June 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:16891] New IRS Guidance for Reimbursable Business Travel
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

The Internal Revenue Service has announced that, due to the rising price of gasoline, the optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business purposes will change for the remainder of 2008. Effective for travel during the period of July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, the rate will be 58.5 cents per mile up from the original 50.5 cents per mile applicable for the first half of the year. It has been the ARRL's long standing policy to reimbursement staff and volunteers at the IRS rate for use of their personal vehicles while on organizational business. Also, the IRS decided to leave the allowance for miles driven in service to a charitable organization unchanged at 14 cents/mile. Enclosed is a revised expense reimbursement form in Excel format to be used for travel between July 1 and December 31, 2008. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc-The National Association for Amateur Radio 225 Main St. Newington, CT 06111 www.arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org> Phone: (860) 594-0212 E-mail: bshelley(a)arrl.org <mailto:bshelley@arrl.org> Barry, N1VXY

1 0

[arrl-odv:16890] Another Time
by William Sawders 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

Subject: Another Time I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. Happy 4th of July to all! (If you have speakers...turn em up!) Bill, K7ZM

1 0

[arrl-odv:16889] Updates
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Hi, Pre Field Day FYIs: On the Web: ARRL Audio News Returns to Phone Lines (Jun 27, 2008) -- We are pleased to report that ARRL Audio News <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> can once again be accessed via telephone at 860-594-0384; it had been down for a few days due to equipment failure. Compiled and edited from The ARRL Letter <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/> , ARRL Audio News is available on the League's Web site for two weeks and via telephone for one week after publication. We are sorry for any inconvenience the outage may have caused. Allen Pitts is mailing out the printed copies of the Annual Report to all ODV distribution today. The Field Day Station Locator now indicates that 1,471 FD stations have been entered! The link has also been moved to a more prominent position of the arrl.org home page for the weekend: http://www.arrl.org/contests/announcements/fd/locator.php Kudos to Jon Bloom and Dan Henderson for coming up with this idea! 73, Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 Telephone: 860 594 0220 email: hkramer(a)arrl.org web: www.arrl.org/ <http://www.arrl.org/>

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16887] BPL Court Opinion Status
by K8JE 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Chris, Tnx for the explanation. Good to know. 73, Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! _____ From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 10:39 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: ehare(a)arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:16887] BPL Court Opinion Status Ed Hare was understandably confused recently because he was congratulated by Mitch Lazarus for the BPL decision and told that the Court had issued its Mandate (which it did on June 13), the import of which Ed didn't understand, and which Mitch didn't explain to him. In case you are asked, here is where the BPL Court decision stands now: The decision was released April 25, 2008. FCC had 45 days from the entry of judgment (i.e. until June 9, 2008) to file a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, asking the Court of Appeals, in effect, to review the three-judge panel's decision. FCC did not do that (we did not expect them to) so, the Court of Appeals is of the view that the decision is final from their perspective. Once the Court of Appeals decision is final, the Court issues its Mandate, meaning that the decision is binding on the FCC and is no longer subject to appeal within the Court of Appeals. HOWEVER, the Court's decision is not actually completely final, because the FCC could, if it wanted to, file a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on or before July 24, 2008 asking the Court to agree to hear the case. That is not expected, but it is still possible. Dave, Joel and I are meeting with OET on July 9, to discuss regulatory options post-remand. That meeting would not likely have been scheduled unless the FCC had already decided not to file a cert petition with the Supreme Court. We will have more information for you about this matter prior to the Board Meeting, but after the July 9 OET meeting. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG _____ Get <http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=aolcmp00050000000011> the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16887] BPL Court Opinion Status
by w3kd＠aol.com 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Ed Hare was understandably confused recently because he was congratulated by Mitch Lazarus for the BPL decision and told that the Court had issued its Mandate (which it did on June 13), the import of which Ed didn't understand, and which Mitch didn't explain to him. In case you are asked, here is where the BPL Court decision stands now: The decision was released April 25, 2008. FCC had 45 days from the entry of judgment (i.e. until June 9, 2008)?to file a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, asking the Court of Appeals, in effect, to review the three-judge panel's decision. FCC did not do that (we did not?expect them to) so, the Court of Appeals is of the view that the decision is final from their perspective. Once?the Court of Appeals decision is final, the Court issues its Mandate, meaning that the decision is binding on the FCC and is no longer subject to appeal within the Court of Appeals. HOWEVER,?the Court's decision is?not actually completely final, because the FCC?could, if it wanted to, file?a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court?on or before July 24, 2008 asking the Court to agree to hear the case. That is not expected, but it is?still possible. Dave, Joel and I are meeting with OET on July 9, to discuss regulatory options post-remand.?That meeting would not likely have been scheduled unless the FCC?had already decided not to?file a cert?petition with the Supreme?Court. We will have more information for you about this matter prior to the Board?Meeting,?but after the July 9 OET meeting. 73, Chris W3KD? Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG

1 0

[arrl-odv:16886] Re:RE: RE: Life Memberships
by Joyce Birmingham 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

Ralph, W2CVF, I had known for many years...and he was always promoting Life Membership in ARRL....you are right, Dave....he was always pleased to tell everyone that he was getting his money's worth in Life Membership! It was a great deal back then....and still is. Joyce KA2ANF -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:14 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16880] Re:RE: Life Memberships I was sad to see Ralph, W2CVF in Silent Keys recently, but I don't think he regretted for a moment having signed up for Life Membership just last year -- at age 101. ARRL doesn't lose money, on average, on new Life Members in the Life Membership program. The original Life Members got a very good deal, mainly because the rate at the time was 20 times the annual dues rate (it is now 25 times) and because the inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s raised our costs and forced increases in the term dues. However, since then we have been able to cover the equivalent dues of new LMs from the return on investment of their LM payments. The principal risk to the ARRL in offering Life Membership is that inflation will return without being offset by improved return on investment sufficient to keep pace with rising costs. If you run into an early LM who feels guilty, Mary Hobart has the cure. Dave K1ZZ in Friedrichshafen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Thu 6/26/2008 1:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16876] Re: Life Memberships This is WAY outside anything I ought to be commenting on, but my mentor, Bob Booth, W3PS, always told me that ARRL life membership was not an investment, it was a way of showing support for the organization, and that explained why, quite frequently, very old people become life members for the first time. So perhaps it is best to look at this as Greg does. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: G.P. Widin <gpwidin(a)comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 8:28 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16869] Re: Life Memberships dick(a)pobox.com wrote: > I cannot, with a clear conscience, sell our current (25 x annual) life > membership to a person who is over 50-55 years old. It's great > revenue for > the ARRL, but it's not a good investment for these people. I got my life membership when I was in my late 40s--who knows if I've got 25 years left? But my rationale is, there's no other organization I'd rather "over-pay" to than ARRL. So, if the League benefits by my not achieving the full 25 I "paid for", at least I know it's in a cause I believe in. I don't know if you'd have trouble selling that, but that's the way I sold myself. ;-) -- 73, Greg, KØGW ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16876] Re: Life Memberships
by K8JE 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

I certainly agree with and applaud the idea of using LMs to show support of the League. Even though I bought mine at about the third level of cost for them, my Life Membership was in large part because of my desire to show my firm support. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! _____ From: w3kd(a)aol.com [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:22 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16876] Re: Life Memberships This is WAY outside anything I ought to be commenting on, but my mentor, Bob Booth, W3PS, always told me that ARRL life membership was not an investment, it was a way of showing support for the organization, and that explained why, quite frequently, very old people become life members for the first time. So perhaps it is best to look at this as Greg does. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: G.P. Widin <gpwidin(a)comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 8:28 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16869] Re: Life Memberships dick(a)pobox.com wrote: > I cannot, with a clear conscience, sell our current (25 x annual) life > membership to a person who is over 50-55 years old. It's great > revenue for > the ARRL, but it's not a good investment for these people. I got my life membership when I was in my late 40s--who knows if I've got 25 years left? But my rationale is, there's no other organization I'd rather "over-pay" to than ARRL. So, if the League benefits by my not achieving the full 25 I "paid for", at least I know it's in a cause I believe in. I don't know if you'd have trouble selling that, but that's the way I sold myself. ;-) -- 73, Greg, KØGW _____ Get <http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=aolcmp00050000000011> the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16884] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential
by w3kd＠aol.com 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

Henry, it makes excellent sense. However, the FAA was not and surely is not as dysfunctional as the FCC is now. Dave and I found out recently from the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigators that the Chairman's office has to review and approve even the hiring of GS-7 file clerks and that the Bureau Chiefs have no discretion to hire without the Chairman's office approval. So the House Committee is investigating "FCC mismanagement at the highest levels" (their term) for reasons that are now obvious. The FAA, as you explain quite clearly, didn't (and doesn't) have these problems, and neither did my father's office at the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts when he was there. In fact, the FCC's managerial quagmire has never existed before Kevin Martin became Chairman. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Henry R. Leggette <wd4q(a)bellsouth.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 2:45 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:16883] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential Hi Chris, I am very much shocked that the 1st line supervisor or manager does not have direct input to the hiring of this person. I assume Kathy Berthot, Chief of the Spectrum of the Spectrum Enforcement Division is a GS-15 or a SES. I don't believe the Government have too many GS-16 thru GS 18 since the SES came aboard. Chris, one thing it may be another level of management between Kathy and the FCC Chairman Martin (I believe is continue in place). If so, maybe you need to lobby to them as well. My experience in making selections of a system analyst (better known as electronic Technicians) (GS-12) as an FAA manager, the supervisor (GS-13), my self (GS-14) and the facility manager (GS-15) all had to agree on the selection. It was strong input from all three of us. I hope this make some kind of sense. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:16877] Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential MEMORANDUM To: ARRL ODV -- Confidential From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement Issue Date: June 26, 2008 Greetings. I wanted to bring you up to date on the Riley Hollingsworth replacement issue, because it seems to be a problem in the making, and because it is going in an entirely different direction than Riley allowed us to believe. Riley is retiring July 3. This is not news. He told us this on April 28. But at that time, when Riley announced for the second and obviously now final time that he was retiring, he had led us to understand that his replacement was his “hand-picked” colleague, Bill Knowles-Kellett. He said that Bill would almost certainly be his replacement and wanted the job. I had met Bill on an earlier occasion in Gettysburg and he is certainly competent to take Riley’s place. Bill is not a ham, but was experienced in land mobile radio enforcement issues, which are not significantly different from ours. Riley said that Bill was interested in the job and was going to get a ham license as part of the deal. Riley also said that he would not retire unless he was certain that the enforcement program would continue unabated as he had been doing it. He claimed he had the requisite assurances that this would occur. Then things started to change. Riley said that the Enforcement Bureau would have to post the job publicly, and that Riley was worried that the job would be moved to Washington. If that happened, Riley said that he was concerned that the job would be diluted, and that the person that replaced him might be tasked with a significant number of other enforcement obligations and that Amateur Radio enforcement might take a back seat. Riley had suggested that we meet with his boss in the Enforcement Division, Kathy Berthot, Chief of the Spectrum Enforcement Division. I met with her (and with George Dillon, a colleague of Riley’s at FCC in Washington) in May, and made a strong pitch that Riley’s work be continued unabated. I also mentioned that while I understood that Bill Knowles-Kellett was interested in the job, and we would be satisfied with Bill, we couldn’t attempt to tell the Commission how to run its ship and had no intention of attempting to do so. However, our concern was that the enforcement program in the Amateur Service had validated our strong belief that a very small bit of deterrence in Amateur Radio enforcement is sufficient and necessary, and that we were adamant that the program that Riley has been administering must continue without substantial change. I received hearty assurances from both Kathy and George that they agreed with that. They said that the job had to be posted, and that the resolution of that was out of their hands. We have since learned that the Chairman’s office micromanages all hiring of even the lowest level staff, and that no assurances can be given by anyone at the Bureau level at FCC about any hiring decisions. After that meeting, strong interest in the job was expressed by Laura Smith, a lady who had worked in the past for ITA (now EWA, the Enterprise Wireless Alliance) the former Industrial Telecommunications Association, a land mobile association. She was known to me as an administrative person, but very knowledgeable about land mobile radio regulation. She left ITA and moved, as it turns out, to Carlisle, PA, about 45 minutes from Gettysburg, with her husband, and she is now doing freelance work or contract work from her home in Carlisle for the land mobile lawyers at the Shulman, Rogers law firm in Rockville, MD. She heard of Riley’s job and lobbied hard to get it. Riley and Bill called me to “sell” ARRL on Laura, who at the time seemed to be the front runner for the job. She may still be for all I know. Bill’s being as vocal about it as he was made me think that he didn’t have any interest in the job himself, if indeed he ever really did. The situation deteriorated further when the job was posted. It was posted as a GS-15 job, which has a salary range of between $115K and $145K per year or thereabouts, so it is a pretty spiffy job for anyone who wants it. But it was posted as being “in the Washington area”. Riley thinks this is broad enough to include Gettysburg, but I don’t. I am afraid that it will be a D.C. job and that Riley’s fear about the job being diluted is very real. It is not unreasonable for them to post this job, but Riley’s assurances to us have largely been shown to be unreliable so far. ARRL went out with its own news release about this job, essentially soliciting anyone with a ham license and a law degree to apply. This is not necessarily a good strategy, because there are some hams with law degrees in the Washington area that would not do a great job replacing Riley, but who might want the job due to the salary level. On the other hand, a ham would be better in this job than a non-ham. It is unclear what the status is of the continued interest of Laura Smith. So, while we have very little input into this process and no control at all, we will have to keep the pressure on the Enforcement Bureau to continue the enforcement program unabated, and perhaps it is timely to remind Kris Monteith, the EB Chief (who probably is not overly warm and fuzzy with us now since Joel and I gave her a very difficult meeting about the BPL matter awhile back) that we have high expectations for Riley’s replacement. Your thoughts on this subject are welcome. I believe that this is a very high priority issue, and I bet Rod Stafford does as well, since it was on his watch as ARRL President that we returned from the dark times of no Amateur enforcement at all, and the difference has been amazing. Incidentally, contrary to what you will read on ARRL’s web site, it was not Riley who brought Amateur Radio enforcement back; it was Richard Lee, who has now faded into obscurity at FCC due to some whistle blowing he did (quite properly), but before Rich fell from grace at FCC, he resurrected Amateur Radio enforcement single handedly, and put Riley into the job (after Rich did it himself for a time, and very effectively, I might add). 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16883] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential
by Henry R. Leggette 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

Hi Chris, I am very much shocked that the 1st line supervisor or manager does not have direct input to the hiring of this person. I assume Kathy Berthot, Chief of the Spectrum of the Spectrum Enforcement Division is a GS-15 or a SES. I don't believe the Government have too many GS-16 thru GS 18 since the SES came aboard. Chris, one thing it may be another level of management between Kathy and the FCC Chairman Martin (I believe is continue in place). If so, maybe you need to lobby to them as well. My experience in making selections of a system analyst (better known as electronic Technicians) (GS-12) as an FAA manager, the supervisor (GS-13), my self (GS-14) and the facility manager (GS-15) all had to agree on the selection. It was strong input from all three of us. I hope this make some kind of sense. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: w3kd(a)aol.com To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:16877] Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential MEMORANDUM To: ARRL ODV -- Confidential From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement Issue Date: June 26, 2008 Greetings. I wanted to bring you up to date on the Riley Hollingsworth replacement issue, because it seems to be a problem in the making, and because it is going in an entirely different direction than Riley allowed us to believe. Riley is retiring July 3. This is not news. He told us this on April 28. But at that time, when Riley announced for the second and obviously now final time that he was retiring, he had led us to understand that his replacement was his “hand-picked” colleague, Bill Knowles-Kellett. He said that Bill would almost certainly be his replacement and wanted the job. I had met Bill on an earlier occasion in Gettysburg and he is certainly competent to take Riley’s place. Bill is not a ham, but was experienced in land mobile radio enforcement issues, which are not significantly different from ours. Riley said that Bill was interested in the job and was going to get a ham license as part of the deal. Riley also said that he would not retire unless he was certain that the enforcement program would continue unabated as he had been doing it. He claimed he had the requisite assurances that this would occur. Then things started to change. Riley said that the Enforcement Bureau would have to post the job publicly, and that Riley was worried that the job would be moved to Washington. If that happened, Riley said that he was concerned that the job would be diluted, and that the person that replaced him might be tasked with a significant number of other enforcement obligations and that Amateur Radio enforcement might take a back seat. Riley had suggested that we meet with his boss in the Enforcement Division, Kathy Berthot, Chief of the Spectrum Enforcement Division. I met with her (and with George Dillon, a colleague of Riley’s at FCC in Washington) in May, and made a strong pitch that Riley’s work be continued unabated. I also mentioned that while I understood that Bill Knowles-Kellett was interested in the job, and we would be satisfied with Bill, we couldn’t attempt to tell the Commission how to run its ship and had no intention of attempting to do so. However, our concern was that the enforcement program in the Amateur Service had validated our strong belief that a very small bit of deterrence in Amateur Radio enforcement is sufficient and necessary, and that we were adamant that the program that Riley has been administering must continue without substantial change. I received hearty assurances from both Kathy and George that they agreed with that. They said that the job had to be posted, and that the resolution of that was out of their hands. We have since learned that the Chairman’s office micromanages all hiring of even the lowest level staff, and that no assurances can be given by anyone at the Bureau level at FCC about any hiring decisions. After that meeting, strong interest in the job was expressed by Laura Smith, a lady who had worked in the past for ITA (now EWA, the Enterprise Wireless Alliance) the former Industrial Telecommunications Association, a land mobile association. She was known to me as an administrative person, but very knowledgeable about land mobile radio regulation. She left ITA and moved, as it turns out, to Carlisle, PA, about 45 minutes from Gettysburg, with her husband, and she is now doing freelance work or contract work from her home in Carlisle for the land mobile lawyers at the Shulman, Rogers law firm in Rockville, MD. She heard of Riley’s job and lobbied hard to get it. Riley and Bill called me to “sell” ARRL on Laura, who at the time seemed to be the front runner for the job. She may still be for all I know. Bill’s being as vocal about it as he was made me think that he didn’t have any interest in the job himself, if indeed he ever really did. The situation deteriorated further when the job was posted. It was posted as a GS-15 job, which has a salary range of between $115K and $145K per year or thereabouts, so it is a pretty spiffy job for anyone who wants it. But it was posted as being “in the Washington area”. Riley thinks this is broad enough to include Gettysburg, but I don’t. I am afraid that it will be a D.C. job and that Riley’s fear about the job being diluted is very real. It is not unreasonable for them to post this job, but Riley’s assurances to us have largely been shown to be unreliable so far. ARRL went out with its own news release about this job, essentially soliciting anyone with a ham license and a law degree to apply. This is not necessarily a good strategy, because there are some hams with law degrees in the Washington area that would not do a great job replacing Riley, but who might want the job due to the salary level. On the other hand, a ham would be better in this job than a non-ham. It is unclear what the status is of the continued interest of Laura Smith. So, while we have very little input into this process and no control at all, we will have to keep the pressure on the Enforcement Bureau to continue the enforcement program unabated, and perhaps it is timely to remind Kris Monteith, the EB Chief (who probably is not overly warm and fuzzy with us now since Joel and I gave her a very difficult meeting about the BPL matter awhile back) that we have high expectations for Riley’s replacement. Your thoughts on this subject are welcome. I believe that this is a very high priority issue, and I bet Rod Stafford does as well, since it was on his watch as ARRL President that we returned from the dark times of no Amateur enforcement at all, and the difference has been amazing. Incidentally, contrary to what you will read on ARRL’s web site, it was not Riley who brought Amateur Radio enforcement back; it was Richard Lee, who has now faded into obscurity at FCC due to some whistle blowing he did (quite properly), but before Rich fell from grace at FCC, he resurrected Amateur Radio enforcement single handedly, and put Riley into the job (after Rich did it himself for a time, and very effectively, I might add). 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

1 0

[arrl-odv:16882] FW: SM Teleconference Highlights
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 26 Jun '08

26 Jun '08

Here is a summary of Tuesday night's SM Conference call: These are organized and moderated by Steve Ewald Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 860 594 0220 hkramer(a)arrl.org <http://www.arrl.org/> ________________________________ From: Ewald, Steve, WV1X Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:46 PM To: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B; Patton, David NN1N Subject: SM Teleconference Highlights Harold and Dave, Here is a summary of last evening's Section Manager teleconference. As usual, I'll share it with all the SMs via their reflector. Thanks, Harold, for participating in the call. -- Steve Summary and Highlights of the June 24, 2008, Teleconference with Section Managers On Tuesday evening, June 24, the Membership and Volunteer Programs office hosted an ARRL telebridge teleconference with the Section Managers of the Great Lakes Division and the New England Division. Section Managers that were able to join the call included Dale Williams, WA8EFK (Michigan); Jim Brooks, KY4Z (Kentucky); Betsey Doane, K1EIC (Connecticut); Bob Beaudet, W1YRC (Rhode Island); and Ed Emco, W1KT (Western Massachusetts). New England Division Director Tom Frenaye, K1KI, and Chief Operating Officer Harold Kramer, WJ1B, were also on the teleconference along with Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, and Steve Ewald, WV1X. With the 2008 Field Day coming up soon on June 28 -29, Section Managers discussed their plans. Some are going to visit several or as many Field Day camps in person as they can, and others are going to join their home clubs, too, for operating. There are many traditions surrounding Field Day, and welcoming newcomers to Amateur Radio and helping newly licensed radio amateurs learn more are certainly part of the tradition. The Field Day Station Locator on the ARRL Web page (http://www.arrl.org/contests/announcements/fd/locator.php) has been very popular, and about 1,400 station locations have been posted. Even though the Morse code is no longer required to earn any class of Amateur Radio license, a new interest in learning the Morse code seems to be emerging. Helping and mentoring new Amateur Radio operators and other operators who are wishing to learn a new aspect of Amateur Radio continues to be challenge. Achieving a license is one thing, but keeping that licensee interested and involved also takes some effort. Amateur Radio clubs and interested individuals are among those that often take a key role in the mentoring process. Using the features of ARRL membership and related resources are helpful in meeting this challenge. The content of QST tries to maintain a balance to appeal to new comers into Amateur Radio as well as the experienced radio amateur and longtime member. Thanks to all who are promoting membership (retaining present members and finding new members, too). We discussed that it is necessary and also very desirable for Section Managers to kept in the loop on communications and news between ARRL members in their respective sections, ARRL Headquarters, Section Staff, and clubs. 73, Steve Ewald, WV1X Supervisor, Field Organization Team ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0265 sewald(a)arrl.org <mailto:sewald@arrl.org>

1 0