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

[arrl-odv:19189] RE: [arrl-odv:19185] Mail vote on Technical Excellence Award
by Bill Edgar 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

Aye Bill N3LLR -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner(a)arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:44 AM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:19185] Mail vote on Technical Excellence Award Through an oversight, the Programs and Services Committee did not present one of its recommendations to the Board at last weeks meeting. In accordance with Article 6, the Executive Committee has authorized a mail vote of the Board on the following: MOVED, that the ARRL Board of Directors selects Rudy Severns, N6LF, as the recipient of the 2009 Doug DeMaw, W1FB, Technical Excellence Award for his article series Experimental Determination of Ground System Performance, which was published in the January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, November/December issues of QEX, QSTs sister publication for experimenters. Directors, please respond with your vote, aye or nay, at your earliest convenience. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:19188] Mail vote on Technical Excellence Award
by Dr. David Woolweaver 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

MOVED, that the ARRL Board of Directors selects Rudy Severns, N6LF, as the recipient of the 2009 Doug DeMaw, W1FB, Technical Excellence Award for his article series "Experimental Determination of Ground System Performance," which was published in the January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, November/December issues of QEX, QST's sister publication for experimenters. I vote Aye de David, K5RAV.

1 0

[arrl-odv:19187] Re:RE: West Gulf Vice Director
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

With one attorney-ham in the family (my daughter) I will decline comment. Dave From: Jim McCobb [mailto:k1lu@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:02 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19186] Re: West Gulf Vice Director David, can't we place some sort of limit on the number of attorneys that serve on the Board? Isn't this getting at least a little out of hand? It's time to act!!! We must stop this NOW before we have a name change to the American Radio Legal Association or some such thing. How about, no more attorneys until they can collectively produce more sun spots via the use of hot air of course. Enough is enough. Doesn't anyone beyond me find it odd that ham radio attracts so many attorneys? There's more attorneys than engineers---Geez Louise. It's time to act, we are losing our way! A little girl (about 7) and her sister (about 10) were going up a ski lift with me a few years ago and the little one says to me do you know how to tell when an attorney is lying and of course I didn't know and said so. Her reply was when you see his lips moving. Her father as it turns out was an attorney and according to her he was back in their condo working. And yes, I forgot to ask if he was a ham too, probably was. 73 from your humble servant and Treasurer, oh and "bookkeeper" too. Jim K1LU ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:21 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:19184] West Gulf Vice Director After review of eligibility by the Ethics and Elections Committee, President Craigie has appointed John Robert Stratton, KE5ISX to serve as Vice Director of the West Gulf Division for the remainder of the current term, which expires January 1, 2011. John is an attorney in private practice. His address is P.O. Box 2232, Austin, TX 78768-2232. Email: jrs(a)hamradio.us.com <mailto:jrs@hamradio.us.com> 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ ARRL Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:19186] Re: West Gulf Vice Director
by Jim McCobb 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

West Gulf Vice DirectorDavid, can't we place some sort of limit on the number of attorneys that serve on the Board? Isn't this getting at least a little out of hand? It's time to act!!! We must stop this NOW before we have a name change to the American Radio Legal Association or some such thing. How about, no more attorneys until they can collectively produce more sun spots via the use of hot air of course. Enough is enough. Doesn't anyone beyond me find it odd that ham radio attracts so many attorneys? There's more attorneys than engineers---Geez Louise. It's time to act, we are losing our way! A little girl (about 7) and her sister (about 10) were going up a ski lift with me a few years ago and the little one says to me do you know how to tell when an attorney is lying and of course I didn't know and said so. Her reply was when you see his lips moving. Her father as it turns out was an attorney and according to her he was back in their condo working. And yes, I forgot to ask if he was a ham too, probably was. 73 from your humble servant and Treasurer, oh and "bookkeeper" too. Jim K1LU ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:21 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:19184] West Gulf Vice Director After review of eligibility by the Ethics and Elections Committee, President Craigie has appointed John Robert Stratton, KE5ISX to serve as Vice Director of the West Gulf Division for the remainder of the current term, which expires January 1, 2011. John is an attorney in private practice. His address is P.O. Box 2232, Austin, TX 78768-2232. Email: jrs(a)hamradio.us.com 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ ARRL Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:19185] Mail vote on Technical Excellence Award
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

Through an oversight, the Programs and Services Committee did not present one of its recommendations to the Board at last week's meeting. In accordance with Article 6, the Executive Committee has authorized a mail vote of the Board on the following: MOVED, that the ARRL Board of Directors selects Rudy Severns, N6LF, as the recipient of the 2009 Doug DeMaw, W1FB, Technical Excellence Award for his article series "Experimental Determination of Ground System Performance," which was published in the January/February, March/April, May/June, July/August, November/December issues of QEX, QST's sister publication for experimenters. Directors, please respond with your vote, aye or nay, at your earliest convenience. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:19184] West Gulf Vice Director
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

After review of eligibility by the Ethics and Elections Committee, President Craigie has appointed John Robert Stratton, KE5ISX to serve as Vice Director of the West Gulf Division for the remainder of the current term, which expires January 1, 2011. John is an attorney in private practice. His address is P.O. Box 2232, Austin, TX 78768-2232. Email: jrs(a)hamradio.us.com 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ ARRL Secretary

1 0

[arrl-odv:19183] Parting Remarks
by Cliff Ahrens 21 Jul '10

21 Jul '10

Mike, I share your views that Vice Directors have an important role in ARRL leadership. As successors to Directors, they need to be fully informed on issues and ready to step in, either temporarily or permanently, on a moment's notice. And Vice Directors play an important role in the Committee work of the Board, not to mention the valuable assistance they offer to ARRL and their Divisions in so many other ways. During my three and a half years as Vice Director, the importance of being fully informed was demonstrated on a number of occasions. However, the stated purpose of the motion on Saturday to go into a committee of the whole alluded to personnel matters. I am uncertain as to the extent that personnel information can be legally shared and discussed outside of the Board of Directors. Last December, as you noted in your comments, the issue of whether Vice Directors should be entitled to all information available to Directors was brought up. At that time, our General Counsel Chris Imlay suggested in an email to ODV [arrl-odv:18300] that there might be some information about personnel issues to which Directors are entitled and Vice Directors are not. While recognizing the importance of Vice Directors, Chris noted that Vice Directors are not members of the Board, citing Article 4 of the Articles of Association and Bylaw 14. My personal view is that the exclusion of Vice Directors from debate in a Board meeting should be limited to those situations where there are legal reasons for doing so, or where the majority of the Board believes it is in the best interests of the ARRL. Reasonable minds can disagree on both of those criteria. Ultimately, that judgment is left to the Directors. The Board has committed to transparency and enhanced communications. We should extend that commitment to Vice Directors whenever possible. Thanks for taking the time to express your comments and concerns. Cliff K0CA

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:19181] Re: Parting Remarks
by David A. Norris 20 Jul '10

20 Jul '10

You're both (Mickey and Brian) much appreciated by the "back-seaters"! 73 ES DX David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:57 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19181] Re: Parting Remarks Mike, In hindsight I'm sorry that I did not make a motion to amend Director Norton's motion to include all of the Vice Directors. (It seems clear to me that since Director Norton was making a main motion, a motion to amend would have been in order according to Robert's Rules.) At the very least I should have made a comment to the effect that I preferred to have the Vice Directors included in the committee of the whole. I will try to avoid making that same mistake again in the future. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Mileshosky" <n5zgt(a)swcp.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:33 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:19178] Re: Parting Remarks Mike -- The first question I asked while, I believe you were still in the room, was if a motion to resolve into a committee of a whole could have been amended. I asked because, while I didn't know any better about Robert's Rules on this particular procedure, I would have liked my vice-director, Dwayne, in there with us for one reason: The same reason why Joyce was at the front table this time due to Frank's absence...to have, ideally, seamless leadership and knowledge of all issues in the event of absence of a Director. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, raisbeck(a)comcast.net wrote: > > > > > Hello All, > > > > I gather that my absence at the â?oclosing ceremoniesâ? on Saturday was > noted.Â Tom tells me that he did put in a plug for Boxboro â?" Thanks, Tom > !!Â At 11:30 or so, when the board decided to dissolve into a â?oCommittee > of the Wholeâ?, I did a quick cost/benefit calculation; the value of 4 > hours of my personal time versus the likely impact of my closing remarks > on the board.Â The personal time won by a landslide, so I headed home to > work in the garden. > > > > It is traditional at the end of our board meetings for us to congratulate > each other on a job well done, throw about a few compliments, and wish > each other a safe trip home.Â I do wish a safe trip to all of you who > havenâ?Tt already left, and hope that each of you who already has will > have experienced an uneventful ride home.Â I look forward to seeing all of > you in January.Â You may or may not look forward to seeing me â?¦ > > > > As to the job well done, I offer no kudos.Â It was not well done.Â It was > barely a D- performance.Â > > > > It seems that we as a board require a major, service threatening crisis, > something that goes to the core of our hobby, in order to make any > headway. > > > > During my tenure on the back bench I have lived through the enforcement > problems, Â code wars, and the BPL crisis.Â In each case, board members > were passionate.Â We stayed up until midnight working on the problem, > drafting motions, debating positions.Â It was hard, it was gritty, and it > got results.Â Perhaps not always perfect results, but results that have > stood the test of time.Â It seems that we are at our best when we have a > dragon to slay. > > > > The July 2010 performance was anything but that. Â We had a motion on > voting.Â It should have read something like â?odirect the staff to develop > a proposal for Â an electronic voting mechanism and present in Januaryâ? > and it should have passed with no more than 5 minutes of discussion. Â Â > Instead, it entailed an hour (or was it two?) of wrangling and nitpicking > â?" crawling through details.Â And then there was the A&F motion that > directed the staff to implement project accounting without implementing > project accounting.Â Â In the end it came down to â?oA&F ought to do its > job, and staff ought to do its job.â?Â > > > > Both of these, as well as most of what went on in between (awards > excepted), were senseless micromanagement. > > > > OK, so the board did not perceive any really big issues on its plate > (though it should have).Â That happens.Â There are three approaches that > can be taken when lacking a burning NOW issue to tackle: > > > > 1 â?" donâ?Tt have the board meeting.Â Probably not the best idea, since > we all benefit from the personal encounters, but preferable to what was > actually done.Â At least, it would have saved some money. > > 2 â?" micromanage.Â It demoralizes staff, annoys the rest of the board, > wastes time, and accomplishes little or nothing.Â This is the path that > was chosen, and results will be as predicted. > > 3 â?" look to the future, and try to guide the organization and the > service in a useful and productive way.Â This is the job of a BOD, and it > is what should have been done.Â Sadly, an opportunity was missed.Â Some of > the things we could have worked on include: > > > > a) Â Â Â Â Â Succession planning. Â Dave, Harold, Mary, and a whole bunch > of senior people are getting old enough that they could retire (or leave > in a fed up huff) at any time.Â These people have the knowledge and > experience that make the League tick.Â What are we going to do when they > leave?Â Not one word about this at the meeting. > > b) Â Â Â Â Â Membership building.Â OK, our grand plan to increase the > number of hams has given us only a barely perceptible blip.Â Why?Â A > complete critique of these programs AND ESPECIALLY our underlying > assumptions seems in order.Â Again, not a peep at the meeting. > > c) Â Â Â Â Â Â The upcoming UHF/microwave spectrum grab.Â Chris filled us > in on the potential.Â Iâ?Tm amazed that no one took it and ran.Â Not even > a committee appointed â?¦ > > > > I think the best hope now for the League would be a proposal by the FCC to > take 440, 900, and 1296 and give them all to broadband.Â Then maybe we > could get some creative juices flowing. > > > > --------------------- > > > > The above was what I had planned to cover in my closing remarks.Â Sadly, > the closing remarks are the only time that a Vice Director gets to speak > and the rest of the Board is obliged, more or less, to sit down, shut up, > and listen.Â However, as most of you will recall, we had a little dustup > last time around when the Board decided to deal with some apparently > important matters out of the view of the Vice Directors.Â That involved > the use of email lists.Â New Vice Directors â?" ask your director about it > â?" let me know if you get a coherent explanation. > > > > This time around something similar happened â?" the Board decided to > dissolve into committee, and to exclude the Vice Directors. > > > > I was profoundly disheartened that NOT ONE DIRECTOR questioned the wisdom > of this.Â A Vice President did complain when Mr. Norton attempted to > exclude VPâ?Ts â?" Jay cited the Bylaws, interpreting them to mean that > VPâ?Ts cannot be excluded, but again, no mention of Vice Directors.Â Let > the record show that from a â?ostatutory interpretationâ? point of view, > I believe Jay was correct, but it makes the contrast no less glaring. > > > > Jay â?" Please explain to us why an IVPâ?Ts presence (recognizing that an > IVP will never vote on an issue) at that session is more important than > Vice Directorsâ?T presence (folks who could well have to deal with the > results of whatever transpired.) > > > > Kay Â - I suspect that the decision as to who to include in such a session > belonged to you, not the of the maker of the motion. Â Perhaps even the > decision to go into such a session at all was yours.Â Please explain why > you decided to exclude Vice Directors. > > > > Dave Sumner â?" You are perhaps the best interpreter of the rules of order > in the place.Â Please explain who makes the call as to who to include or > exclude from such a session, and whether or not to go into such a > session.Â Perhaps my assumptions above are wrong? > > > > Each Director (you too, Tom ...)Â â?" Please explain why you chose to not > objectÂ to the exclusion of Vice Directors. > > > > I await your responses. > > > > 73, > > Mike > > K1TWF > > > > _________________ > > Mike Raisbeck > > Manager, Quality Engineering > > Conexant Systems, Inc. > > 201 Jones Rd. > > Waltham, MA 02451 > > Conexant E-mail Firewall (Conexant.Com) made the following annotations > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ********************** Legal Disclaimer **************************** > > "This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole > use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or > distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the > message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the > message. Thank you." > > ********************************************************************** > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:19181] Re: Parting Remarks
by Mickey Cox 20 Jul '10

20 Jul '10

Mike, In hindsight I'm sorry that I did not make a motion to amend Director Norton's motion to include all of the Vice Directors. (It seems clear to me that since Director Norton was making a main motion, a motion to amend would have been in order according to Robert's Rules.) At the very least I should have made a comment to the effect that I preferred to have the Vice Directors included in the committee of the whole. I will try to avoid making that same mistake again in the future. 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Mileshosky" <n5zgt(a)swcp.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Cc: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:33 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:19178] Re: Parting Remarks Mike -- The first question I asked while, I believe you were still in the room, was if a motion to resolve into a committee of a whole could have been amended. I asked because, while I didn't know any better about Robert's Rules on this particular procedure, I would have liked my vice-director, Dwayne, in there with us for one reason: The same reason why Joyce was at the front table this time due to Frank's absence...to have, ideally, seamless leadership and knowledge of all issues in the event of absence of a Director. 73, Brian N5ZGT On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, raisbeck(a)comcast.net wrote: > > > > > Hello All, > > > > I gather that my absence at the â?oclosing ceremoniesâ? on Saturday was > noted.Â Tom tells me that he did put in a plug for Boxboro â?" Thanks, Tom > !!Â At 11:30 or so, when the board decided to dissolve into a â?oCommittee > of the Wholeâ?, I did a quick cost/benefit calculation; the value of 4 > hours of my personal time versus the likely impact of my closing remarks > on the board.Â The personal time won by a landslide, so I headed home to > work in the garden. > > > > It is traditional at the end of our board meetings for us to congratulate > each other on a job well done, throw about a few compliments, and wish > each other a safe trip home.Â I do wish a safe trip to all of you who > havenâ?Tt already left, and hope that each of you who already has will > have experienced an uneventful ride home.Â I look forward to seeing all of > you in January.Â You may or may not look forward to seeing me â?¦ > > > > As to the job well done, I offer no kudos.Â It was not well done.Â It was > barely a D- performance.Â > > > > It seems that we as a board require a major, service threatening crisis, > something that goes to the core of our hobby, in order to make any > headway. > > > > During my tenure on the back bench I have lived through the enforcement > problems, Â code wars, and the BPL crisis.Â In each case, board members > were passionate.Â We stayed up until midnight working on the problem, > drafting motions, debating positions.Â It was hard, it was gritty, and it > got results.Â Perhaps not always perfect results, but results that have > stood the test of time.Â It seems that we are at our best when we have a > dragon to slay. > > > > The July 2010 performance was anything but that. Â We had a motion on > voting.Â It should have read something like â?odirect the staff to develop > a proposal for Â an electronic voting mechanism and present in Januaryâ? > and it should have passed with no more than 5 minutes of discussion. Â Â > Instead, it entailed an hour (or was it two?) of wrangling and nitpicking > â?" crawling through details.Â And then there was the A&F motion that > directed the staff to implement project accounting without implementing > project accounting.Â Â In the end it came down to â?oA&F ought to do its > job, and staff ought to do its job.â?Â > > > > Both of these, as well as most of what went on in between (awards > excepted), were senseless micromanagement. > > > > OK, so the board did not perceive any really big issues on its plate > (though it should have).Â That happens.Â There are three approaches that > can be taken when lacking a burning NOW issue to tackle: > > > > 1 â?" donâ?Tt have the board meeting.Â Probably not the best idea, since > we all benefit from the personal encounters, but preferable to what was > actually done.Â At least, it would have saved some money. > > 2 â?" micromanage.Â It demoralizes staff, annoys the rest of the board, > wastes time, and accomplishes little or nothing.Â This is the path that > was chosen, and results will be as predicted. > > 3 â?" look to the future, and try to guide the organization and the > service in a useful and productive way.Â This is the job of a BOD, and it > is what should have been done.Â Sadly, an opportunity was missed.Â Some of > the things we could have worked on include: > > > > a) Â Â Â Â Â Succession planning. Â Dave, Harold, Mary, and a whole bunch > of senior people are getting old enough that they could retire (or leave > in a fed up huff) at any time.Â These people have the knowledge and > experience that make the League tick.Â What are we going to do when they > leave?Â Not one word about this at the meeting. > > b) Â Â Â Â Â Membership building.Â OK, our grand plan to increase the > number of hams has given us only a barely perceptible blip.Â Why?Â A > complete critique of these programs AND ESPECIALLY our underlying > assumptions seems in order.Â Again, not a peep at the meeting. > > c) Â Â Â Â Â Â The upcoming UHF/microwave spectrum grab.Â Chris filled us > in on the potential.Â Iâ?Tm amazed that no one took it and ran.Â Not even > a committee appointed â?¦ > > > > I think the best hope now for the League would be a proposal by the FCC to > take 440, 900, and 1296 and give them all to broadband.Â Then maybe we > could get some creative juices flowing. > > > > --------------------- > > > > The above was what I had planned to cover in my closing remarks.Â Sadly, > the closing remarks are the only time that a Vice Director gets to speak > and the rest of the Board is obliged, more or less, to sit down, shut up, > and listen.Â However, as most of you will recall, we had a little dustup > last time around when the Board decided to deal with some apparently > important matters out of the view of the Vice Directors.Â That involved > the use of email lists.Â New Vice Directors â?" ask your director about it > â?" let me know if you get a coherent explanation. > > > > This time around something similar happened â?" the Board decided to > dissolve into committee, and to exclude the Vice Directors. > > > > I was profoundly disheartened that NOT ONE DIRECTOR questioned the wisdom > of this.Â A Vice President did complain when Mr. Norton attempted to > exclude VPâ?Ts â?" Jay cited the Bylaws, interpreting them to mean that > VPâ?Ts cannot be excluded, but again, no mention of Vice Directors.Â Let > the record show that from a â?ostatutory interpretationâ? point of view, > I believe Jay was correct, but it makes the contrast no less glaring. > > > > Jay â?" Please explain to us why an IVPâ?Ts presence (recognizing that an > IVP will never vote on an issue) at that session is more important than > Vice Directorsâ?T presence (folks who could well have to deal with the > results of whatever transpired.) > > > > Kay Â - I suspect that the decision as to who to include in such a session > belonged to you, not the of the maker of the motion. Â Perhaps even the > decision to go into such a session at all was yours.Â Please explain why > you decided to exclude Vice Directors. > > > > Dave Sumner â?" You are perhaps the best interpreter of the rules of order > in the place.Â Please explain who makes the call as to who to include or > exclude from such a session, and whether or not to go into such a > session.Â Perhaps my assumptions above are wrong? > > > > Each Director (you too, Tom ...)Â â?" Please explain why you chose to not > objectÂ to the exclusion of Vice Directors. > > > > I await your responses. > > > > 73, > > Mike > > K1TWF > > > > _________________ > > Mike Raisbeck > > Manager, Quality Engineering > > Conexant Systems, Inc. > > 201 Jones Rd. > > Waltham, MA 02451 > > Conexant E-mail Firewall (Conexant.Com) made the following annotations > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ********************** Legal Disclaimer **************************** > > "This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole > use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or > distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the > message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the > message. Thank you." > > ********************************************************************** > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:19180] IN-News
by Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ 20 Jul '10

20 Jul '10

<<071410.doc>> IN-Newsletter <<Microsoft Word Picture>> Vol. 33, No. 28 July 14, 2010 -- Covers the period July 4-10. Upcoming Meetings and Events Vice Director Orientation: July 14, 2010 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Programs & Services Committee: July 15, 2010 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Administration & Finance Committee: July 15, 2010 @ 8:30am - ARRL HQ Second Board Meeting: July 16-17, 2010 @ 9:00am in Windsor, CT Regulatory Information Reported by Dan Henderson, N1ND The week since returning from Friedrichshafen was spent on the usual "catching up" activities. Over 40 phone calls and several hundred emails were cleared. We also have spent considerable time finalizing several items for visiting directors. We began the daily procedures for preparing the list of Logs Received for 2010 ARRL Field Day. All indications are that it was a successful year for Field Day. In spite of the technical glitches, 1,620 groups registered the Field Day site with the on-line locator - an increase from the final tally of 1,602 that used the site in 2009. One week after the event, 959 submissions have been received through the b4h.net web application. Thanks to all who handled the last-minute queries before Field Day and special thanks to the crew of the Maritime Radio Historical Society station, K6KPH, who again retransmitted the annual W1AW Field Day bulletin on several occasions/bands/modes. Considerable time was spent with NC Section Manager Bill Morine, N2COP, trying to address a tower ordinance being proposed by an amateur in Cleveland County. The ordinance proposed by the amateur appears to be overly restrictive and is not supported by the majority of amateurs in the county. At the request of Morine, we spoke with county officials and offered some suggestions, which the county appears amenable to consider. However, the amateur who filed the petition requesting the ordinance has stated he is going to pursue his proposal instead. Morine and other NC ARRL officials will attend the hearing to present their compromise proposal. We continue to work with General Counsel on an antenna issue in Midwest City, OK and the amateur ticketed for cell phone use in NY State. We received the May-June report of pending state legislation from Chwat and Company and are reviewing it for potential concerns. Media & Public Relations Reported by Allen Pitts, W1AGP Posted even more Field Day related Media Hits to website. Took part in initial meeting on internal emergency planning. Making preparations and arrangements for presentation at AIDF conference in DC next week. Wrote and posted the July issue of CONTACT! Designed and received initial materials to be used in ARES 75th celebration in September, with more to come. Wrote department Board report and aided in report of PRC. Wrote Media Hits column for QST. Development Reported by Mary Hobart, K1MMH The new newsletter, Spectrum Defense Matters, mailed to 40,000 prior donors and members about a week ago. We are still awaiting first responses. Next week an email will go out with a link to a PDF of the newsletter. The Education & Technology Campaign is in production. Development is preparing reports for the Second meeting of the ARRL Board and the A & F meeting. Margie Bourgoin and Maryann Macdonald have been assisting Lisa Kustosik with preparation of the Board Notebooks. Checks have been prepared for the 2010 ARRL Foundation Scholarships. Production/Editorial Reported by Joel Kleinman, N1BKE Khrystyne Keane wrote and distributed The ARRL Letter and voiced and produced ARRL Audio News for July 8, 2010. Sales and Marketing Reported by Bob Inderbitzen, NQ1R Bob Inderbitzen is pursuing a couple of new product opportunities, building on the groundwork laid during Harold Kramer's visit to MFJ Enterprises last month. Among these is a code practice oscillator kit, following specifications developed by ARRL and to be produced by MFJ. A prototype was delivered last week and received high marks from staff throughout the organization. Amy Hurtado participated in an IT planning meeting involving the future integration of the e-store with our fulfillment infrastructure. Diane Petrilli is developing a membership survey. The survey will address interest in a variety of membership benefits including preferences for online magazines. Jackie Ferreira continues to fine-tune the new e-store, collaborating with the IT group on items that require additional programming or development. A recent addition to the e-store is an alphabetized list of our 395 product offerings: http://www.arrl.org/list-all-products. During the last week, the warehouse crew fulfilled 584 packages for publication and product orders, 551 membership premiums, and QST mailing supplements. Membership & Volunteer Programs Reported by Dave Patton, NN1N Contests IARU HF ended at 1200 UTC on Sunday morning. 24 hours after the event, we have 1,470 logs received. We have received 1,033 logs for June VHF. The log submission deadline is July 14. DXCC Branch Credits Applications 2009 Carryover 171,945 1,287 2010 Received 381,601 3,158 Cumulative Total 553,546 4,445 2010 Processed 507,259 4,133 Remaining 46,287 312 Processing Time Weeks Logbook of the World Category June 2010 % Change Jan - June 2010 QSO Records Entered In System 289,080,239 10% QSL Record Matches 31,022,901 15% Logs Processed 1,548,021 20% Active Certificates 52,226 10% Registered Users in System 34,571 10% Logbook (Email Only) Inquiries June 2010 Maintenance 847 Initial Setup Inquiries 814 Award Related Concerns 238 Customer Usage Issues 672 Phone Calls 325 Total 2,896 Thanks to Bill Moore, NC1L and Chuck Skolaut, KØBOG, for covering the morning station operations on Tuesday through Friday for the vacationing Joe Carcia, NJ1Q. Scott worked on fast and slow code practice files for the first part of the month of July. He also assisted the DXCC department with the editing of applications. For the prior week, Joe processed one Qualifying Run endorsement. He processed all regular QSL card requests. He created the W1AW July Qualifying Run texts. Joe also updated the web code practice files and the web Qualifying Run schedules. Sincerely Compiled by, Lisa Kustosik, KA1UFZ Assistant to the CEO Staff Absentee List Leona Adams 7/23 Vacation Steve Capodicasa 9/13-9/17 Vacation Joe Carcia 7/16 Vacation `` 7/23 Vacation `` 7/30 Vacation `` 8/6-8/13 Vacation `` 8/20 Vacation `` 8/27 Vacation Michael Cory 7/30-8/6 APCO Conference, Houston, TX `` 8/20-8/22 Southeastern Division Convention, Huntsville, AL Scott Gee 8/2-8/4 Vacation `` 8/30-8/31 Vacation Mike Gruber 8/23-8/27 Vacation Joel Hallas 7/14-7/20 Vacation Dan Henderson 7/16-7/17 BOD Meeting `` 9/24-10/3 Ten-Tec Hamfest,(TN)/W4DXCC/SEDCO/Vacation `` 10/14-10/18 Pacificon Mary Hobart 7/15-7/17 Committee Meeting/BOD Meeting `` 7/23 Vacation `` 8/11-8/13 Vacation Amy Hurtado 7/14-7/26 Vacation Gail Iannone 7/12-7/16 Vacation Bob Inderbitzen 8/4-8/5 Training `` 8/6-8/9 Vacation `` 8/23-8/27 Vacation Joel Kleinman 8/5 Vacation `` 8/23 Vacation Harold Kramer 7/15-7/17 Committee Meeting/BOD Meeting `` 7/29-8/6 Vacation Lisa Kustosik 7/15-7/17 BOD Meeting Sean Kutzko 7/15-7/16 Vacation `` 8/16-8/25 Tokyo Ham Fair Greg Kwasowski 7/21-8/5 Vacation Zack Lau 7/12-7/23 Vacation Monique Levesque 7/19-7/23 Vacation Dave Patton 8/6-8/7 Texas State Convention, Austin, TX Diane Petrilli 8/4-8/5 Training `` 8/23-8/27 Vacation Allen Pitts 7/26-7/28 Vacation Brennan Price 7/15-7/17 Committee Meeting/BOD Meeting Steve Sant Andrea 8/30 Vacation Barry Shelley 7/15-7/17 Committee Meeting/BOD Meeting `` 8/9-8/20 Vacation `` 8/26-8/27 Vacation Dave Sumner 7/15-7/17 Committee Meeting/BOD Meeting

1 0