Sorry, forgot the attachment, here it is. chris On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> wrote:
I think Dr. Jim makes a good point about rebuttal of CAI. Because Associa, the management company that allegedly serves 9000 HOAs in 31 states is up on the Hill *with CAI right now, today,*,and because CAI has issued a call to arms to their membership which is full of misrepresentations, a rebuttal document of points and authorities for our members doing advocacy for HR 4969, managed correctly, may be helpful.
In fact, I just got a call from Josh Baggett, KK4NDB, who works for Rep. Kinzinger, asking for a second rebuttal document. I sent Josh a letter on Friday with information to rebut Associa's letter to Kinzinger, and now that they met with Josh and made other arguments, he asked us to help him rebut them as well. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY here is the letter I sent to Josh on Friday. We can do a rebuttal paper separately now that we know the arguments that both opposition groups are making.
To give you an idea of what the deal is, Associa and CAI made two main points today with Josh: (1) there is no Federal interest being served by this Bill because hams are just hobbyists; and (2) FCC has said multiple times that there is no need to apply PRB-1 to CC&Rs. CAI asked for even one example where covenants prevented a ham from engaging in emergency communications.
We are working on a rebuttal points paper for Josh today now that he has had his meeting with Associa and CAI together. Reportedly, Associa asked for compromise language. CAI is taking a scorched earth tack -- no bill, no way. Josh didn't bite on either position.
Game on.
Chris
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
To Dan and anyone else who is responsible for providing the above site on the arrl.org website, thank you!
If I could request a few additions:
1) Dan, could you add your fax number to the mix? We have postal mail and e-mail attachments covered, but some actually still use fax machines.
2) We had a legislative update by TKG this past week. Can we have a “drop-down” as to how members request an appointment to meet their representatives? More importantly, how to conduct their meeting. I’m thinking specifically as to prepare them if they are deferred to one of the representative’s staffers, how many hams to bring to the meeting, to be prepared if their representative doesn’t agree with them, etc. For those of us who have never requested an audience with their congressman, it is a daunting task. Members with no political experience really need to feel empowered to speak to their representative on behalf of the ARRL, and do so properly. Otherwise, the most we can expect are letters.
3) If it is legislatively appropriate, can we have a “drop-down” to discuss CAI so that members can “Know the Enemy” and know the opposition we face? Perhaps to take each of their arguments and have our direct rebuttal ready to go, as Chris indicated in his last e-mail?
As I wrote the request for a Fax number, I’m reminded of a Dilbert cartoon, where he agreed to fax specifications only if he could travel back in time to 1985, when faxes were the way to do this sort of thing J ! But it is what it is!
Thanks for the consideration,
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- 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@ARRL.ORG
-- 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@ARRL.ORG