September 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

RE: [arrl-odv:17188] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Joel Harrison 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Allow me to clarify a point that may have been confusing from my Red Cross Update concerning the SOU. A draft SOU will be reviewed by the EC in October. It is not my intent to have the EC act on the board's behalf to adopt the SOU, but rather provide feedback on the board's behalf concerning the draft. The draft will be distributed to the entire board at the same time it is distributed to the EC so you should have time to review it prior to the EC meeting and make any concerns you have known to the EC. While my personal opinion is that we should not refuse to sign a renewed SOU with ARC pending resolution of the background check issue, that is not my decision to make, it is your decision and one I expect us to make at the 2009 Annual Meeting. Hope that clarifies things. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:33 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17188] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential Dick, You make a number of assumptions that not all of us will agree with concerning the Red Cross. Specifically: 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to good purposes. (That's a real stretch and perhaps naive. I am sure the vast majority of Red Cross folks fit your description but certainly not all. From what we have seen from Chris' dealings with them some appear to be control freaks who want it all their way. Chris may not see it or say it that way but after listening to and seeing his reports that my conclusion. I cannot believe that all Red Cross employees are out for the greater good all of the time. Two former NLI SMs and two former NNJ SMs share my views.) 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. (What has been discussed here for the past few years is contract language. They tell us something but then refuse to put it in writing. That is simply not satisfactory. They appear to believe that since 9/11 and the advent of the flawed Patriot Act they can wrap up any security check in the flag of national interest - even when there is no need for that type of detailed security check. Our ARES volunteers are not handling top secret communications system plans or crypto secrets. Yes, in the 1960's I had a Secret Crypto clearance and agreed to let the government check into all aspects of my background. But what the Red Cross wants our volunteers to agree to is NOT necessary and unfortunately our members and perhaps some board members do NOT see the danger of agreeing to grant blanket permission to the Red Cross' agent.) 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common objectives and trust. (We haven't voted to do so. I read Joel's message as a proposal and I assume that the entire board will have an opportunity to vote on it in January. At the moment I cannot vote for an MOU with the Red Cross. My suggestion is to leave it up in the air and sign no agreement with them at this point. I guess that's because I don't like bullies. In any event, I do not believe that we should proceed until we have taken a vote of the full board. I see no pressing reason to expedite it through the EC.) I think Joel, Dave and Chris will have to explain the pros and cons of this position to us in July. It is unfortunate that the Red Cross has been so intransigent on this issue. It has hurt their recruitment in New York and New Jersey and I am sure in other parts of the country. I do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling at ARC after seeing their NYC operation during and after 9/11, but I keep my views to myself and division cabinet members and certainly do not share them with members. 73 de Frank....N2FF..... Richard J. Norton wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > >> The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be >> distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice >> Directors. >> > ... > >> On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I wrote a letter >> to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional >> concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio >> volunteers. >> > > When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check > requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they > were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their > lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio > Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why > this wasn't an adequate ARRL response. > > An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really > didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the > background-check. > > At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect > amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad > background-check permission. > > We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language > on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were > perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would > be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already > done enough. > > Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I > personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In > fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I > was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all > my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived. > > I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it. > > I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better > language): > > 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to > good purposes. > > 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the > right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio > Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will > act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. > > 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common > objectives and trust. > > 73, > > Dick, N6AA > > > >

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17185] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Bill Edgar 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Andy, I believe that part of the problem IS the Red Cross. They won't take the 'all encompassing permission' being requested of prospective volunteers off of the permission request and request ONLY access to the data they truly need. If this contract with the Red Cross and mybackgroundcheck.com is lucrative, and I have to believe that it is, then I believe that mybackgroundcheck.com would modify the wording IF Red Cross requested it. It is my belief that the Red Cross Legal Counsel has advised ARC not to change the wording. A former Red Cross Chapter Executive Director I know had requested his information being deleted once he quit the Red Cross was told that the information could not be deleted once mybackgroundcheck.com had received your permission to access your information. Interestingly enough, I pulled a background check on mybackground.com. There is precious little information available on this company. - Bill N3LLR -----Original Message----- From: Andy Oppel [mailto:andy.oppel@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:51 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17185] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential In my view, the problem isn't the Red Cross. When you sign that form, you are giving their vendor permission to run whatever checks they want to. If there is a statement restricting what the vendor can do with the information, I didn't see it. And the consent form didn't mention an expiration date, so the permission appears to be in perpetuity. In a prior job, my employer provided background check services for potential employers, and thus I got to know that market a bit. And what struck me was that no one ever heard of this outfit in Anderson, CA (up by Lake Shasta) until the Red Cross awarded them what is undoubtedly a very lucrative national contract. It's not the Red Cross I'm worried about... -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 08:06 PM 9/8/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote: >On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > > The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be > > distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice > > Directors. >... > > On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I > wrote a letter > > to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional > > concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio > > volunteers. > >When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check >requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they >were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their >lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio >Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why >this wasn't an adequate ARRL response. > >An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really >didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the >background-check. > >At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect >amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad >background-check permission. > >We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language >on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were >perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would >be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already >done enough. > >Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I >personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In >fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I >was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all >my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived. > >I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it. > >I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better >language): > >1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to >good purposes. > >2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the >right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio >Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will >act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. > >3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common >objectives and trust. > >73, > >Dick, N6AA Andy Oppel andy.oppel(a)gmail.com andy(a)andyoppel.com

2 1

[arrl-odv:17188] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Frank Fallon 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

Dick, You make a number of assumptions that not all of us will agree with concerning the Red Cross. Specifically: 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to good purposes. (That's a real stretch and perhaps naive. I am sure the vast majority of Red Cross folks fit your description but certainly not all. From what we have seen from Chris' dealings with them some appear to be control freaks who want it all their way. Chris may not see it or say it that way but after listening to and seeing his reports that my conclusion. I cannot believe that all Red Cross employees are out for the greater good all of the time. Two former NLI SMs and two former NNJ SMs share my views.) 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. (What has been discussed here for the past few years is contract language. They tell us something but then refuse to put it in writing. That is simply not satisfactory. They appear to believe that since 9/11 and the advent of the flawed Patriot Act they can wrap up any security check in the flag of national interest - even when there is no need for that type of detailed security check. Our ARES volunteers are not handling top secret communications system plans or crypto secrets. Yes, in the 1960's I had a Secret Crypto clearance and agreed to let the government check into all aspects of my background. But what the Red Cross wants our volunteers to agree to is NOT necessary and unfortunately our members and perhaps some board members do NOT see the danger of agreeing to grant blanket permission to the Red Cross' agent.) 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common objectives and trust. (We haven't voted to do so. I read Joel's message as a proposal and I assume that the entire board will have an opportunity to vote on it in January. At the moment I cannot vote for an MOU with the Red Cross. My suggestion is to leave it up in the air and sign no agreement with them at this point. I guess that's because I don't like bullies. In any event, I do not believe that we should proceed until we have taken a vote of the full board. I see no pressing reason to expedite it through the EC.) I think Joel, Dave and Chris will have to explain the pros and cons of this position to us in July. It is unfortunate that the Red Cross has been so intransigent on this issue. It has hurt their recruitment in New York and New Jersey and I am sure in other parts of the country. I do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling at ARC after seeing their NYC operation during and after 9/11, but I keep my views to myself and division cabinet members and certainly do not share them with members. 73 de Frank....N2FF..... Richard J. Norton wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > >> The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be >> distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice >> Directors. >> > ... > >> On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I wrote a letter >> to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional >> concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio >> volunteers. >> > > When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check > requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they > were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their > lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio > Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why > this wasn't an adequate ARRL response. > > An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really > didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the > background-check. > > At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect > amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad > background-check permission. > > We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language > on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were > perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would > be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already > done enough. > > Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I > personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In > fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I > was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all > my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived. > > I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it. > > I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better > language): > > 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to > good purposes. > > 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the > right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio > Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will > act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. > > 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common > objectives and trust. > > 73, > > Dick, N6AA > > > >

1 0

[arrl-odv:17187] FW: QST Archive now available to Members
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

A great new member benefit. 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: Jon Bloom, KE3Z [mailto:jbloom@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:51 AM To: HQ Staff Subject: QST Archive now available to Members There will be a news item about this in the near future, but just so staff know.... Our archive of QST pages (formerly available in the QST View product) is now available online to members in PDF form via the periodicals search <http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qqnsearch.html> page. The TIS (Lab) is responsible for member support of this function. This archive is also available to anyone accessing the page from within HQ. While members have access only to QST from 1915-2004, HQ (and ODV) have access to the full archive through 2007, including QST, QEX and NCJ. -- Jon

1 0

[arrl-odv:17185] Re: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Andy Oppel 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

In my view, the problem isn't the Red Cross. When you sign that form, you are giving their vendor permission to run whatever checks they want to. If there is a statement restricting what the vendor can do with the information, I didn't see it. And the consent form didn't mention an expiration date, so the permission appears to be in perpetuity. In a prior job, my employer provided background check services for potential employers, and thus I got to know that market a bit. And what struck me was that no one ever heard of this outfit in Anderson, CA (up by Lake Shasta) until the Red Cross awarded them what is undoubtedly a very lucrative national contract. It's not the Red Cross I'm worried about... -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO At 08:06 PM 9/8/2008, Richard J. Norton wrote: >On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > > The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be > > distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice > > Directors. >... > > On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I > wrote a letter > > to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional > > concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio > > volunteers. > >When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check >requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they >were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their >lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio >Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why >this wasn't an adequate ARRL response. > >An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really >didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the >background-check. > >At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect >amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad >background-check permission. > >We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language >on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were >perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would >be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already >done enough. > >Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I >personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In >fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I >was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all >my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived. > >I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it. > >I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better >language): > >1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to >good purposes. > >2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the >right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio >Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will >act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. > >3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common >objectives and trust. > >73, > >Dick, N6AA Andy Oppel andy.oppel(a)gmail.com andy(a)andyoppel.com

1 0

RE: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by JIM WEAVER, K8JE 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

FB, Kay, Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was something of an "equal seating around the round table" discussed, but I obviously did not recall the details beyond this. Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ Chairman, ARRL ad hoc Legislative Action Committee 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:14 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Red Cross Update - Confidential Jim wrote: "About two or so years ago, I recall hearing while at a Board meeting that we were working toward becoming equal with ANRC at the Homeland Security meeting table. Is anything happening toward this end?" Joel agreed that I should respond to this question. Jim, I believe you are referring to the National Incident Management System (NIMS) structure which, if and when it is ever fully implemented, would bring all resources to the same table under the Unified Command. Should that structure ever come completely into being, Amateur Radio communications and the Red Cross would provide resources as needed under the direction of the Unified Command. It would fundamentally change the way the ARRL and the Red Cross (among other agencies) relate to each other during major disasters. To the best of my knowledge, this model has not been realized as yet and we are, so to speak, "sailing as before." However, I admit I have not kept 100% up to date with the development of NIMS, since the NERPC study is finished and my OM is not a county EC any more. If you have questions about the status of NIMS, you may want to have a chat with Dennis Dura once the hurricane hassles are off his plate. This is not something the ARRL was working on. It's a federal bureaucracy's concoction, and is independent of anything we do. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17183] Re:Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Richard J. Norton 09 Sep '08

09 Sep '08

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Joel Harrison <joelh(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > The following information is ARRL Board confidential and is not to be > distributed to anyone other than ARRL Officers, Directors and Vice > Directors. ... > On June 30, 2008, as reported to you on arrl-odv on July 1, I wrote a letter > to American Red Cross Vice President Armond Mascelli, addressing additional > concerns about the background check requirement for amateur radio > volunteers. When the Red Cross first came out with their new background check requirements, the ARRL simply advised amateurs to be aware that they were giving the Red Cross the right to investigate aspects of their lives that may not be germane to providing communications. Radio Amateurs were, and still are free to sign anything. I don't know why this wasn't an adequate ARRL response. An inquiry to the Red Cross brought forth a statement that they really didn't actually intend to exercise the controversial aspects of the background-check. At some point, apparently the ARRL decided that we needed to protect amateurs from whatever risks they might be incurring by granting broad background-check permission. We now have our president involved, attempting to fine-tune language on Red Cross forms that realistically will impact nobody. If I were perfecting the world, I suppose that I'd agree that the language would be better if it were changed, but I think that the ARRL has already done enough. Although I have no plans to be a Red Cross volunteer myself, I personally wouldn't object to signing the form in its present form. In fairness, I admit that I spent my life working in an industry where I was continually investigated by the government, and even assumed all my phone calls were tapped. Somehow I survived. I hope that all the attention we are giving this topic is somehow worth it. I'd almost suggest sending the Red Cross a letter that says (in better language): 1) We think the Red Cross is composed of good people, dedicated to good purposes. 2) The Red Cross has told us that they do not intend to exercise the right to conduct financial and lifestyle background checks on Radio Amateurs providing communications. We believe that the Red Cross will act in a responsible way, particularly toward our volunteers. 3) We propose to move forward on our MOU/SOU based on our common objectives and trust. 73, Dick, N6AA

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17109] Technical Relations Manager
by Joel Harrison 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

As if you haven't noticed, I've been a bit overwhelmed and unable to stay on top of my email flood recently, but I want to follow up on Brennan's acceptance to be our Technical Relations Manager. Some of you will remember Brennan from past ARRL employment and will also recall his excellent track record. Dave put considerable effort into the search for a new Technical Relations Manager. I know because I was involved with him at varying stages and also in the in-person interview of two of the possible candidates. This was not an easy task and Dave encountered many ups and downs during the process, but his effort has certainly born quality fruit with Brennan. Brennan is quite intelligent and possesses real world knowledge and experience of amateur radio as well as the applicable services we interface with on a daily basis. This became evident to me during the interview process when Dave and I had an opportunity to have lunch with Brennan and his well informed response to my questions was very comforting. It is great to have Brennan back with us at ARRL and I look forward to many productive years from him not only as the Technical Relations Manager but as a member of the Washington Team as well. 73 Joel W5ZN _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 2:51 PM To: 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:17109] Technical Relations Manager I am pleased to announce that Brennan Price, N4QX has accepted the position of ARRL Technical Relations Manager effective Monday, September 15. This fills the vacancy created by Paul Rinaldo's retirement last month. (Paul continues to make himself available to us on an hourly consulting basis.) Brennan holds a B.A. in Chemistry from Vanderbilt University, M.S. in Chemistry from Georgia Institute of Technology, and J.D. with honors from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Equally significant, Brennan worked for the ARRL for four years in 2000-2004, as Field & Regulatory Correspondent and Assistant Technical Editor. He began law school while working for us but decided he had to leave the staff when he was appointed Executive Editor of Connecticut Law Review. He was admitted to the Connecticut bar in 2005 and has been in private practice with a firm in Hartford. Brennan is an ARRL Volunteer Counsel and has stayed current with our regulatory issues. As Technical Relations Manager, Brennan will be responsible for representing the ARRL's interests to federal government agencies, the ITU and other international organizations, and OAS/CITEL and other regional telecommunications organizations, personally and through the supervision of other Technical Relations Office staff. Until January, he will be working out of the Newington office and will travel to Washington/Fairfax as needed. Paul's title of Chief Technology Officer was bestowed by election by the Board, and Paul will retain that title until the current term expires in January 2010 unless he decides to relinquish it before then. Finally, I want to acknowledge Joel Harrison's assistance in the selection process. Since the ARRL Bylaws give the President the responsibility for government representation, it was important that we find someone in whom Joel has confidence. David Sumner, K1ZZ Chief Executive Officer P.S. We are going to wait until closer to Brennan's actual starting date to make a public announcement.

1 0

RE: Red Cross Update - Confidential
by Kay Craigie 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Jim wrote: "About two or so years ago, I recall hearing while at a Board meeting that we were working toward becoming equal with ANRC at the Homeland Security meeting table. Is anything happening toward this end?" Joel agreed that I should respond to this question. Jim, I believe you are referring to the National Incident Management System (NIMS) structure which, if and when it is ever fully implemented, would bring all resources to the same table under the Unified Command. Should that structure ever come completely into being, Amateur Radio communications and the Red Cross would provide resources as needed under the direction of the Unified Command. It would fundamentally change the way the ARRL and the Red Cross (among other agencies) relate to each other during major disasters. To the best of my knowledge, this model has not been realized as yet and we are, so to speak, "sailing as before." However, I admit I have not kept 100% up to date with the development of NIMS, since the NERPC study is finished and my OM is not a county EC any more. If you have questions about the status of NIMS, you may want to have a chat with Dennis Dura once the hurricane hassles are off his plate. This is not something the ARRL was working on. It's a federal bureaucracy's concoction, and is independent of anything we do. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17180] FW: [smlist:5250] Highlights of SM Teleconference with NW Division
by Kramer, Harold, WJ1B 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

As promised, here is Steve Ewald's summary of the latest SM teleconference. Harold 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 [mailto:wv1x@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 3:14 PM To: smlist Subject: [smlist:5250] Highlights of SM Teleconference with NW Division Hello, Section Managers. Here is a summary of highlights of the September 3, 2008, Teleconference with Section Managers of the Northwestern Division. On Wednesday evening, September 3, the Membership and Volunteer Programs office hosted an ARRL telebridge teleconference with the Section Managers of the Northwestern Division. Steve Ewald, WV1X, and Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, were HQ staff representatives. Director Jim Fenstermaker, K9JF, and Vice Director Bill Sawders, K7ZM, joined the call along with the following Section Mangers: Jim Pace, K7CEX (Western Washington); Mark Tharp, KB7HDX (Eastern Washington); Jim Larsen, AL7FS (Alaska); Doug Dunn, K7YD (Montana), Bonnie Altus, AB7ZQ (Oregon). Chuck Skolaut handled a few questions about the Official Observer/Amateur Auxiliary Program and how it continues to work closely and effectively with the FCC. One potential way to encourage more Amateur Radio operators to prepare for and become a part of the OO program is mention that OOs and have the option of recognizing good operators once in a while during their times devoted to monitoring. The "Good Operator Card" is available to Official Observers, and there is public relations value within the Amateur Radio community when these cards are used. The group discussed the recent Amateur Radio preparations and operations for Hurricane Gustav. Steve explained how the HQ staff organized to support the efforts of the ARRL Field Organization leaders and Amateur Radio operators along the Gulf Coast. Some lessons can be learned from these kinds of emergencies, and they can be applied to any large-scale emergency preparation or deployment. We are presently watching more tropical storms and hurricanes, too. The discussion moved toward plans for the upcoming Simulated Emergency Test in October, Citizen Corps and National Preparedness Month, and ARRL hamfests and conventions. The ARRL Repeater Directory continues to be a popular book to give to a new ARRL member or a renewing ARRL member when he or she join or renews through the Section Manager, Director or Vice Director. 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