July 2010 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:19221] Final-final Board minutes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Dick Norton caught an omission from the Silent Key recognition list that needed attention: Gary Stilwell, KI6T, former Vice Director. I added Gary but did not rename the file. Please delete my earlier message and its attachment. Dave <<2010 July BOD minutes FINAL.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:19220] Final Minutes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Thanks to everyone for their review and comments. Here are the final minutes, subject of course to formal approval at the January 2011 meeting. In addition to the changes noted on ODV and a couple of minor edits, I clarified that Joyce Birmingham was not excused from the room during the Committee of the Whole and dropped Lee Bergren, W0AR from the Silent Key list because he was recognized a year ago. And apologies to Kay for misspelling her name repeatedly. I do know better. Really. Dave K1ZZ <<2010 July BOD minutes FINAL.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:19219] Re:RE: Draft Board Minutes
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Greg, “instructed” implies that the Board acted favorably on the motion, but you’re right that it is better to be clear. I’ll fix it. Dave From: G.P. Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:23 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19210] Re: Draft Board Minutes With one exception, the Minutes seem complete. Though it is minor omission, Minute 32 neglects to mention that a vote was taken. -- 73, Greg, KØGW Director, Dakota Division ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Sumner, K1ZZ" <dsumner(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:05:38 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:19206] Draft Board Minutes Here are draft minutes of last week’s Board meeting. I acknowledge the assistance of Dan Henderson, N1ND in preparing the first draft. These minutes may be shorter than you expected. Robert’s Rules provides that withdrawn motions are not included in the minutes. I have followed that provision, although I did have to note Saturday morning’s discussion of a motion that ultimately was withdrawn in order to explain what we were doing between reconvening at 9:00 AM and the first break. If you would like your name rendered differently or you have suggested corrections, additions or deletions, please let me know. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary <<2010 July BOD minutes draft 2.doc>>

1 0

[arrl-odv:19218] Re:RE: Draft Board Mintues
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 27 Jul '10

27 Jul '10

Correct, Dick. Thanks. I will have the final version ready later today. Dave -----Original Message----- From: dick(a)pobox.com [mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:10 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19208] Re:Draft Board Mintues 23 JUL 2010 - 2090 CDT It appears there is a word missing from the second line of Minute 35 of the July 2010 draft board meeting minutes. I suggest the word "discuss" be inserted between the words "to" and "certain" ...Committee of the Whole to [discuss] certain personnel matters... - Dick Isely, W9GIG

1 0

[arrl-odv:19217] Nastygram follow-up
by Kay Craigie 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

Brent Robertson of Fathom reported to the A&F that some hams had sent abusive, threatening messages to his company, causing great distress to his employees. Regardless of the problems that have come up with the web site, there is no excuse for anybody acting demented like that. I am sending the attached note to Brent to put as much distance as possible between the majority of ham radio operators and the small number of morons who sent the hateful messages. Harold mentioned at the A&F meeting that some offensive messages about the web site had been received by HQ staff from Section Managers. I have asked Harold to find out if those messages were preserved. If they were, then the relevant Directors and the EC will be consulted and we'll figure out how to proceed. I also asked Harold to let me know if any future messages from SMs are received that go beyond the bounds of civility and to preserve those messages for review. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:19215] Re: Communications Act revision
by Kay Craigie 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

That's fine, Chris. Let's have our ducks in a row, just in case this story turns out to be something more than a rumor. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:19215] Re: Communications Act revision
by Chris Imlay 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

I will sure do that, Kay, but I don't put much stock in rumors about Comm Act changes; those rumors surface at the beginning (or before) of each new Congress session. But we can surely enough do a "wish" list and a "watch out" list. 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: Kay Craigie <n3kn(a)verizon.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 10:21 am Subject: [arrl-odv:19214] Communications Act revision Dan Henderson was in Gettysburg over the weekend for the annual meeting of he NCVEC and had a chat with Bill Cross. Here is what Dan wrote about that onversation: "Cross and I spoke Friday after his presentation to the NCVEC and he shared hat the revision of the Communications Act of 96 is definitely front burner or action in the 112th Congress. Says the backroom meetings between the ommission and Committee staff have already started. He said make sure our ants/concerns are ready and that even if there is a change in leadership his seems to be a "get it done" issue for the next session. FWIW." By "change in leadership" I take it Cross means a change in the majority arty of one or both houses of Congress rather than a change in leadership t the FCC. 1996 is a long time ago and I just don't remember how the ARRL dealt with he last revision of the Communications Act. Dave, Brennan, and Chris -- would you please start putting some thoughts ogether to be provided to the Board as the starting point for discussions? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:19214] Communications Act revision
by Kay Craigie 26 Jul '10

26 Jul '10

Dan Henderson was in Gettysburg over the weekend for the annual meeting of the NCVEC and had a chat with Bill Cross. Here is what Dan wrote about that conversation: "Cross and I spoke Friday after his presentation to the NCVEC and he shared that the revision of the Communications Act of 96 is definitely front burner for action in the 112th Congress. Says the backroom meetings between the Commission and Committee staff have already started. He said make sure our wants/concerns are ready and that even if there is a change in leadership this seems to be a "get it done" issue for the next session. FWIW." By "change in leadership" I take it Cross means a change in the majority party of one or both houses of Congress rather than a change in leadership at the FCC. 1996 is a long time ago and I just don't remember how the ARRL dealt with the last revision of the Communications Act. Dave, Brennan, and Chris -- would you please start putting some thoughts together to be provided to the Board as the starting point for discussions? 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:19213] Re: RE: Draft Board Minutes
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 25 Jul '10

25 Jul '10

I would say "to cover or exceed" a better-than-break-even.... > Marty, your point about avoiding the term "bottom line" is a good one, but > the budget calls for a better-than-break-even result for this year. We > shouldn't be defensive about wanting that result; it's how the > organization will have assets for the future. > > I'll drop "bottom line." > > Dave > > > ________________________________ > > From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] > Sent: Sun 7/25/2010 2:12 PM > To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; arrl-odv > Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:19206] Draft Board Minutes > > > Hi, Dave. > > With respect to Minute 9, I suggest a wording change. Instead of " . . . > the budget, which calls for a positive bottom line for the year", I offer > ". . . the budget, which calls for revenues and other income sufficient to > cover operating expenses". > > Rationale: When a member has a complaint, I sometimes hear the opinion > that the League is only interested in the bottom line, a charge usually > levelled at for-profit companies. We are a non-profit, and even our > published financial statements label the difference between revenues and > expenses as "change in net assets", not as profit, net income or any other > term usually associated with "bottom line". By avoiding that term, which > is slang and has no technical validity anyway, in favor of language that > more closely portrays our nonprofit objectives, we can help defuse some of > those "bottom line" accusations. > > 73, > > Marty N6VI > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> > To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:05 AM > Subject: [arrl-odv:19206] Draft Board Minutes > > > Here are draft minutes of last week's Board meeting. I acknowledge the > assistance of Dan Henderson, N1ND in preparing the first draft. > > These minutes may be shorter than you expected. Robert's Rules provides > that withdrawn motions are not included in the minutes. I have followed > that provision, although I did have to note Saturday morning's discussion > of a motion that ultimately was withdrawn in order to explain what we > were doing between reconvening at 9:00 AM and the first break. > > > > If you would like your name rendered differently or you have suggested > corrections, additions or deletions, please let me know. > > 73, > > David Sumner, K1ZZ > > Secretary > > <<2010 July BOD minutes draft 2.doc>> > > James E. Fenstermaker K9JF Director, Northwestern Division American Radio Relay League (206) 930-9372

1 0

[arrl-odv:19211] Re: Draft Board Minutes
by Marty Woll 25 Jul '10

25 Jul '10

Draft Board MinutesHi, Dave. With respect to Minute 9, I suggest a wording change. Instead of " . . . the budget, which calls for a positive bottom line for the year", I offer ". . . the budget, which calls for revenues and other income sufficient to cover operating expenses". Rationale: When a member has a complaint, I sometimes hear the opinion that the League is only interested in the bottom line, a charge usually levelled at for-profit companies. We are a non-profit, and even our published financial statements label the difference between revenues and expenses as "change in net assets", not as profit, net income or any other term usually associated with "bottom line". By avoiding that term, which is slang and has no technical validity anyway, in favor of language that more closely portrays our nonprofit objectives, we can help defuse some of those "bottom line" accusations. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:05 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:19206] Draft Board Minutes Here are draft minutes of last week's Board meeting. I acknowledge the assistance of Dan Henderson, N1ND in preparing the first draft. These minutes may be shorter than you expected. Robert's Rules provides that withdrawn motions are not included in the minutes. I have followed that provision, although I did have to note Saturday morning's discussion of a motion that ultimately was withdrawn in order to explain what we were doing between reconvening at 9:00 AM and the first break. If you would like your name rendered differently or you have suggested corrections, additions or deletions, please let me know. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary <<2010 July BOD minutes draft 2.doc>>

2 1