Jay, Jim, and Dave,
Thanks very much for your comments.
I am very sympathetic to Jim's concern about the "tail wagging the dog." By following the same structure/rules currently used for the DXAC, CAC, and VUAC, each Director would appoint one member to the proposed EmComm AC. Each committee member would serve at the pleasure of his specific Director and could be replaced at any time at the discretion of his Director.
George Hart did an excellent job of describing the basic purpose of and philosophy behind the old EAC in the April 1973 issue of QST (thanks, Dave, for that reference!). Here are some quotes from that article:
1. ". there is no magic to the AC concept. It is simply another vehicle for channelizing membership sentiment to the Board or to Headquarters, and a way to tap the field expertise in the form of appointed advisory committee members."
2. ". the committee is advisory. It doesn't "run" anything (except itself), it doesn't issue directives, edicts, or give orders to anyone. It merely recommends. It can generate its own recommendations, through the experience and general versatility of its own membership, or it can pass along a suggestion from the field - or study it, modify it, then pass it along. But none of its actions is necessarily final insofar as ARRL policy or administrative procedure is concerned."
3. "On the other hand . the recommendations of the committee are not to be and will not be taken lightly, either by the Board or by headquarters. There just is no use to having a committee that you don't intend to support by acting on its recommendations. This has been the pattern with presently-existing Advisory Committees and is intended to be the pattern with the ECAC."
Regarding Jay's comments that some SMs/SECs might see such an EmComm AC as infringing on their responsibility, I don't believe that would be a serious problem based upon the feedback in my own Division. However, the SMs/SECs could be (and, perhaps, should be) polled for their thoughts before the Board takes any "official" action along these lines.
Topics that I can readily visualize for the proposed EmComm AC to study on behalf of the Board include the following:
1. Make recommendations on how ARES and NTS can function together more effectively.
2. Investigate ways to "update" NTS to make it more relevant to EmComm. (As an old, but current, NTS operator, I'm rather doubtful that the three NTS Area Staffs on their own are capable of suggesting ways to revamp NTS to any significant degree.)
3. Study the Winlink "debate" to see if the ARRL should be more "aggressive" in promoting that specific system, as well as investigate other possible systems/networks/protocols for EmComm use.
3. Advise the Board on issues related to "shifting the focus of EmComm" as discussed in the Public Service column in the June 2009 issue of CQ Magazine. (N7WR points out in his article that the need for ham radio assistance to public-safety agencies is decreasing, if not disappearing altogether, in many jurisdictions.) What should the ARRL do in the future to be reasonably sure that Amateur Radio fulfills its basis and purpose expressed in 97.1(a)?
73, K5MC
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bellows
To: arrl-odv
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17818] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
I originally sent the following note to Mickey but in light of Jim's follow-up and in particular his concern about a group that would "wag the dog" I decided to forward the note to ODV
Jay
----------------------
Mickey:
This idea has been suggested from time to time in the past and certainly deserves serious consideration. DXAC, CAC or VUAC each relate to what are essentially contest activities, strictly for the benefit and enjoyment of the Amateur participants. EmComm is a purely Public Service activity for the benefit of others at a time of need, so it seems to me the underlying concepts and motivations of participants in these activities are somewhat different. Still, you raise a good point and I agree we ought to look into this matter.
I assume from your note that an ECAC would function along the same lines as other Advisory Committees, namely it would be a study group that would advise the related issues referred to it for study by the related Standing Committee or the Board. I'm not entirely clear on the kinds of study issues that would be referred to an ECAC or whether ARRL Section Managers and their SEC, our resident experts in these issues might view such a committee as infringing on their responsibility, but I agree it is sure worth serious consideration.
73,
Jay, KØQB
-------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: K8JE [mailto:k8je@arrl.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:35 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17818] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
All,
In view of the history of the "emcomm" (notice the lower case) committee vs. present need, it sounds as though the issue is worth revisiting. Obviously, we would not want to set up a group that would try to wag the dog, but if it is something that could help develop more good ideas and actions concerning our becoming more notably involved with public safety response, it could be very helpful.
Tnx, Mickey
Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:03 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:17818] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
Let me provide some history, just for background; it's a new day and what happened in the past doesn't tell us what's right now and for the future.
The Board created an Emergency Communications Advisory Committee (ECAC) in January 1973. In those days, advisory committees were organized on the basis of call area rather than by division. The initial committee appointments were announced in October 1973 QST. (By the way, in April 1973 QST, pages 72 and 73, you will find observations by George Hart, W1NJM, some of which relate to issues we are still grappling with today.)
At the 1987 Second Board Meeting the ECAC was renamed the Public Service Advisory Committee and its scope was expanded to include non-emergency traffic handling and other public service communications.
At the 1998 Annual Board Meeting the PSAC, having become moribund, was disbanded.
Dave K1ZZ
From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:37 AM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee?
ODV,
I've pasted below some comments I recently received from K4CJX. Steve is an Assistant Director for the Delta Division and he is, no doubt, very enthusiastic (and sometimes sarcastic!) in expressing his opinions. However, I believe Steve is essentially correct in his observation that we (the BOD) should do more to show our support of emergency communications.
One suggestion I want to throw out to the ODV is the creation of an EmComm Advisory Committee similar in structure to the three existing advisory committees (the DXAC, CAC, and VUAC). I enjoy chasing DX and playing in some of the contests, but I believe practically all of us would agree that EmComm is at least as important, if not more so. The creation of such an advisory committee would help signal to the membership that the BOD is very serious about emergency communications. More importantly, however, I think the advice that the Board would receive from the EmComm experts who would serve on the committee would be quite valuable.
I have discussed this topic with a number of Delta Division folks (particularly the Section Managers and Assistant Directors) and they agree that the BOD should have an EmComm Advisory Committee equivalent in stature to the DXAC, CAC, and VUAC.
Thanks and 73,
Mickey K5MC
Mickey,
This After Action Report obviously is NOT for publication, although it is the one report I can release. What it does illustrate is that not all communications resources consider Winlink 2000 a "lightning rod," a term used by one of our ARRL senior staff. That negative connotation is reserved for the naysayers on QRZ forums, and their followers on the ARRL staff and, unfortunately, certain members of the ARRL Board of Directors. After all, look at the push for EmComm by the ARRL during Dayton Hamvention. Right on target.
Attached is one of the agencies involving Winlink 2000 during DICE 09. Much use of Winlink 2000 was involved on the Amateur side as well, especially in South Texas, but, "we certainly don't want to start any negative momentum," so let's keep all that on the QT.
I still have July, 2004, minute 21 in mind, and how the Staff jumped right on top of their mandate. Fascinating how they evade BOD actions!
On a personal note, I am sorry I could not get to Knoxville this year to meet with you.
FYI ,
Steve
