June 2016 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:23688] Thank You and HNY!
by Brian Mileshosky 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

Okay, now I'm bored on the air -- same for a zillion other League members and hams across the world. Fair warning: I'm making a Director's motion in January to create a Centennial QSO Party Anonymous or Points Anonymous service, because lots of people now find themselves staring hopelessly at their now absolutely quiet radios. A huge THANK YOU to everyone -- ODV, staff, volunteers, members, hams -- for an absolute home run on the air this past year. Centennial celebration aside, if there is one thing that I hope everyone who participated in the QSO Party walked away with, it is that they became better and more dedicated radio operators throughout the year. That they used this year-long opportunity to learn more about themselves as an op, learned more about their gear, uncovered station and operating limitations and found ways to resolve them, and rediscovered the magic, fun (God forbid), and camaraderie that is ham radio. One very profound moment today was working a few folks in the QSO Party who I hadn't worked since back in January 1, 2014. Staring at that date in the log, and greeting those hams once again, with literally one year of time padding our last QSO was an in-your-face "this year has absolutely flown by way too fast" epiphany. I hope everyone enjoyed it as much as they could while it lasted. Happy Centennial, and Happy New Year everyone. Be safe this evening and see you in a few weeks. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division

4 5

[arrl-odv:24932] Status of the WN3A PRB-1 antenna case
by Bob Famiglio, K3RF 31 Aug '16

31 Aug '16

Fellow ODV members: At least three of you have asked recently about the status of the notorious WN3A antenna litigation and whether it has been resolved yet. Here is an update as to the federal court proceedings. You all will recall that the ARRL filed an amicus brief in support of the radio amateur I represent. Copies of my WN3A briefs were also circulated through the ODV server late last summer. You might also recall this case before the 3rd circuit court of appeals concerns a federal judge's legal opinion that any accommodation a town provides a ham, in the towns own judgement no matter how arbitrary, is reasonable accommodation under PRB-1. The federal court ruled hams need not bother coming to federal court for relief under PRB-1 as long as they get a hearing before a local zoning board and a decision is rendered. PRB-1 was found to be very limited in effect by the court. We appealed. Recently we received the attached correspondence from the court clerk scheduling oral argument the week of our next board meeting. This is significant in that the 3rd circuit court does not routinely grant oral argument anymore-decisions are based on the lengthy briefs and research provided by the parties, as they should be. However, in cases which are of first impression and in which a significant precedential decision is anticipated, oral argument is requested by the court as it is here. Our panel of three judges includes the chief judge of the court. This appeals court controls the federal courts in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey, but the decision will surely affect the whole country as the case will be quoted as a significant circuit court decision no matter which way it goes. The argument is just a few days before the January board meeting. I may know from the questions from the court as to any leanings, but that speculation is always dangerous. What seems certain is that the court will not just treat this case as a "do over" by just sending it back to the trial court. They could do that without the need for argument. Rather, it likely will decide what PRB-1 actually means in view of the conflicting court decisions and rules for its interpretation from around the country, all raised by the numerous opponents and their various legal arguments against all ham antennas. I expect a written decision in February now, but that prediction may be off. I hope to see you all in the greater Newington area in a few weeks and will let you know what the judges wanted to know during argument. Let's keep our collective fingers crossed. I hope you are all enjoying the holiday season. I am hoping for a late Christmas present from the 3rd circuit court. 73. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

5 6

[arrl-odv:25371] Formal Call for Second ARRL Board Meeting - July 15-16 2016
by Henderson, Dan N1ND 02 Jul '16

02 Jul '16

At the direction of ARRL Secretary/CEO Tom Gallagher, NY2RF, and in compliance with the requirements of the Articles of Association and the relevant provisions of the Bylaws, please find attached the formal notification of the 2016 Second Meeting of the Board of Directors of The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated You will also find attached the accommodation form, which should be returned to Lisa Kustosik by Wednesday, June 22, 2016, as well as the draft agenda for the meeting. Thanks and 73 Dan Henderson, N1ND Assistant Secretary - American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regulatory Information Manager ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio 860-594-0236 dhenderson(a)arrl.org<mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org>

1 1

[arrl-odv:25397] Target Date for Board Reports
by k5ur＠aol.com 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Hi all: Please have your Board reports posted to ODV by Friday, July 8. Please remember to send Lisa a copy. If you are a liaison to a committee chaired by an outside volunteer, please inform the chair of the due date. Thanks. I hope everyone has a wonderful and safe 4th of July holiday. 73 Rick - K5UR ...

1 0

[arrl-odv:25396] HR 1301/ S 1685 Update
by Mike Lisenco N2YBB 29 Jun '16

29 Jun '16

CONFIDENTIAL TO THE BOARD! CONFIDENTIAL TO THE BOARD! Good evening – I’d like to bring you all up to date with what is happening on the legislative front. As you know, H.R. 1301 was scheduled for a hearing by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee last Wednesday June 22nd with a mark-up to occur the next day, Thursday, June 23rd. Unfortunately, and for reasons well beyond our control, Speaker Ryan placed the House on recess after the sit-in on the 22nd. No action will occur in the House of Representatives until they return on July 5th. As we understand it, through information received by The Keelen Group in a discussion with Congressman Walden, the Committee plans on completing the mark-up procedure just after the House returns in July along with a suspension vote by the full House planned for the second week in July, assuming all goes well. (Both houses of Congress go into recess after the second week in July.) Should the bill get through the House in July, the plan is for a concerted effort to advocate for the bill on the Senate side with the goal of hotlining the bill after the Senate returns in September. It is more likely, however, that the bill would be taken up during the lame duck session after the election in November. Understand that hotlining the bill in the Senate requires unanimous consent. Once the bill passes the House, we will need to immediately ramp up our efforts by using our RallyCongress capability, prepare a phone call campaign for member call-ins, updating the video that is now out of date along with an update of the ARRL website, reaching out to members who may have contacts with their Senators or Senate staffers, etc. As I’ve mentioned many times, this process is fluid and changes dramatically from day to day. We may have lost two weeks that the Senate is in session, but there is still plenty of time to move the bill forward. I will continue to keep you informed. I look forward to your comments. 73 de Mike N2YBB

1 0

[arrl-odv:25395] Re Public Statements of Dissenting Views
by John Bellows 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

On Friday June 24, 2016 in ODV 29352 Director Norton questioned my June 6th ODV comments regarding board members publicly advocating positions contrary to ARRL Board decisions. His comments and my orignal post are set forth below. If my view of the Directors Workbook is really a strong candidate for the most disturbing post to the ODV reflector I am puzzled why it took Director Norton 18 days to reach that conclusion. Equally puzzling is his suggestion that the simple statement of ones opinion within the confines of the Board on ODV is an attempt at browbeating or bullying. If that is the case, any and all discussion, debate or exchange of differing views would be improper. I respectfully suggest that hiss criticism conflates majority rule with groupthink. Once an issue has been discussed and decided by the Board, we as representatives of ARRL are obligated to support League policy. This is certainly true in dealing with government officials and even more so when we are trying to persuade Congress to adopt an ARRL recommended action. Any attempt to distinguish personal opinions from ARRL policy is bound to be misunderstood so long as the speaker wears a Red Badge. Vigorous discussion and debate within the Board is necessary, but once the decision is made expressing opposition outside the board can only undermine ARRL as the national association of amateur radio and representative of its members. 73, Jay, KØQB Friday June 24, 2016 in ODV 29352 from Director Norton ----------- 3) However, this thread has brought out a strong candidate for the most disturbing post I've ever seen on the ODV reflector. Vice President Bellows stretch of a clause in the Director's Workbook to interpret communication to members as being communication with government is at best unwarranted. His attempt at browbeating or bullying a director into groupthink is antithetical to my sense of our purpose. ----------- His comment related to my posting of June 6, 2016 in which I stated the following: ----------- I am very troubled that it has become necessary to circulate this memo. Though Director's Workbook Section 2.2 is directed at dealings with Federal Government officials it would appear to be applicable when the actions of Board members are intended to impact an ARRL Board action intended to change federal law. 2.2 ....... "It is important for the policies of the Board to be communicated to federal government personnel in a consistent manner, and to present a position of unity at all times." If this is a matter of conscience for the individuals concerned the options are to support the majority decision or, if they feel compelled to advocate a contrary position, resign from the Board. ---------

1 0

[arrl-odv:25392] Re: [exec-com:8260] Public Statements of Dissenting Views About the Amateur Radio Parity Act
by Richard J. Norton 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

To follow up on this tread - 1) Regarding Vice-president Widen's concern that if CAI ever found out that a single ARRL director might feel that the compromise went beyond what that director approved of, it might decide that the ARRL cannot be trusted, and that CAI might opt out of the agreement is simply beyond rational belief. As mentioned previously, all CAI might do is feel smug that they have negotiated a good deal for their side. The comment that legislators might reach similar conclusions is equally fanciful. VP Widen's arguments are at best, unconvincing. General Consul Imlay's criticisms are similarly far-fetched. If anything, the cited action benefits his cause. 2) This certainly should not detract from the pride that Consul Imlay and Director Lisenco should have with respect to the HOA legislation. The bills have already gone farther than I imagined, and regardless of the eventual outcome, their work has been beneficial to Amateur Radio. 3) However, this thread has brought out a strong candidate for the most disturbing post I've ever seen on the ODV reflector. Vice President Bellows stretch of a clause in the Director's Workbook to interpret communication to members as being communication with government is at best unwarranted. His attempt at browbeating or bullying a director into groupthink is antithetical to my sense of our purpose. Elected directors or legislators owe their allegiance to the voters that they represent. If they disagree with a decision of their body, they have every right to express their opinions. Review of elected official's dissent in significantly more important bodies than the ARRL, such as the United States government, can be found by reading almost any newspaper. ARRL directors routinely express dissenting opinions in roll-call votes, which are documented in the minutes. Directors also are able to request to be "recorded as voting in opposition." The specific compromise issue discussed here was never discussed at a board meeting. There was no chance to have a director's opinions shown to the League members through published minutes or with a recorded vote. Although I'm personally not upset with the language in the compromise, I support the right of every director to express his opinion, and I'll stand up to defend his right. 4) It was pointed out that the distribution of this thread included some staff members. I have deliberately included them in this reply. Two attorneys connected with the League aggressively besmirched a director (Ironically, the director with the most experience on the board in legislative matters) to both the board and the employees. This memo should let both the board and employees know that the opinions transmitted were not shared by the entire board. Note also that I've communicated with other board members (emphasis on plural), and they agree with me. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM, G Widin <gpwidin(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Dick, > Until a compromise is embodied in something permanent, it remains > fragile. If CAI were to feel that ARRL is not committed to the compromise, > it might decide that it cannot be trusted, and opt out of the agreement. > Legislators becoming aware of dissension might reach similar conclusions. > Those operating on behalf of the Parity Act have enough to do without > fighting a rear-guard operation created by ourselves. > > This is not to say that there should never be disagreement within the > Board, just that it needs to remain "in the family," as Chris has pointed > out. > 73, > Greg, K0GW > > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Huh? >> >> I don't understand. >> >> If the goal of the ARRL is to get CAI and legislators to accept the >> "compromise," it would appear to me that being able to say, "We have >> compromised so much that an ARRL director has been openly critical, and >> some members are complaining," would be helpful in convincing CAI and >> legislators that they should believe that the ARRL has indeed compromised >> enough, and the requested legislation is fair, and should pass. >> >> What am I missing? Why are some of you upset? >> >> 73, >> >> Dick Norton, N6AA >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Memo to the Executive Committee and to the Elections and Ethics >>> Committee members attached. >>> >>> 73, Chris W3KD >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher D. Imlay >>> Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC >>> 14356 Cape May Road >>> Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 >>> (301) 384-5525 telephone >>> (301) 384-6384 facsimile >>> W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> arrl-odv mailing list >>> arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org >>> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv >>> >>> >>

2 1

[arrl-odv:25393] B Reactor at Hanford Active during Field Day
by Northwestern Div. Director 25 Jun '16

25 Jun '16

I'm not sure how many know about this NPOTA activation. W7B will be active from Hanford B Reactor from 1800-2400 6/25, then move to Visitor Center for remaining Operational Period. Activity has been approved by NPS Regional Manager andUS Dept of Energy Site Manager. Operation restricted to pre-registered/cleared personnel only. The B Reactor is part of the Manhattan Project NPOTA designation. I know the Hanford folks will be trying to make as many contacts as possible especially with the other half of the project at the Oakridge Laboratory site. Everybody have a safe and fun Field Day 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX ARRL the National Association for Amateur Radio Northwestern Division Director

1 0

[arrl-odv:25391] Good domestic news on 47 GHz
by Price, Brennan, N4QX 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

It is my privilege to report some spectrum defense news that is as unexpected as it is welcome. There are parallel domestic and international proceedings regarding spectrum for 5G mobile broadband. The WRC-19 agenda identifies the 47-47.2 GHz band among several between 24.25 GHz and 86 GHz for consideration. We are engaged in the early stages of defending this band on the international stage, insisting that the mobile industry show its work to justify its claimed spectrum needs. While the international process will drag out for a few more years, the FCC has been very aggressive in finding spectrum for 5G. ARRL commented in a January 2015 Notice of Inquiry seeking to identify suitable bands above 24.25 GHz for mobile broadband, pointing out that there were ample mobile service allocations already, and that the amateur bands should be avoided. (For your recollection, our comments are attached above.) After the WRC-19 agenda was set, we were afraid that the FCC would use the international agenda as an excuse to consider the 47-47.2 GHz band for 5G mobile broadband here in the United States. In the past week, FCC Chairman Wheeler has begun making public statements hyping imminent FCC action on new bands for 5G. Today, the FCC issued a fact sheet (attached) on the so-called "Spectrum Frontiers" rulemaking, which has been placed on the agenda of its July 14 meeting. The fact sheet *excludes* 47-47.2 GHz from consideration in the United States at this time (see the list of bands to be considered in the next-to-last paragraph). To have the FCC omit this band in light of the political momentum behind 5G is incredible. Credit is due to Chris Imlay, who gave life to Dave Sumner's and my thoughts on 5G spectrum in ARRL's response to the Notice of Inquiry in January 2015. Some credit must also go to the quiet efforts of Ted Rappaport, N9NB, who is a leading academic in the field of millimeter band use and exploitation. Ted gave the keynote address at a 5G workshop held at the FCC earlier this year. He told me that at dinner before the workshop, he told the Commissioners and other attendees that 47 GHz is a valuable test bed for radio amateurs to advance the state of the art, and that they should leave the band alone. The international work on this band still needs to be done, and won't be easy--the band would not have been included if *someone* didn't want our spectrum somewhere in the world. Nevertheless, we have avoided a domestic battle that would not have been pretty. I am pleased, and you should be too. 73 de Brennan N4QX Brennan T. Price, N4QX Chief Technology Officer American Radio Relay League PO Box 3470 Oakton VA 22124-9470 Tel +1 860 594-0247

1 0

[arrl-odv:25390] Personnel Action
by Marty Woll 23 Jun '16

23 Jun '16

I am shocked and disappointed at seeing the ARRL Web story concerning the Joe Ames action. While I have not seen the facts surrounding the decision to terminate his volunteer services, it seems to me that those who decided how to handle this matter did not follow the long-standing advice of our general Counsel concerning the rejection or termination of volunteers, which is to tell them that their services are no longer needed and never get into specific reasons for the rejection or termination. To the contrary, it appears that those responsible not only provided a list of transgressions but went further and published the matter in all its gory detail on the League Web site. Such publication flies in the face of sound business practices, and I cannot imagine anything good that will result from having done so. Why was Mr. Ames not given the option of resigning from his positions? I am now receiving strong negative reaction to the League's handling of this matter from high-quality, strongly supportive ARRL members and active volunteers whose participation I value highly. Rather than promoting and preparing for Field Day, as I should be doing right now, I am engaged in damage control over a matter about which I was kept in the dark until two days ago. If any of you doubt the seriousness or breadth of the mess this has created, I will be happy to share with you a sampling of what I'm getting. You can be sure that the damage to the League's reputation far exceeds the impact on that of Mr. Ames, and it would not surprise me if echoes of this rang for even longer than those of incentive licensing or regulation by bandwidth. If you expect members to slap you on the back at the next convention or Hamfest and tell you, "Good job, you sure showed him who's boss", don't hold your breath. By the way, much of the resulting blame is being directed at the entire Board (just in time for the upcoming election cycle), even though some Directors were, as I understand the process, not advised of the final action until it had already taken place. I'm sitting here with a Vice-Director nominating petition loaded with signatures, but I'm beginning to wonder, having witnessed this collective lapse of judgment, whether I should bother turning it in. Marty N6VI

1 0