January 2007 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:15111] Re: Another Life Membership Plea
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

If this sounds familiar, it's because at Minute 49 of the January 2006 Board Meeting the Board asked A&F to study it. A&F did, and in July reported back that it recommended no change. Dick Norton's concept is a slightly different wrinkle. I'm not a tax attorney, but if a member were to claim a portion of Life Membership dues as a tax-deductible contribution the member might need one to defend that position. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Henry R. Leggette [mailto:wd4q@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:23 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15108] Re: Another Life Membership Plea This sound like a popular thing to do. Can we afford to do this? Would we be preparing to have a regular membership dues increase by taking such an action within the next year or so? I am in for taking a study on the reduced Life Membership for members over 65 that want it. I would take a large and hard look at the finance side. Would we shoot ourselves in the foot? If it is not a large amount of saving, I would have mixed feelings if it was very many to take advantage of the new rates. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: dick(a)pobox.com To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:15099] Re: Another Life Membership Plea 9 JAN 2007 - 1220 CST Like a broken record, I still believe we need to establish an age-based life membership. Yes, there might be some cash revenue loss. But I think the reduction in membership renewal expense might offset this cost. If such a life membership could be revenue neutral, or very close to it, we should set it up. FYI, Gayle D Zickefoose, W9ESS (born 1934) is a current ARRL member. - Dick, W9GIG ======================================================================= Delivered-To: dick(a)pobox.com Received: from mail.sisna.com (mailx.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by cobalt.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DD1400091 for <dick(a)pobox.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dmtomc9 [71.57.100.82] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.15) id AE1B26C8001E; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:09:15 -0700 From: "Tom Ciciora" <ttc2301(a)sisna.com> To: <JamesGDZ(a)aol.com> Subject: RE: Life Membership Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:10:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01c732f4$1ab7a340$6401a8c0@dmtomc9> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C732C1.D01D3340" This is a proposal which our Central Division Director, Dick Isely W9GIG has been pitching to the ARRL board. I have not spoken to him about it recently, but will. 73-- Tom KA9QPN _____ From: JamesGDZ(a)aol.com [ <mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com> mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:13 PM To: ka9qpn(a)arrl.org Subject: Life Membership Dear Tom: Received you e mail about the deletion of the code requirements for an amateur license. I have read you position concerning the necessity of living with the reality of the circumstances. I have another issue that I have attempted to present to the "powers that be" in The ARRL. Thus far I have never received an answer that would address the reality of our ham radio community. Each representative when have presented my proposal have agreed with my viewpoint but I always get that same response (if I get a response at all). The national officers do not want to consider any changes. MY proposal concerns the life membership which is offered. I am in my 70's with my projected life expectancy, the current price to not a sound economic decision. I have been an officer in veterans organizations, which were faced with this same problem. Many due to limited incomes and unexpected expenses (usually medical and/or physical disability) let their memberships lapse. There were times when a conservator had been appointed to manage the financial affairs as the member was physical disabled. Thus the organization lost membership numbers that are extremely important whenever politically lobbying in defense of and improvements for the organization. The average of the ARRL member is u=increaseing years, to the best of my knowledge. What is the percentage of licensed amateur operators which are members of the ARRL? How many of the "lapsed" or non members are like me living on a fixed income? Has the ARRL ever considered polling these non-member concerning this problem? I have been a member whenever possible, but during the years I was raising 5 boy and 3 girls there were times that difficult financial choices had be made. At the present time I am an active member however the lack of consideration response to what I consider a valid question and proposal has caused me revaluate my participation as an ARRL member. I am presenting this to you in response top your plea to the membership to consider the common good and the future of the whole. I feel that if the ARRL national leadership would offer a life membership with a threshold of 60 or 65 at an appropriate rate, which makes a valid economic choice, there are a number of licensed amateur operators that would join the fold. An increase of the membership would be of real value in the proposed goals of The ARRL, in my opinion. I'll be looking forward to receiving a response from a national officer in response to your submission of my proposal. Should there be no response then I will have to presume that what many are saying concerning the lack of concern by the national representatives has at least some degree of validity. 73's Gayle Zickefoose W9ESS

1 0

[arrl-odv:15109] IAVP Report, Doc #7
by Rod Stafford W6ROD 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Lisa - Attached is my report to the ARRL Board. Would you please reproduce it and place it in the meeting books. Thanks very much. Rod Stafford

1 0

[arrl-odv:15108] Re: Another Life Membership Plea
by Henry R. Leggette 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

This sound like a popular thing to do. Can we afford to do this? Would we be preparing to have a regular membership dues increase by taking such an action within the next year or so? I am in for taking a study on the reduced Life Membership for members over 65 that want it. I would take a large and hard look at the finance side. Would we shoot ourselves in the foot? If it is not a large amount of saving, I would have mixed feelings if it was very many to take advantage of the new rates. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: dick(a)pobox.com To: arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:15099] Re: Another Life Membership Plea 9 JAN 2007 - 1220 CST Like a broken record, I still believe we need to establish an age-based life membership. Yes, there might be some cash revenue loss. But I think the reduction in membership renewal expense might offset this cost. If such a life membership could be revenue neutral, or very close to it, we should set it up. FYI, Gayle D Zickefoose, W9ESS (born 1934) is a current ARRL member. - Dick, W9GIG ======================================================================= Delivered-To: dick(a)pobox.com Received: from mail.sisna.com (mailx.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by cobalt.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DD1400091 for <dick(a)pobox.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:41:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dmtomc9 [71.57.100.82] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.15) id AE1B26C8001E; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:09:15 -0700 From: "Tom Ciciora" <ttc2301(a)sisna.com> To: <JamesGDZ(a)aol.com> Subject: RE: Life Membership Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:10:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01c732f4$1ab7a340$6401a8c0@dmtomc9> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C732C1.D01D3340" This is a proposal which our Central Division Director, Dick Isely W9GIG has been pitching to the ARRL board. I have not spoken to him about it recently, but will. 73-- Tom KA9QPN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: JamesGDZ(a)aol.com [ mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:13 PM To: ka9qpn(a)arrl.org Subject: Life Membership Dear Tom: Received you e mail about the deletion of the code requirements for an amateur license. I have read you position concerning the necessity of living with the reality of the circumstances. I have another issue that I have attempted to present to the "powers that be" in The ARRL. Thus far I have never received an answer that would address the reality of our ham radio community. Each representative when have presented my proposal have agreed with my viewpoint but I always get that same response (if I get a response at all). The national officers do not want to consider any changes. MY proposal concerns the life membership which is offered. I am in my 70's with my projected life expectancy, the current price to not a sound economic decision. I have been an officer in veterans organizations, which were faced with this same problem. Many due to limited incomes and unexpected expenses (usually medical and/or physical disability) let their memberships lapse. There were times when a conservator had been appointed to manage the financial affairs as the member was physical disabled. Thus the organization lost membership numbers that are extremely important whenever politically lobbying in defense of and improvements for the organization. The average of the ARRL member is u=increaseing years, to the best of my knowledge. What is the percentage of licensed amateur operators which are members of the ARRL? How many of the "lapsed" or non members are like me living on a fixed income? Has the ARRL ever considered polling these non-member concerning this problem? I have been a member whenever possible, but during the years I was raising 5 boy and 3 girls there were times that difficult financial choices had be made. At the present time I am an active member however the lack of consideration response to what I consider a valid question and proposal has caused me revaluate my participation as an ARRL member. I am presenting this to you in response top your plea to the membership to consider the common good and the future of the whole. I feel that if the ARRL national leadership would offer a life membership with a threshold of 60 or 65 at an appropriate rate, which makes a valid economic choice, there are a number of licensed amateur operators that would join the fold. An increase of the membership would be of real value in the proposed goals of The ARRL, in my opinion. I'll be looking forward to receiving a response from a national officer in response to your submission of my proposal. Should there be no response then I will have to presume that what many are saying concerning the lack of concern by the national representatives has at least some degree of validity. 73's Gayle Zickefoose W9ESS

1 0

Fwd: [SEDXC] Alabama Ham Climbs Tower in Protest
by Sandy Donahue,W4RU 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Ham takes legislative action into his own hands---or other body parts. 73 Sandy --- JT Croteau <jt.w6fo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:07:18 -0500 > From: "JT Croteau" <jt.w6fo(a)gmail.com> > To: "*SEDXC Group" <sedxc(a)contesting.com> > Subject: [SEDXC] Alabama Ham Climbs Tower in Protest > > Have you guys seen this yet? > > Jan. 05 2007,09:20 by > kg4rpe > Wayne Spires (KF4BJT), a Wetumpka, AL ham is now sitting perched a > top his > 68 > foot radio tower behind his house in protest of a judges ruling > forcing him > to become a part of a homeowners association. He says that 20 years > ago when > he > bought the property located along the river that it was listed as > unrestricted. > He has been atop the tower for about three or four days and says he > will not > come down until his next court date which is scheduled for Feb. 5th. > > The nationaly syndicated radio team Rick and Bubba out of WZZK 104.7 > in > Birmingham, AL interviewed Mr. Spires, his wife, and a daughter live > by > phone > this > morning. They also talked yesterday by phone to the sheriff who said > as long > as > Mr. Spires does not try to hurt himself or somebody else his > department > will not interfere. William "Bubba" Bussey (KJ4JJ) the co-host of > Rick and > Bubba, explained on yesterday's show the importance ham radio can > play in a > time of emergency and the importance for good towers for hams to own > and > use. > (Bubba is a very active ham and promotes it often on their program.) > > His family as well as other neighbors, friends, and hams all are > sending > their > support to him. > > for another report with pics, check: > > http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5883357&nav=0RdM > > -- > JT Croteau, W6FO - Canton, GA > _______________________________________________ > SEDXC mailing list > SEDXC(a)contesting.com > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/sedxc > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: Another Life Membership Plea
by Kay Craigie 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

We already charge a bit less for a Senior Life Membership than for an under-65 Life Membership. Because hams are so tight-fisted we'll squeeze a dollar bill until George Washington's eyeballs bug out, there's no doubt it would be popular to change the price structure for Life Membership to make it cost less for the ever-increasing percentage of hams who are geezers. Unless, maybe, you had just finished paying for Life Membership under the previous rate plan! What's obviously popular may not be what makes the best financial sense for the organization, however. Would we gain enough Life Members to do no worse than break even by charging less and less for the older and older? If we were only to break even, what's the point of doing it? If we think we would gain enough Life Members to actually improve our revenues, what's the factual basis for that belief? How do we know that an actuarially-justifiable rate would sufficiently approximate a rate that would appeal to a large number of our legendarily-thrifty brethren? If I recall correctly from my times on A&F, we do pretty well with the Life Member assets. I doubt we'd want to imperil that in these financially delicate times. What if our predictions about the effects of changing Life Membership rates turned out to be wrong? We're already seeing words in the Plan about annual membership dues needing to rise. Would being wrong about the effect of changing the Life Membership rates hasten the arrival of an annual membership dues increase and necessitate an even larger increase? If we're seeking something popular to do, socking the annual rate members with a big fat increase ain't it. If changing the Life Member rates will increase our revenues without any effect on what annual members pay, then I'm all for it. But I would need to see a lot of hard facts and numbers to be able to evaluate the chances of being right and the risks of being wrong. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

Another Life Membership Plea
by Bruce Frahm K0BJ 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

Dick AA's idea alleviates some negative vibes I have about Dick GIG's. About 20 years ago I was involved in an annuity-based purchase of a family member's asset. We deducted a portion of the annuity payments as interest expense, based on insurance industry life expectancy/present value tables. By best info available this was deemed a grey area but we thought it was "light grey". Two of our group have been audited in intervening years and didn't get nipped. I don't know how well this applies to charitable contributions or to current IRS practices. FWIW 73 Bruce K0BJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> > I suggest we might task our Development Department to investigate the > feasibility and legality of an actuarial-based lifetime membership, > where depending on one's age, some of the cost would be a > tax-deductible donation.

1 0

[arrl-odv:15104] Re: Another Life Membership Plea
by Coy Day 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

I like the idea! -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 Richard J. Norton wrote: > I have suggested this to some of you previously. > > I suggest we might task our Development Department to investigate the > feasibility and legality of an actuarial-based lifetime membership, > where depending on one's age, some of the cost would be a > tax-deductible donation. > > The out-of-pocket costs to the member would be the same, but part of > his costs might be tax-deductible. > > In other words, if a new life-member were 95, and had a life > expectancy of 5 years, is it possible that we could institute a system > where 5 years of membership at the current rate would be a direct > cost, and the remainder would be a contribution? > > Excuse me if this has been previously considered, negatively impacts > other develpment or financial objectives, or is known not to be legal. > > Dick Norton, N6AA > > > On 1/9/07, dick(a)pobox.com <dick(a)pobox.com> wrote: >> >> 9 JAN 2007 - 1220 CST >> >> Like a broken record, I still believe we need to establish an age-based >> life membership. Yes, there might be some cash revenue loss. But I >> think the reduction in membership renewal expense might offset this >> cost. >> If such a life membership could be revenue neutral, or very close to >> it, >> we should set it up. >> >> FYI, Gayle D Zickefoose, W9ESS (born 1934) is a current ARRL member. >> >> - Dick, W9GIG >> >> ======================================================================= >> Delivered-To: dick(a)pobox.com >> Received: from mail.sisna.com (mailx.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by >> cobalt.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DD1400091 for >> <dick(a)pobox.com>; >> Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:41:06 -0500 (EST) >> Received: from dmtomc9 [71.57.100.82] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP >> (SMTPD32-8.15) id AE1B26C8001E; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:09:15 -0700 >> From: "Tom Ciciora" <ttc2301(a)sisna.com> >> To: <JamesGDZ(a)aol.com> >> Subject: RE: Life Membership >> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:10:39 -0600 >> Message-ID: <000f01c732f4$1ab7a340$6401a8c0@dmtomc9> >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C732C1.D01D3340" >> >> This is a proposal which our Central Division Director, Dick Isely >> W9GIG >> has been >> pitching to the ARRL board. I have not spoken to him about it recently, >> but >> will. >> >> 73-- >> Tom KA9QPN >> >> ________________________________ >> From: JamesGDZ(a)aol.com [ mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com] >> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:13 PM >> To: ka9qpn(a)arrl.org >> Subject: Life Membership >> >> Dear Tom: >> >> Received you e mail about the deletion of the code requirements >> for >> an amateur license. I have read you position concerning the necessity >> of >> living with the reality of the circumstances. I have another issue that >> I >> have attempted to present to the "powers that be" in The ARRL. Thus far >> I >> have never received an answer that would address the reality of our ham >> radio community. Each representative when have presented my proposal >> have >> agreed with my viewpoint but I always get that same response (if I get a >> response at all). The national officers do not want to consider any >> changes. >> >> MY proposal concerns the life membership which is offered. I am >> in >> my 70's with my projected life expectancy, the current price to not a >> sound >> economic decision. I have been an officer in veterans organizations, >> which >> were faced with this same problem. Many due to limited incomes and >> unexpected expenses (usually medical and/or physical disability) let >> their >> memberships lapse. There were times when a conservator had been >> appointed to >> manage the financial affairs as the member was physical disabled. Thus >> the >> organization lost membership numbers that are extremely important >> whenever >> politically lobbying in defense of and improvements for the >> organization. >> >> The average of the ARRL member is u=increaseing years, to the >> best >> of my knowledge. What is the percentage of licensed amateur operators >> which >> are members of the ARRL? How many of the "lapsed" or non members are >> like >> me living on a fixed income? Has the ARRL ever considered polling these >> non-member concerning this problem? I have been a member whenever >> possible, >> but during the years I was raising 5 boy and 3 girls there were times >> that >> difficult financial choices had be made. At the present time I am an >> active >> member however the lack of consideration response to what I consider a >> valid >> question and proposal has caused me revaluate my participation as an >> ARRL >> member. >> >> I am presenting this to you in response top your plea to the >> membership to consider the common good and the future of the whole. I >> feel >> that if the ARRL national leadership would offer a life membership with >> a >> threshold of 60 or 65 at an appropriate rate, which makes a valid >> economic >> choice, there are a number of licensed amateur operators that would join >> the >> fold. An increase of the membership would be of real value in the >> proposed >> goals of The ARRL, in my opinion. I'll be looking forward to receiving >> a >> response from a national officer in response to your submission of my >> proposal. >> >> Should there be no response then I will have to presume that >> what >> many are saying concerning the lack of concern by the national >> representatives has at least some degree of validity. >> >> 73's >> >> Gayle Zickefoose W9ESS > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:15103] Power Shut Down at HQ
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

Just as an FYI for the Board: At approximately 6 pm tonight (EST), we will be shutting off the electrical service to the HQ building to install a transfer switch necessary to support a gas powered generator which will be installed in the near future. This installation is the result of recommendations to upgrade our current emergency communications infrastructure and the new generator will support a specific subset of our HQ infrastructure including communications equipment, selected computer servers and our Internet connection. Power will be off for approximately 30-45 minutes at which time all the servers will be restored to normal operations. All ARRL servers will be down during this period including the ones supporting our e-mail and Logbook of the World. 73, Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[arrl-odv:15102] Report on the Teachers Institue
by Hobart, Mary K1MMH 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

Attached is a document for your information that was shared with donors to the Education & Technology Program containing a review and teacher comments on the 2006 Teachers Institutes. 73, Mary K1MMH

1 0

Another Life Membership Plea
by Richard J. Norton 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

I have suggested this to some of you previously. I suggest we might task our Development Department to investigate the feasibility and legality of an actuarial-based lifetime membership, where depending on one's age, some of the cost would be a tax-deductible donation. The out-of-pocket costs to the member would be the same, but part of his costs might be tax-deductible. In other words, if a new life-member were 95, and had a life expectancy of 5 years, is it possible that we could institute a system where 5 years of membership at the current rate would be a direct cost, and the remainder would be a contribution? Excuse me if this has been previously considered, negatively impacts other develpment or financial objectives, or is known not to be legal. Dick Norton, N6AA On 1/9/07, dick(a)pobox.com <dick(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > 9 JAN 2007 - 1220 CST > > Like a broken record, I still believe we need to establish an age-based > life membership. Yes, there might be some cash revenue loss. But I > think the reduction in membership renewal expense might offset this cost. > If such a life membership could be revenue neutral, or very close to it, > we should set it up. > > FYI, Gayle D Zickefoose, W9ESS (born 1934) is a current ARRL member. > > - Dick, W9GIG > > ======================================================================= > Delivered-To: dick(a)pobox.com > Received: from mail.sisna.com (mailx.sisna.com [216.126.204.104]) by > cobalt.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DD1400091 for <dick(a)pobox.com>; > Mon, 8 Jan 2007 03:41:06 -0500 (EST) > Received: from dmtomc9 [71.57.100.82] by mail.sisna.com with ESMTP > (SMTPD32-8.15) id AE1B26C8001E; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:09:15 -0700 > From: "Tom Ciciora" <ttc2301(a)sisna.com> > To: <JamesGDZ(a)aol.com> > Subject: RE: Life Membership > Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:10:39 -0600 > Message-ID: <000f01c732f4$1ab7a340$6401a8c0@dmtomc9> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C732C1.D01D3340" > > This is a proposal which our Central Division Director, Dick Isely W9GIG > has been > pitching to the ARRL board. I have not spoken to him about it recently, but > will. > > 73-- > Tom KA9QPN > > ________________________________ > From: JamesGDZ(a)aol.com [ mailto:JamesGDZ@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:13 PM > To: ka9qpn(a)arrl.org > Subject: Life Membership > > Dear Tom: > > Received you e mail about the deletion of the code requirements for > an amateur license. I have read you position concerning the necessity of > living with the reality of the circumstances. I have another issue that I > have attempted to present to the "powers that be" in The ARRL. Thus far I > have never received an answer that would address the reality of our ham > radio community. Each representative when have presented my proposal have > agreed with my viewpoint but I always get that same response (if I get a > response at all). The national officers do not want to consider any > changes. > > MY proposal concerns the life membership which is offered. I am in > my 70's with my projected life expectancy, the current price to not a sound > economic decision. I have been an officer in veterans organizations, which > were faced with this same problem. Many due to limited incomes and > unexpected expenses (usually medical and/or physical disability) let their > memberships lapse. There were times when a conservator had been appointed to > manage the financial affairs as the member was physical disabled. Thus the > organization lost membership numbers that are extremely important whenever > politically lobbying in defense of and improvements for the organization. > > The average of the ARRL member is u=increaseing years, to the best > of my knowledge. What is the percentage of licensed amateur operators which > are members of the ARRL? How many of the "lapsed" or non members are like > me living on a fixed income? Has the ARRL ever considered polling these > non-member concerning this problem? I have been a member whenever possible, > but during the years I was raising 5 boy and 3 girls there were times that > difficult financial choices had be made. At the present time I am an active > member however the lack of consideration response to what I consider a valid > question and proposal has caused me revaluate my participation as an ARRL > member. > > I am presenting this to you in response top your plea to the > membership to consider the common good and the future of the whole. I feel > that if the ARRL national leadership would offer a life membership with a > threshold of 60 or 65 at an appropriate rate, which makes a valid economic > choice, there are a number of licensed amateur operators that would join the > fold. An increase of the membership would be of real value in the proposed > goals of The ARRL, in my opinion. I'll be looking forward to receiving a > response from a national officer in response to your submission of my > proposal. > > Should there be no response then I will have to presume that what > many are saying concerning the lack of concern by the national > representatives has at least some degree of validity. > > 73's > > Gayle Zickefoose W9ESS

1 0