If we are
considering taking a stand on this legislation we ought to do so in a manner
that reflects ARRL is committed to public service and non-partisan. In this
instance that may not be difficult. According to the cited Infoweek
article”
“Everyone
seems to agree with the ostensible goal of the bill, which is ‘to make
all data and information that the public has already paid for available in real
time’ ….. (b)ut
there's disagreement about whether the text of the proposed legislation will
function as advertised.”
Most
critics and even some proponents agree “ ambiguities
in the bill could leave room for new restrictions to be placed on National
Weather Service data.” David
Moran, assistant professor of law at Wayne State University said "(t)he bill is poorly drafted
because, after reading it several times, I'm not at all clear as to exactly
what information the [National Weather Service] would be prohibited from
releasing to the public.”
If the
Board feels the need to take a stand on Senate Bill 786, we should frame our
position as support for the stated purpose of the Bill, namely that the
National Weather Service ought to be free to make all data and information that
the public has already paid for available in real time, but that in its’
present form Senate Bill 786 is so ambiguous and contradictory to its’ stated
purpose the we are compelled to oppose it.
Of course
before opposing any pending legislation we need Counsel Imlay to advise us
whether this action would negatively affect our status as a 501(c) (3)
organization.
-----Original Message-----
From: w5jbp@aol.com
[mailto:w5jbp@aol.com]
Sent:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:12820] Re: NWS
- Senate Bill 786
I agree. This bill is totally
self-serving and we should come out against it.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
Sent:
Subject: [arrl-odv:12802] NWS -
Senate Bill 786
I
thought we spent a little time at the recent Board meeting talking about
Senate
Bill 786 (regarding weather information), introduced by Senator Santorum.
Couldn't
find any reference to it in the minutes so I guess it was a brief
mention
- perhaps in John Chwat's
presentation. I guess the
bottom line was
that
we (John, Chris, etc) didn't think there was a real chance if it becoming
law,
so we didn't take any action.
I'm
second-guessing that now after reading an article about it in Information
World:
http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702845
I
also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to
be
very positive (and vice versa).
I think it'd be a good move for us to
publicly
state that we do not support S.786.
-- Tom
=====
e-mail:
k1ki@arrl.org ARRL
Tom
Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J,