With the due diligence apparently completed, I agree with the others. That said, I would like to hear Director Norton's comments and assessment of this relationship. 73; Mike W7VO
---------- Original Message ---------- From: AC0W Bill <ac0wmoo11@gmail.com> To: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Date: 04/27/2021 2:58 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:32316] Re: NSF Grant - further details
Thanks David,
I agree with the others on this.
Bill
AC0W
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 3:16 PM To: Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32313] Re: NSF Grant - further details
Good research. Thanks.
I believe that this is within Staff purview and that your team should lead ARRL’s guidance to Clubs. Inderbitzen has been involved with a number of university clubs.
Of course, I recommend that we submit the very active and innovative Georgia Tech ARC as a candidate. They are part of a facility including all the test equipment you could imagine, as well a number of large Faraday cage/rooms, and a lot of potentially interested post-grads who are always looking for fellowship funding. There is an entire Research Institute (GTRI) which might be interested, depending upon the actual scope.
Again, from my perspective, carry on. We need more use cases for our allocations!
73,
--
Mickey Baker
Director, Southeastern Division
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org mailto:n4mb@arrl.org
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org > on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org mailto:dminster@arrl.org > Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 2:38 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > Subject: [arrl-odv:32312] NSF Grant - further details
I just spoke on the phone with Mike Marcus drilling into the full background on this NSF grant.
The NSF Grant link that was circulated before is an old grant that is tied to a much larger program. The grant they received was a planning grant of $175K. The details of the full program can be found here:
https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2021/nsf21558/nsf21558.htm
The program is a $25MM grant, $5MM/yr for 5 years and will be awarded in parts to different organizations/groups.
The Northeastern University team is now leading a group of 10 universities. Mike is a Principle Research Scientist and Adjunct Professor of Northeastern and is involved on this large team looking for their first large grant from the program.
Mike’s interest in having ARRL involved is two-fold: First, it adds another dimension to their grant application (i.e. NSF will look favorably upon our interest). Second, they desire to, through the Workforce Development aspect of the grant, have a STEM element and are looking to involve High School and University radio clubs in an SDR experimentation project. They recognize the strength of our Collegiate Club program and want us to be involved from that aspect.
Beyond connecting the research team to clubs, we technically don’t need to be involved at any other level. Although we could stay connected to the experiments the clubs will be doing with the SDR’s.
I asked Mike if this is a paid consulting assignment. It is not. He is a paid employee of Northeastern. I asked if this could be construed as a consulting relationship like the one he was paid to do with Rappaport. He stated that this is not a consulting relationship. He also stated that he received no compensation from Rappaport for his support on the legality of his issues and was in no way involved in the band planning aspect of what went on.
He stated that Rappaport is also putting forward an effort to obtain monies from this very same NSF grant with a different group.
I don’t see any reason not to move forward with this.
Please let me know your thoughts.
David