOU with the RC is essentially worthless if it does not foster mutual discussions on thorny topics. OK, someone, shoot me down. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check Below is a quote from Red Cross's Laura Howe, as presented in the ARRL letter today. Sure looks fishy to me. It's political BS, and, of course, you all know it ;-) I think some VERY direct answers from the Red Cross are in order. 1 - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? 2 - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. At this point, if I am asked by any ham what I would do if I were asked to give the consent requested by the Red Cross, I will respond quite directly that I would not give consent. Lest you think I'm opposed to all checks, let me point out that as chairman and member of a charter school board, I have had to fill out annual financial disclosure forms, and to submit to criminal background checks (called CORI Checks here in Massachusetts.) These make sense in the context of the position held. No one, however, has ever asked me for a credit check in these contexts. It seems to me that the "tread cautiously and read very carefully ..." pablum that we have been dishing out as advice to our members is an order of magnitude too weak. Guess I'll be sitting out the next hurricane :-( Mike K1TWF PS - let's up the ante a little. I ask each of you to state to ODV whether or not you have or will sign up for this check. Please explain your answer, and please indicate whether you are willing to share your answer with your consitiuents. ----------------------- "The Red Cross realizes some volunteers may have concerns about authorizing a credit check. Those concerns are understandable," Howe said. "But please rest assured that credit checks are only run in rare instances and are not a part of the routine minimum basic check the Red Cross performs on employees or volunteers." Howe told the League that the "standard minimum check" verifies the applicant's Social Security number and a search of the National Criminal File for the past seven years. "While the Red Cross will never run a credit check on the vast majority of its employees and volunteers," she asserted, "it is important that this standard language is included in the consent form to protect our clients, volunteers and employees." ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

2 1

[arrl-odv:14771] Sad News
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

For everyone's information, Dave Patton's mother-in-law, Hilda Eckhardt, passed away over this weekend after a long illness. Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 860 594 0220 www.arrl.org/ hkramer(a)arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:14770] Re: Minimization of DOC and PDF Attachments in ODV Postings
by Brian Mileshosky 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

Dick -- The only attachment I consider improper (better read inconvenient) net "etiquette" is one that's 10+ MB large and unexpected. Simple PDF and Word attachments are convenient and quite appropriate for conducting our business especially since this listserve is our primary means of communication outside of board meetings. I wonder if this listserve has a feature to postpone messages if someone were to go on extended travel...that might be an alternative to unecessarily restricting pertinent attachments. My opinion... 73, Brian, N5ZGT On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Richard J. Norton wrote: > This is a request to those posting to this ODV E-mail reflector to > minimize use of .DOC and .PDF files when conveying information that is > in English language text. > > This is common net etiquette, and in fact many E-mail reflectors would > not even permit such postings. Look up any of the results returned > from searching for "net etiquette attachments" on Google for instance > to confirm this. I suspect that the computers of those posting these > messages are virus-free, but even if they are, it is still an > imposition on 40 or so readers of these postings to require them to > open up word processors to read the content. > > It is possible to compose the messages in Microsoft Word to use > whatever features are desired. The text can then be gathered, and > pasted into the body of the E-mail message. > If you feel that the word processing format adds something to the > presentation, please put the text content into the E-mail, and also > attach the .DOC document. > > This request also applies to the "IN-News." Note that the "ARRL > Letter" that is sent to the membership is already always posted as a > basic text E-mail, and is a fine example of similar content posted in > text form. The boxes around the IN-News fill-in-the-box-scores are not > needed to convey the content. The usefulness or appropriateness of > such box scores can be the subject of another topic. > > Some of you may sit at powerful computers with the latest versions of > word processors. On the other hand, I just spent a few weeks in > Australia where at times I was paying $2 for 15 or 20 minutes of > computer time on, possibly on a computer that would not let me open an > attachment if I wanted to. The net result was that sometimes > attachments were not read. > > Thank for your consideration of this request. > > 73, > > Dick Norton, N6AA > > ARRL Vice-Director, Rocky Mountain Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:14769] Re: Red Cross Background Check
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

I too will not submit to the Red Cross criteria. Given their logic, the next thing they might other personal information "just in case". I have heard from a few folks here in the Northwestern Division during which we (ARRL) were blamed for the issue due to the MOU with the Red Caross. I explained that this was a recent Red Cross directive and that the ARRL had a comment from Joel on the web. That seemed to satisfy the concern. Let's hope this directive suddenly fades away, for the benefit of all of us! 73 Jim K9JF

1 0

Minimization of DOC and PDF Attachments in ODV Postings
by Richard J. Norton 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

This is a request to those posting to this ODV E-mail reflector to minimize use of .DOC and .PDF files when conveying information that is in English language text. This is common net etiquette, and in fact many E-mail reflectors would not even permit such postings. Look up any of the results returned from searching for "net etiquette attachments" on Google for instance to confirm this. I suspect that the computers of those posting these messages are virus-free, but even if they are, it is still an imposition on 40 or so readers of these postings to require them to open up word processors to read the content. It is possible to compose the messages in Microsoft Word to use whatever features are desired. The text can then be gathered, and pasted into the body of the E-mail message. If you feel that the word processing format adds something to the presentation, please put the text content into the E-mail, and also attach the .DOC document. This request also applies to the "IN-News." Note that the "ARRL Letter" that is sent to the membership is already always posted as a basic text E-mail, and is a fine example of similar content posted in text form. The boxes around the IN-News fill-in-the-box-scores are not needed to convey the content. The usefulness or appropriateness of such box scores can be the subject of another topic. Some of you may sit at powerful computers with the latest versions of word processors. On the other hand, I just spent a few weeks in Australia where at times I was paying $2 for 15 or 20 minutes of computer time on, possibly on a computer that would not let me open an attachment if I wanted to. The net result was that sometimes attachments were not read. Thank for your consideration of this request. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:14767] Red Cross Background Check
by dick＠pobox.com 12 Nov '06

12 Nov '06

11 NOV 2006 - 1800 CST After reading all the input on this topic - particularly what Joel Harrison, Kay Craigie, and Bill Edgar have said - the nature of this issue tells me I would not submit to a credit or a life style check required by the Red Cross and performed by their apparently inept civilian contractor. As for a criminal background check, it would have to be performed by competent police authority such as the FBI or better. I have already been asked by one ARRL member what I think about this Red Cross requirement. I advised that person that the requirement is the fall-out from data theft by at least one Red Cross employee and misuse of funds by other employees. Therefore, I would not submit to any type of check by the Red Cross as specified above. For liability reasons, I understand we cannot publish a strong warning that spells out the reasons for such a warning. However, we surely can modify our MOU to clarify the status of ARES personnel providing emergency communications services on behalf of the Red Cross and to put into place ironclad background investigation requirements that do not allow blanket acceptance of credit and life style checks. - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:14765] More on Red Cross background checks
by Mike Raisbeck 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

It is heartening to hear that so many of us are concerned about these checks, though knowing you all to some degree, I'm not a bit surprised :-) However, all this chatter serves no one but ourselves. We need to DO something. I suggest the following: 1 - understand what the ANRC is really trying to accomplish In my earlier email I suggested two questions. I repeat them here. a - WHY is it important that the credit check language be included? b - Since the credit check is apparently quite rare, WHY must the consent be given ahead of time? Why not request the permission only when there is an intent to run a credit check. Joel and Dave - can you or someone at HQ make a direct inquiry to the ANRC with these questions? If the response you get is not a clear and direct answer (ie., is more political spin-doctoring ala Ms. Howe), could you tell them so, and insist on bumping the matter up the chain of command to someone who can and will answer directly? Let them know, if they do not honestly and directly address the issue, that the failure to do so will have negative impact on their ability to get Amateur Radio volunteers. 2 - determine if they are concerned that they might lose volunteers As above, this is also a direct question, though its purpose is more to get a read on whether or not the ANRC is seriously reconsidering their position. 3 - strengthen our statements to our members. Joel's October 24 statement is pretty good, if you read the whole thing. However, the presentation in the article that's up on the site today seems weak to me. PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I am not suggesting that we tell people not to consent to the check. What I am suggesting is that we highlight the problem very much more bluntly. Perhaps large, bold letters saying something like: "You should consider very carefully whether you wish to consent to these requests for information. A substantial number of your League officials consider them unnecessary and over reaching." I believe we have an obligation to our members to warn them in no uncertain terms. Telling them to read the fine print is just a cop-out. Come on, guys!! Remember this C&W classic? How about "A Little Less Talk and a Lot More Action" Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check
by Jim Weaver 11 Nov '06

11 Nov '06

Kay, Another incongruity as I see it in Red Cross' position on background checks is that they express no willingness to accept criminal background checks done by law enforcement agencies. For example, at least many (all?) RACES groups require official members of RACES to have been run through NCIC by the local sheriff before issuing a RACES ID card. Similarly, many members of ARES units that work with EMA or police agencies have criminal checks performed on them before they are authorized access to sensitive areas in comm. centers and such. Other than because of the old Not-Invented-Here syndrome, shouldn't we expect a prudent Red Cross to jump at the opportunity to save money (that it spends in buying background checks) by embracing the results of these pre-performed checks? Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 7:40 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:14754] Red Cross background check I understand the Red Cross's need to protect their corporate backsides and protect the clients they serve, and I would agree to a criminal background check done on me by a law enforcement agency. However, Red Cross has claimed that they can't do their checks through a law enforcement agency. The only reason I can think of that they couldn't do it via law enforcement is that they are leaving open the option of doing *more* than a criminal background check. They say they don't intend to do credit and lifestyle checks but they need prior authorization to do such checks in case they change their mind and decide they do need to do such checks about some individual for reasons that they do not specify. If that ain't double talk, it will do until double talk comes along. There is no mechanism I know of for an individual who is ruled out by this background check outfit to find out why he or she was deemed unfit to serve and to provide any information in his or her defense. What are the criteria for deciding who's okay and who is not? Nobody is saying. So there's the Big Brother angle and then there's the risk of identity theft, a whole 'nother ballgame as we said when I was a kid down south. The bottom line for me is that I'm hearing way too much double-talk from the Red Cross and I do not find some of their assertions and assurances to be credible. As a private individual, I would refuse to authorize the background check they require. As an Officer of the League, I think that given the present state of the MOU and the silence of ARRL policy on this kind of thing, President Harrison's advice to "look before you leap" was the right tone to take. The whole issue of credentialling for ARES disaster communications volunteers deployed outside their home areas is a very thorny one. The ad hoc committee that I am chairing will endeavor to shed light on the key points of the dilemma in our report to you. For now, the 25-cent version is that the background check thing is not solely a Red Cross issue and it isn't going away. We're going to have to devise a policy and review agreements with national served agencies. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0