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

RE: [arrl-odv:19177] Parting Remarks
by Kay Craigie 19 Jul '10

19 Jul '10

Mike wrote: "Kay - 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. Perhaps even the decision to go into such a session at all was yours. Please explain why you decided to exclude Vice Directors." The decision to resolve into a Committee of the Whole was not mine. The decision as to whom to excuse was not mine. I had no conversation with Director Norton about his intention to make that motion and did not know he was going to do it until he did it. Since I had no conversation with him about making the motion, there was also no conversation about who, if anyone, would be excused. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:19178] Re: Parting Remarks
by Brian Mileshosky 18 Jul '10

18 Jul '10

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 “closing ceremonies” on Saturday was noted. Tom tells me that he did put in a plug for Boxboro – Thanks, Tom !! At 11:30 or so, when the board decided to dissolve into a “Committee of the Whole”, 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. 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. I do wish a safe trip to all of you who haven’t already left, and hope that each of you who already has will have experienced an uneventful ride home. I look forward to seeing all of you in January. You may or may not look forward to seeing me … > > > > As to the job well done, I offer no kudos. It was not well done. It was barely a D- performance. > > > > 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, code wars, and the BPL crisis. In each case, board members were passionate. We stayed up until midnight working on the problem, drafting motions, debating positions. It was hard, it was gritty, and it got results. Perhaps not always perfect results, but results that have stood the test of time. It seems that we are at our best when we have a dragon to slay. > > > > The July 2010 performance was anything but that. We had a motion on voting. It should have read something like “direct the staff to develop a proposal for an electronic voting mechanism and present in January” and it should have passed with no more than 5 minutes of discussion. Instead, it entailed an hour (or was it two?) of wrangling and nitpicking – crawling through details. And then there was the A&F motion that directed the staff to implement project accounting without implementing project accounting. In the end it came down to “A&F ought to do its job, and staff ought to do its job.” > > > > 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). That happens. There are three approaches that can be taken when lacking a burning NOW issue to tackle: > > > > 1 – don’t have the board meeting. Probably not the best idea, since we all benefit from the personal encounters, but preferable to what was actually done. At least, it would have saved some money. > > 2 – micromanage. It demoralizes staff, annoys the rest of the board, wastes time, and accomplishes little or nothing. This is the path that was chosen, and results will be as predicted. > > 3 – look to the future, and try to guide the organization and the service in a useful and productive way. This is the job of a BOD, and it is what should have been done. Sadly, an opportunity was missed. Some of the things we could have worked on include: > > > > a) Succession planning. 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. These people have the knowledge and experience that make the League tick. What are we going to do when they leave? Not one word about this at the meeting. > > b) Membership building. OK, our grand plan to increase the number of hams has given us only a barely perceptible blip. Why? A complete critique of these programs AND ESPECIALLY our underlying assumptions seems in order. Again, not a peep at the meeting. > > c) The upcoming UHF/microwave spectrum grab. Chris filled us in on the potential. I’m amazed that no one took it and ran. Not even a committee appointed … > > > > 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. Then maybe we could get some creative juices flowing. > > > > --------------------- > > > > The above was what I had planned to cover in my closing remarks. 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. 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. That involved the use of email lists. New Vice Directors – ask your director about it – let me know if you get a coherent explanation. > > > > This time around something similar happened – 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. A Vice President did complain when Mr. Norton attempted to exclude VP’s – Jay cited the Bylaws, interpreting them to mean that VP’s cannot be excluded, but again, no mention of Vice Directors. Let the record show that from a “statutory interpretation” point of view, I believe Jay was correct, but it makes the contrast no less glaring. > > > > Jay – Please explain to us why an IVP’s presence (recognizing that an IVP will never vote on an issue) at that session is more important than Vice Directors’ presence (folks who could well have to deal with the results of whatever transpired.) > > > > Kay - 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. Perhaps even the decision to go into such a session at all was yours. Please explain why you decided to exclude Vice Directors. > > > > Dave Sumner – You are perhaps the best interpreter of the rules of order in the place. 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. Perhaps my assumptions above are wrong? > > > > Each Director (you too, Tom ...) – Please explain why you chose to not object 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:19177] Parting Remarks
by raisbeck＠comcast.net 18 Jul '10

18 Jul '10

Hello All, I gather that my absence at the “closing ceremonies” on Saturday was noted. Tom tells me that he did put in a plug for Boxboro – Thanks, Tom !! At 11:30 or so, when the board decided to dissolve into a “Committee of the Whole”, 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. 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. I do wish a safe trip to all of you who haven’t already left, and hope that each of you who already has will have experienced an uneventful ride home. I look forward to seeing all of you in January. You may or may not look forward to seeing me … As to the job well done, I offer no kudos. It was not well done. It was barely a D- performance. 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, code wars, and the BPL crisis. In each case, board members were passionate. We stayed up until midnight working on the problem, drafting motions, debating positions. It was hard, it was gritty, and it got results. Perhaps not always perfect results, but results that have stood the test of time. It seems that we are at our best when we have a dragon to slay. The July 2010 performance was anything but that. We had a motion on voting. It should have read something like “direct the staff to develop a proposal for an electronic voting mechanism and present in January” and it should have passed with no more than 5 minutes of discussion. Instead, it entailed an hour (or was it two?) of wrangling and nitpicking – crawling through details. And then there was the A&F motion that directed the staff to implement project accounting without implementing project accounting. In the end it came down to “A&F ought to do its job, and staff ought to do its job.” 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). That happens. There are three approaches that can be taken when lacking a burning NOW issue to tackle: 1 – don’t have the board meeting. Probably not the best idea, since we all benefit from the personal encounters, but preferable to what was actually done. At least, it would have saved some money. 2 – micromanage. It demoralizes staff, annoys the rest of the board, wastes time, and accomplishes little or nothing. This is the path that was chosen, and results will be as predicted. 3 – look to the future, and try to guide the organization and the service in a useful and productive way. This is the job of a BOD, and it is what should have been done. Sadly, an opportunity was missed. Some of the things we could have worked on include: a) Succession planning. 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. These people have the knowledge and experience that make the League tick. What are we going to do when they leave? Not one word about this at the meeting. b) Membership building. OK, our grand plan to increase the number of hams has given us only a barely perceptible blip. Why? A complete critique of these programs AND ESPECIALLY our underlying assumptions seems in order. Again, not a peep at the meeting. c) The upcoming UHF/microwave spectrum grab. Chris filled us in on the potential. I’m amazed that no one took it and ran. Not even a committee appointed … 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. Then maybe we could get some creative juices flowing. --------------------- The above was what I had planned to cover in my closing remarks. 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. 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. That involved the use of email lists. New Vice Directors – ask your director about it – let me know if you get a coherent explanation. This time around something similar happened – 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. A Vice President did complain when Mr. Norton attempted to exclude VP’s – Jay cited the Bylaws, interpreting them to mean that VP’s cannot be excluded, but again, no mention of Vice Directors. Let the record show that from a “statutory interpretation” point of view, I believe Jay was correct, but it makes the contrast no less glaring. Jay – Please explain to us why an IVP’s presence (recognizing that an IVP will never vote on an issue) at that session is more important than Vice Directors’ presence (folks who could well have to deal with the results of whatever transpired.) Kay - 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. Perhaps even the decision to go into such a session at all was yours. Please explain why you decided to exclude Vice Directors. Dave Sumner – You are perhaps the best interpreter of the rules of order in the place. 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. Perhaps my assumptions above are wrong? Each Director (you too, Tom ...) – Please explain why you chose to not object 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." ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[arrl-odv:19176] Re:RE: Docket 10-72 R&O
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 16 Jul '10

16 Jul '10

A brief item and link was the lead in yesterday's ARRL Letter. The story was supposed to be on the Web yesterday afternoon. Will check. Dave ________________________________ From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Fri 7/16/2010 4:00 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19175] Re: Docket 10-72 R&O Thought I saw it posted when I checked late this morning, but I don't see it now. Must have been pulled for extra editorial treatment or correction. -- Tom At 10:35 PM 7/15/2010, you wrote: Dave, Someone in one of my Yahoogroups made the comment that this news was not yet on the ARRL website. Will it be updated tomorrow? '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:03 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:19173] Docket 10-72 R&O <<10-72 R&O.pdf>> The important rule change is as follows: (i) A station licensee or control station operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: frenaye(a)pcnet.com YCCC --> http://www.yccc.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:19175] Re: Docket 10-72 R&O
by Tom Frenaye 16 Jul '10

16 Jul '10

Thought I saw it posted when I checked late this morning, but I don't see it now. Must have been pulled for extra editorial treatment or correction. -- Tom At 10:35 PM 7/15/2010, you wrote: >Dave, > >Someone in one of my Yahoogroups made the comment that this news was not yet on the ARRL website. Will it be updated tomorrow? > >'73 de JIM N2ZZ >ARRL Vice Director >Roanoke Division >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ >To: <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>arrl-odv >Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:03 AM >Subject: [arrl-odv:19173] Docket 10-72 R&O > ><<10-72 R&O.pdf>> > >The important rule change is as follows: > >(i) A station licensee or control station operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours. > >Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: frenaye(a)pcnet.com YCCC --> http://www.yccc.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:19174] Re: Docket 10-72 R&O
by James F. Boehner, MD 16 Jul '10

16 Jul '10

Docket 10-72 R&ODave, Someone in one of my Yahoogroups made the comment that this news was not yet on the ARRL website. Will it be updated tomorrow? '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:03 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:19173] Docket 10-72 R&O <<10-72 R&O.pdf>> The important rule change is as follows: (i) A station licensee or control station operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Dave

1 0

[arrl-odv:19173] Docket 10-72 R&O
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 Jul '10

15 Jul '10

<<10-72 R&O.pdf>> The important rule change is as follows: (i) A station licensee or control station operator may participate on behalf of an employer in an emergency preparedness or disaster readiness test or drill, limited to the duration and scope of such test or drill, and operational testing immediately prior to such test or drill. Tests or drills that are not government-sponsored are limited to a total time of one hour per week; except that no more than twice in any calendar year, they may be conducted for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Dave

1 0

[arrl-odv:19172] Re:RE: Fwd: Daily Digest 07/13/2010
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

This is "most improved" in terms of employee satisfaction. As Dick Isely notes, after the Martin era there was nowhere for the FCC to go but up. Dave K1ZZ back in Newington From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:00 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19167] Re: Fwd: Daily Digest 07/13/2010 Usually, on my kids' soccer teams, the "most improved player" award was given toward the end of the season to the clumsiest, bungling oaf on the team to make him or her feel good while stumbling and lurching down the pitch and turning over the ball. 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: Tom Frenaye <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:19165] Fwd: Daily Digest 07/13/2010 > FCC "MOST IMPROVED" FEDERAL AGENCY IN GOVERNMENT SURVEY. STMT. News >Media Contact: Jen Howard at (202) 418-0506, email: Jen.Howard(a)fcc.gov >OCH http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299718A1.doc >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299718A1.pdf >http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-299718A1.txt I thought VP Roderick would enjoy this. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:19171] Summary of July 1 EC conference call
by Kay Craigie 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

These are the notes from the Executive Committee's conference call of July 1. The only topic discussed was the NPRM on 5 MHz. You have seen the filing which resulted from the discussion, so there should be few surprises. A tidier version will be prepared and made available to members along with other Minutes on the web site as soon as possible. 73 - Kay N3KN >This is a rough summary of our discussion last night. Chris will have draft >comments for us. > >1. Substitution of one channel for another? - approved. > >2. Power increase from 50w to 100w ERP? - approved. > >3. Additional modes besides USB, 60H0J2B, CW, 2K80J2D? - No. Our deal with >NTIA was for these emission types. FCC Rules should indicate emission types, >not mode names such as PACTOR-3. Issues identified: (1) being able to clear >a channel fast if federal users need to use it, (2) discouraging >channel-hogging by Amateur users of any particular emission type, (3) >Educating hams about what the emission designators mean. ARRL commits to >strong educational effort to minimize the chances of conflict with the feds >and conflict among users of various emission types, and to inform hams what >the emission designators mean. Major concern was expressed and discussed >that habitual failure to listen before transmitting on non-voice modes will >lead to trouble with the feds. We prefer to rely on education and band >planning rather than have inflexible FCC regulatory restrictions on which >modes can use what channels. Hams must be convinced that irresponsible >operating will lead to loss of the channels and also destroy our chance of >ever getting a band allocation. > >4. CW and PSK31 to operate only on center frequency? - opposed. We will not >offer a specific counter-proposal but rather argue that restricting these >narrow band modes to one QSO per channel at any given time is a poor use of >spectrum. Considerable discussion followed on how hams would know where to >set their VFOs for non-USB modes. ARRL commits to educational effort to >ensure that hams have the information we need in order to operate >responsibly, as we did with USB when the channels were first granted. > >5. Time limit for data transmissions? - opposed. We will argue for educating >hams about the importance of keeping transmissions short and listening >before transmitting. > >6. ALE? - We assume this means digital selective calling, not data >transmission. We do not favor it but will not take a position at this point >in the proceeding. Reply comments may be needed on this topic, depending on >comments of others. > >7. VOX operation on phone? - We see VOX as one of several possible means for >keeping transmissions short and ensuring that feds can grab a channel if >they need to use it. We agreed to VOX as part of the deal with NTIA for >increasing the power limit so outright opposition to VOX now would not be >okay. However, the point is well taken than in a noisy environment VOX can >cause problems. A rule requiring VOX is unenforceable; we do not support >unenforceable rules. Without reneging on our deal with NTIA we can argue >that VOX should be one of several options but not a requirement. > >Our comments will include reference to our desire for a traditional band at >5 MHz. Although this is unlikely to be granted in the near future, we want >to be on record as still favoring a band. In fact, having a band rather than >discrete channels would make for greater regulatory simplicity. > >The ARRL will have to develop a band plan and a set of best practices for 5 >MHz and engage in a strong educational effort to achieve cooperation. >Discussion of the negative consequences of overly-aggressive operating may >need to happen between the ARRL and leaders of the Winlink network and >possibly also with influential leaders of other mode communities. >Individuals who operate irresponsibly may be brought to the attention of >Laura Smith, if peer-pressure (including OO notices) fails. > >73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:19161] Re: Doc #26 Narrowband Study Committee Report
by Greg Sarratt 14 Jul '10

14 Jul '10

Yes, Kay is correct and we talked about NFCC and FCC. 73, Greg Sarratt, W4OZK _____ From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:48 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:19161] Re: Doc #26 Narrowband Study Committee Report I'll let Greg speak for himself, as the committee chair. However, a concern was to prevent the repeater coordinator community from getting their undies in a bunch because they tend to distrust the ARRL and to believe that we want to take over their jobs and make a mess of things. Also a concern was to discourage any industry efforts to badger the committee to endorse specific brands of gear. By keeping the initial part of the committee's work within the Board, Directors could be informed about the issues (historical, technical, and sociological) without pressure from conspiracy-theorist coordinators or from self-interested equipment industry folks. The next steps, whatever the Directors decide those should be, ought to be taken in an atmosphere of transparency. Maybe the Board will decide to release this report to the public as a step in that direction after you've absorbed the info and thought it over together. 73, Kay N3KN

1 0