July 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:16900] SO 19 - Elimination of US Mail Copies of Board Meeting Announcements
by John Bellows 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Dick: Im as much in favor of saving a buck as most, but it seems to me that in certain instances a belt and suspenders approach is justified even if it cost a few dollars. The mailed Notice of the Board Meeting is one of those exceptions. For example there are specific deadlines to file Motions to Amend the Articles of Association. Even with the inflated postage rates of 2008 I suggest the mailed Notice is worth an extra $0.43 x 35. I cant speak for others but a 1st Class Letter from ARRL is more likely to get my attention than one of the flurry of emails that fly past in a blur each day. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:56 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16900] SO 19 - Elimination of US Mail Copies of Board Meeting Announcements Recently the Board was twice advised about the upcoming July meeting by E-mail. Shortly after each E-mail, we received copies of the same announcements which were sent through the US Mail. I was, and remain, uncertain about the value of sending duplicate copies by US Mail. In an attempt to annually direct a couple hundred dollars of our member's assets to more productive use, I started to write an E-mail to ODV suggesting that we change standing order 19 to eliminate the "by mail." It appears that we have already done this! I checked on the arrl.org site, and noticed that Standing Order 19 had been revised as of January 2005. I then looked at my copy of the January 2005 Board workbook, and found the text of the communique from the EC which proposed the revisions. Surprisingly enough the words "by letter" were specifically lined out. I can't imagine that the Board's intent was anything other than the elimination of the postal letters, and notification by E-mail. At least that was my intent. The texts are at the end of this message. Do any of you still support sending out the US Mail letters? If not, do any of you have any ideas about what we need to do to stop them? 73, Dick Norton, N6AA Present form of SO 19, July 2008: 19) The Secretary is directed to inform all Directors at least two weeks before the formal call for the Board meeting, that such call will be made, giving the date, so that Directors have sufficient time to file notice to changes in Articles of Association and By-Laws before the formal meeting notice is mailed. [Amended January 2005] Form of SO 19 before January 2005: 19) The Secretary is directed to inform all Directors by letter at least two weeks before the formal call for the Board meeting, that such call will be made, giving the date, so that Directors have sufficient time to file notice to changes in Articles of Association and By-Laws before the formal meeting notice is mailed. [Amended January 2005]

1 0

[arrl-odv:16900] SO 19 - Elimination of US Mail Copies of Board Meeting Announcements
by Richard J. Norton 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Recently the Board was twice advised about the upcoming July meeting by E-mail. Shortly after each E-mail, we received copies of the same announcements which were sent through the US Mail. I was, and remain, uncertain about the value of sending duplicate copies by US Mail. In an attempt to annually direct a couple hundred dollars of our member's assets to more productive use, I started to write an E-mail to ODV suggesting that we change standing order 19 to eliminate the "by mail." It appears that we have already done this! I checked on the arrl.org site, and noticed that Standing Order 19 had been revised as of January 2005. I then looked at my copy of the January 2005 Board workbook, and found the text of the communique from the EC which proposed the revisions. Surprisingly enough the words "by letter" were specifically lined out. I can't imagine that the Board's intent was anything other than the elimination of the postal letters, and notification by E-mail. At least that was my intent. The texts are at the end of this message. Do any of you still support sending out the US Mail letters? If not, do any of you have any ideas about what we need to do to stop them? 73, Dick Norton, N6AA Present form of SO 19, July 2008: 19) The Secretary is directed to inform all Directors at least two weeks before the formal call for the Board meeting, that such call will be made, giving the date, so that Directors have sufficient time to file notice to changes in Articles of Association and By-Laws before the formal meeting notice is mailed. [Amended January 2005] Form of SO 19 before January 2005: 19) The Secretary is directed to inform all Directors *by letter* at least two weeks before the formal call for the Board meeting, that such call will be made, giving the date, so that Directors have sufficient time to file notice to changes in Articles of Association and By-Laws before the formal meeting notice is mailed. [Amended January 2005]

1 0

[arrl-odv:16899] Standing Order 63, Volunteer Use Maximization - Chapter 2
by Richard J. Norton 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Rest assured that my initial inquiry was not concerned with the legacy ARRL volunteer functions, especially since I have been one of those volunteers starting more than 50 years ago. My interest was piqued by the word "maximization." My observation is that there are a number of organizations that have effectively utilized volunteers in roles where the League uses paid employees. In many of these areas, the volunteer groups appear to equal or outperform the ARRL. Consequently, I'm not sure we are actually "maximizing." A few examples are: Internet Presence Contest Administration Awards Administration Classified Ads Computer Operations Response to Newcomer Questions Organizations that conduct such operations with volunteers include: CQ Magazine Worldradio Magazine QCWA eHam.com QRZ.com contesting.com In the next few chapters, I'll detail a few examples. In a role of setting League policy, which is similar to directing any business-like endeavor, I find it useful to observe the operation and degree of success achieved by similar groups. Whether we make any changes at all to the League's direction, I support periodically looking at what others are doing. This does not necessarily mean that I support complete transition of any or all these tasks to volunteers. Again, it does mean that we should be aware of the outside world. Stay tuned. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA

1 0

[arrl-odv:16898] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

<<070208.doc>> IN-Newsletter <<Microsoft Word Picture>> Vol. 31, No. 27 July 2, 2008 -- Covers the period June 22-28. Upcoming Meetings and Events Administration &Finance Committee July 17 @ 8:30am in Newington, CT Programs & Services Committee July 17 @ 8:30am in Newington, CT Second Board Meeting July 18-19, 2008 @ 9:00am in Windsor, CT CEO Office A thank you note to Maty Weinberg for covering the CEO area while Lisa was on vacation. The office will be closed Friday in observance of the Fourth of July. Have a safe Holiday weekend! Media & Public Relations Reported by Allen Pitts, W1AGP In the days preceeding Field Day, there was a flurry of radio and newspaper interviews done over the phone for ARRL nationally. Often these were reinforcement to information begun by local clubs who has passed on HQ contacts "for more information." In every case, the Field Day locator option was shared with the reporters and they were very happy to learn of it and excited to see the numbers of locations around them. It gave reporters both an easy place to go and also a larger perspective that this was NOT just a small, localized event. After deleting duplications of stories, there are 30+ pages of just the links to hundreds of Media Hits. The wire release alone received 210 hits (6 pages) and various paragraphs taken from the release were recognized in many more places. It was a great FD for PIOs. One of the sidelights was a trial by Ted Randall using 7415 Kilohertz and WBCQ to broadcast FD (phone call-in) events live. Ted says it worked out well and will be repeated. One group of soldiers working FD from Iraq called in and where overheard by American manufacturers of ham equipment resulting in their being given better antenna(s) and mikes for their Iraq station. He also appreciated the call from W1AW. One of the most interesting quotes spotted: "It's basically the ARRL saying take all your toys someplace and let's see what you can do, Schneider said." Development Reported by Mary Hobart, K1MMH The Diamond Club results through June 30 total more than $154,000 and 2033 donors. Fifty additional bricks will be laid in the Diamond Terrace during July. The W1AW Endowment Campaign is nearing its goal of $55,000. To date the campaign has raised more than $50,000 from 634 donors yielding a solid average gift of $79. The unplanned Thank You Campaign to past Spectrum Defense Donors has produced more than $68,000 from 1377 donors yielding an average gift of $49. These results bring the year-to-date revenues for Spectrum Defense to nearly $102,000. During the summer three smaller - but equally important - campaigns will be mailed. The campaign for Education & Technology that was postponed to allow for the Defense Thank You campaign will be mailed to 150,000 donors to help fund the grants portion of the ETP and to help support activities in the Education Service Department. A smaller campaign for the Historic Preservation Fund will be mailed to 10,000 prospects - past donors to that Fund and a selection from the member base. A test mailing to support the Lab Fund will be mailed to a unique selection of 10,000 donors in an effort to build revenues to support capital and operation needs. Copies of the 2007 Annual Report have been mailed to nearly 500 top donors and Legacy Circle members. Production/Editorial Reported by Joel Kleinman, N1BKE ARRL Audio News can once again be accessed via telephone at 860-594-0384; it had been down for a few days due to equipment failure. Thanks to Greg Kwasowski, Joe Carcia and Don Durand, it was decided to redo how Audio News is accessed by telephone. Greg is working on it - we'll have more to report when it's closer to implementation. Khrystyne Keane wrote and distributed The ARRL Letter, Vol 27, No 25, for June 27, 2008. It went out to 70,494 subscribers. She also voiced and produced ARRL Audio News for June 27. Membership & Volunteer Programs Reported by Dave Patton, NN1N Contest Branch Another Field Day has come and gone. While it will be some time before the final tally of participants is known, reports from all across the country are indicating fun was had by all. For some of the story, you can visit the Field Day 2008 Blog at www.arrl.org/blog. Under the guidance of Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, Dave Patton, NN1N, and the input of several members of the contest community, the Contest Branch issued a statement that will allow the use of Skimmer technology by single operator entrants in the 2008 IARU HF Championship. Use of this technology is limited exclusively to this one running of this specific contest. This will allow us to evaluate the technology in a real world competitive environment. The statement on Skimmer can be viewed in the Contest Branch blog, found at www.arrl.org/blog. I have processed all gavels for Club Competition in numerous ARRL contests going back to late 2006 and will ship them out the door today. This gets us back up-to-date on gavels. W1AW Field Day 2008 is now a memory. But what fun was had! There were 1,079 contacts made using CW, SSB and RTTY on 160 through 2 meters. The best surprise was when 15, 10 and 6 meters became WIDE open near the end of the event! Many thanks to Katie Breen, W1KRB, Joe Carcia, NJ1Q, Sean Kutzko, KX9X, Carol Michaud, KB1QAW, her daughter Lexie, Bill Moore, NC1L and George Woodward, W1RN (a visitor who happened by) for all their participation and support. The last time W1AW broke the 1,000+ QSO mark in Field Day was back in 2005 when 1,100 QSOs were made. But, band conditions were slightly better then, and there were more operators on hand. A special thanks also to (retired staffer) Carole Dimock, N1NAM, Penny Harts, N1NAG, and Tyrique Harts, N1TJH for their operating W1AW just before Field Day. They pretty much "warmed up the station." A photographer from WFSB Channel 3 took some video of them operating. Thanks also to Bob Allison, WB1GCM, for his assisting Joe with setting up the camera and sound equipment used for the video portion of the blog. The Field Day blog was maintained by Katie, Joe and Sean, and can still be seen at http://www.arrl.org/blog/Field%20Day%202008. The one "fly in the ointment" came on Friday night when the W1AW bulletin update diskette failed between broadcasts. This caused just the 8 PM EDT broadcast of the W1AW Field Day Bulletin not to be sent. Thankfully, there were ample opportunities throughout the weekend for hams to copy the Field Day Bulletin. This includes broadcasts from Maritime Radio Historical Society Station K6KPH in California. In addition to readying the station in advance of Field Day, Joe processed regular QSL card requests. He handled the broadcast of all the weekend Field Day bulletins (except the Saturday night phone bulletin, which was read by Katie, W1KRB). He also made some additional coaxial stubs to assist with any interference problems that might have cropped up during Field Day. Scott worked on slow and fast code practice files for the early part of the month of July. Field Organization/Public Service Team Since the next Section Manager nomination period was announced in July QST, a petition has arrived nominating John Poindexter, W3ML, of Knox, Indiana, to run for Indiana Section Manager. As reported in a previous IN Newsletter, Raymond Andrews, K9DUR, has also been nominated for the Indiana SM position. Mike Neilson, W1MPN, has been nominated to run for the next term of office in Eastern Massachusetts. SM election ballots for Idaho and Western New York were printed and then mailed from Headquarters by July 1. Leona Adams has been assisting in the Outgoing QSL Bureau. Steve Ewald moderated a Section Manager teleconference on the evening of June 24 with the SMs of the New England and Great Lakes Divisions. Harold Kramer and Chuck Skolaut were also on the call. Section Managers continued to promote Field Day and plan for their trips to visit Field Day camps. Chuck Skolaut reports that he forwarded OO documentation to the FCC regarding a station that was not identifying properly and had been using an invalid call sign. Information about Amateur Radio was provided to Pennsylvania Senator Greenleaf's office for use regarding SB884 and pending tower legislation. The ARRL Web's index has been improved to easily locate references on the OO/Amateur Auxiliary and Intruder Watch programs. Sincerely Compiled by, Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ Assistant to the CEO Staff Absentee List All Staff 7/4 Holiday Leona Adams 7/3 Vacation `` 7/18 Vacation Kathy Allison 6/30-7/7 Vacation Jo-Ann Arel 7/7-7/14 Vacation Katie Breen 7/10-7/14 Rocky Mt. Division Convention, Bryce Canyon, UT Joe Carcia 7/7-7/11 Vacation `` 7/14-7/31 Sick Leave `` 8/4-8/8 Vacation Jackie Cornell 7/7-7/11 Vacation Dennis Dura 7/1-7/8 Vacation Scott Gee 6/30-7/3 Vacation Joel Hallas 7/7 Vacation Dan Henderson 6/21-7/7 Friedrichshafen, Germany/Vacation `` 8/23-8/30 Vacation Mary Hobart 9/19-9/21 W9DXCC, Chicago, IL `` 10/3 Vacation Debra Johnson 6/27-7/3 Vacation Khrystyne Keane 7/24-7/28 Vacation Joel Kleinman 7/3-7/7 Vacation Harold Kramer 7/26-8/4 Vacation Bill Moore 7/7-7/8 Vacation Ashley Rakus 7/3 Vacation Steve Sant Andrea 7/7-7/9 Vacation Dave Sumner 7/9 Washington Perry Williams 6/18-7/19 Vacation

1 0

[arrl-odv:16897] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential
by w3kd＠aol.com 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Thanks, Rod; you have very succinctly stated the serious situation we are in right now on this, and the importance of making sure the dark times never happen again. I will continue to push the Enforcement Bureau to do he right thing by way of a replacement, without telling them how to manage their own staff. That balance is a bit dicey, but as you correctly indicate, the stakes are pretty high here. 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: Rod Stafford W6ROD <w6rod(a)comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 2:31 am Subject: [arrl-odv:16895] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential Chris First of all, thanks for the memo regarding Riley's retirement and his replacement. I was waiting to see if anyone else jumped in with comments but I didn't see any so I'll throw in my two cents with a little background. Before Richard Lee stepped up to reinstate actual enforcement it was a total mess. When I was president it was THE most pressing issue that the ARRL had to deal with. Whether at ARRL forums, individual letters, emails etc by a wide margin the primary concern of members was getting the FCC to enforce the amateur rules. I certainly hope we don't go back to that situation because it was really, really discouraging. Not a board meeting, committee meeting or EC meeting went by when we didn't spend a rather large part of the meeting discussing how we could get the FCC engaged in amateur enforcement. Thank goodness Richard Lee heard our continuous pleas for help. We took the view that at every opportunity and at every meeting with the FCC, amateur enforcement was an issue that we addressed. Finally, our persistence paid off. However, with the passage of time, it is easy to forget how long and difficult the road was to get to where we were when Riley took over the enforcement function. I know several people who were around during that time can remember we actually had something called the "Enforcement Task Force" that was for brain-storming ideas to draw the FCC back to enforcement. Chris, I know you will keep us informed of the progress of selecting someone to fill Riley's position. I for one will be very interested. I hope everyone on the Board will cause it is an important issue to the ARRL and to the amateur community. 73, Rod W6ROD At 05:40 AM 6/26/2008, you wrote: MEMORANDUM To: ARRL ODV -- Confidential From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement Issue Date: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />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 â€œhand-pickedâ€ 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 Rileyâ€™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 Rileyâ€™s at FCC in Washington) in May, and made a strong pitch that Rileyâ€™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 couldnâ€™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 Chairmanâ€™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 Rileyâ€™s job and lobbied hard to get it. Riley and Bill called me to â€œsellâ€ ARRL on Laura, who at the time seemed to be the front runner for the job. She may still be for all I know. Billâ€™s being as vocal about it as he was made me think that he didnâ€™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 â€œin the Washington areaâ€. Riley thinks this is broad enough to include Gettysburg, but I donâ€™t. I am afraid that it will be a D.C. job and that Rileyâ€™s fear about the job being diluted is very real. It is not unreasonable for them to post this job, but Rileyâ€™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 Rileyâ€™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 ARRLâ€™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 To: ARRL ODV -- Confidential From: Chris Imlay, W3KD Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement Issue Date: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />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 â€œhand-pickedâ€ 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 Rileyâ€™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 Rileyâ€™s at FCC in Washington) in May, and made a strong pitch that Rileyâ€™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 couldnâ€™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 Chairmanâ€™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 Rileyâ€™s job and lobbied hard to get it. Riley and Bill called me to â€œsellâ€ ARRL on Laura, who at the time seemed to be the front runner for the job. She may still be for all I know. Billâ€™s being as vocal about it as he was made me think that he didnâ€™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 â€œin the Washington areaâ€. Riley thinks this is broad enough to include Gettysburg, but I donâ€™t. I am afraid that it will be a D.C. job and that Rileyâ€™s fear about the job being diluted is very real. It is not unreasonable for them to post this job, but Rileyâ€™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 Rileyâ€™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 ARRLâ€™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! Rod Stafford W6ROD Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:16893] Attachments
by Joel Harrison 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Here they are -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:joelharrison.iphone@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:47 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:16893] Attachments There are attachments that go with the Red Cross letter that I failed to include with my earlier email. I'll send later today when I stop for a bit. Joel iPhone in - Blackberry out

1 0

[arrl-odv:16895] Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement -- Confidential
by Rod Stafford W6ROD 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Chris First of all, thanks for the memo regarding Riley's retirement and his replacement. I was waiting to see if anyone else jumped in with comments but I didn't see any so I'll throw in my two cents with a little background. Before Richard Lee stepped up to reinstate actual enforcement it was a total mess. When I was president it was THE most pressing issue that the ARRL had to deal with. Whether at ARRL forums, individual letters, emails etc by a wide margin the primary concern of members was getting the FCC to enforce the amateur rules. I certainly hope we don't go back to that situation because it was really, really discouraging. Not a board meeting, committee meeting or EC meeting went by when we didn't spend a rather large part of the meeting discussing how we could get the FCC engaged in amateur enforcement. Thank goodness Richard Lee heard our continuous pleas for help. We took the view that at every opportunity and at every meeting with the FCC, amateur enforcement was an issue that we addressed. Finally, our persistence paid off. However, with the passage of time, it is easy to forget how long and difficult the road was to get to where we were when Riley took over the enforcement function. I know several people who were around during that time can remember we actually had something called the "Enforcement Task Force" that was for brain-storming ideas to draw the FCC back to enforcement. Chris, I know you will keep us informed of the progress of selecting someone to fill Riley's position. I for one will be very interested. I hope everyone on the Board will cause it is an important issue to the ARRL and to the amateur community. 73, Rod W6ROD At 05:40 AM 6/26/2008, you wrote: >MEMORANDUM > >To: ARRL ODV -- Confidential >From: Chris Imlay, W3KD >Re: Riley Hollingsworth Retirement and Replacement Issue >Date: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 >ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />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 âhand-pickedâ > 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 Rileyâs 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 Rileyâs at FCC > in Washington) in May, and made a strong pitch > that Rileyâs 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 > couldnât 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 Chairmanâs 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 Rileyâs job and lobbied hard to > get it. Riley and Bill called me to âsellâ > ARRL on Laura, who at the time seemed to be the > front runner for the job. She may still be for > all I know. Billâs being as vocal about it as > he was made me think that he didnât 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 âin the Washington > areaâ. Riley thinks this is broad enough to > include Gettysburg, but I donât. I am afraid > that it will be a D.C. job and that Rileyâs > fear about the job being diluted is very real. > It is not unreasonable for them to post this > job, but Rileyâs 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 Rileyâs 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 ARRLâs 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 > >---------- ><http://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=aolcmp00050000000011>Get >the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more! Rod Stafford W6ROD Photos: www.flickr.com/photos/rodstaffordphotography

1 0

[arrl-odv:16894] Board Meeting from
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 01 Jul '08

01 Jul '08

Reminder: If you have not submitted your hotel accommodation form, please do so. Thank you. Lisa <<accommodation form.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:16893] Attachments
by Joel Harrison 01 Jul '08

01 Jul '08

There are attachments that go with the Red Cross letter that I failed to include with my earlier email. I'll send later today when I stop for a bit. Joel iPhone in - Blackberry out

1 0

Red Cross Update
by Joel Harrison 01 Jul '08

01 Jul '08

Today, the attached letter is being sent to ARC in response to their reply of May 8, 2008, to my original letter of November 28, 2007. Do NOT distribute this letter publicly. Since it is just being sent today Red Cross needs, in fairness, an opportunity to receive it first. A follow-up story will be posted on ARRLWeb this week updating our members on our efforts with ARC. As I stated in my last update to you, when we received ARC's response in May while we were all at the Dayton Hamvention we publicized their response and an apparent resolution to our concerns about their background investigation requirement based on good faith that ARC would do what they said given our long, productive relationship with ARC. It is apparent in the few weeks since that all of our concerns have not been addressed and the outstanding issues are described in my attached letter. I want to be very clear about what activities we are currently involved in with ARC because there are two separate matters we are addressing. The first is renewal of the expired SOU. Dennis Dura has been tasked with negotiating on our behalf a draft that will be reviewed by the PSC and approved by the EC or board. I have set October 18, 2008, the date of the next EC meeting, as the deadline by which we want a draft available for review and possible approval. Negotiation and preparation of a draft SOU is in no way connected with the background investigation requirement issue. Refusing to proceed with negotiations to produce a draft SOU until the background issue is resolved is counterproductive for ARRL and amateur radio. Our relationship with ARC has been a very positive one for many, many years and we should work toward a renewed understanding between our organizations in order to continue to provide a public service in times of need. Refusing to negotiate at this stage makes us adversaries, not partners, and that is not ARRL's mission. As I have stated in my letter, ARRL will not sign the SOU until the background matter is addressed. The second item is ARC's background check requirement. If ARC continues to mandate a background check requirement for amateur radio operators, it is our ultimate goal to negotiate a very limited background check requirement acceptable to ARRL on behalf of our members and we are aggressively pursuing such. We must understand, however, that we may never achieve anything better than we currently have. Please remember these are ARC's requirements, not ARRL's, and any ramifications as a result of it will be ARC's, not ARRL's. The result will be that ARC will suffer from a reduced number of volunteers and that will impact their ability to provide the services they are accustom to providing and that the public has come to expect from ARC. Background check requirements aren't new and have been around for some time, especially for organizations that provide services to youth, and we know similar requirements will become reality with nearly every organization we have a relationship with in the future. As each of you know, we have received considerable input from our members as to what they will accept for a background check and we know what our objective is in the negotiation with ARC. This is not a closed matter and the communication channels are still very open with ARC. And yes, we will make absolutely sure ARC does what they say in the future before announcing any resolution to this matter. I must advise you, however, to be very cautions about any comments you publicly make about ARC. One situation has already occurred where an ARRL director published a figure from an "anonymous" source in a division wide email regarding the reduction in ARC volunteers as a result of the background check requirement. One of the ARRL members in that division forwarded a copy to ARC who contacted us and disputed the number and was obviously very upset. As responsible officers of the corporation any comment you make is considered "official" and we cannot promote and facilitate rumors...PERIOD! This does nothing but complicate our position in this negotiation effort where we have the advantage. We won't for very long, though, if we're not smart, cautious and factual about what we publish publicly concerning ARC. I appreciate your cooperation as we move forward to continue a prosperous relationship with ARC. 73 Joel W5ZN

1 0