Thanks for the background, Chris. Our
board reps were probably right to try to initially try to get a bigger voice on
the committee. However, when that didn’t fly, I think it was an error not
to participate as a full member. As a general rule, these sorts of groups give
one vote to every member. So, I don’t see their reaction to our request
for bigger voting voice as a slap in the face of the League. Our subsequent behavior
looks arrogant and stubborn. Moreover, it’s not in our best interest to
attempt to monopolize the regulatory discourse on amateur radio. I hope we’ve
learned that much in the ensuing years.
73, Walt W0CP
I've stopped 35,726 spam messages. You can too!
Get protection at http://www.w0cp.com/mailwasher.htm
From: W3KD@aol.com
[mailto:W3KD@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:30
PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10803] Re: VEC
meeting
In a message dated 6/29/2004 4:05:57 PM Eastern Standard
Time, k1ro@arrl.org writes:
I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in
their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes us
look foolish at best.
The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an
"olive branch" as well.
What are your thoughts?
Jim Haynie
A bit of historical perspective on this for those who don't go back to the
early 80s with ARRL. When the NCVEC was formed, the ARRL officers then
presiding dispatched Jay Holladay, me and one or two others to the
organizational meeting of the group.
No one on the Board was happy about the formation of this group, which was
fomented by John Johnston, W3BE, then chief of the Personal Wireless Branch,
Private Radio Bureau. John felt that the amount of influence ARRL had in
Amateur Radio policy matters at FCC was unhealthy. In fact, at the time, it was
extensive, since Jim McKinney, and largely, Bob Foosaner and Ralph Haller after
him allowed ARRL to have what it wanted, with few limitations (spectrum issues
being foremost among the exceptions).
Jay Holladay and I were charged with insuring that, since the ARRL administered
the vast majority of the examinations, the voting in this organization should
be based on the percentage of examinations administered. That was our pitch at
the time. It wasn't taken well, to say the least. The NCVEC group had some
rather strident personalities at the time, and we were told it was one VEC, one
vote. This was long before Bart's time running the VEC.
So we retaliated by not voting in this organization. We participated, because
we really had no choice. But dignifying the NCVEC by voting in their group was
deemed improper. There was an undercurrent of having staff vote on issues about
which the Board may not have spoken, but which relate to regulatory policy, but
the initial impetus for the abstentions was the voting structure of NCVEC
itself. This goes back a lot of years. NCVEC in the meantime, through the
machinations of Fred Maia and others, attempted to expand their area of
regulatory influence, and our quandary about the extent of participation seemed
to worsen. Now, though, NCVEC is somewhat more "tame" than it was,
and at least somewhat less overtly political.
The purpose of that recitation is to note that the Board policy on abstentions
in the NCVEC was never reflective of any lack of confidence in Bart or his
predecessors. I am sure everyone on the Board realizes what a real prize we
have in Bart Jahnke, who is one of my favorite people, and whose judgment
and is beyond doubt.
73, Chris W3KD