I agree with Rev and Wade that the KC6VJL proposal is poor. Conversely, I don't think we ought to dismiss it summarily. Instead, it would seem to be a sound idea to include this proposal in a thorough, timely review of ARES and where we'd like to go with this operation in the future. A lot is happening among our served agencies regarding how they are preparing to meet future major disasters. Whether this is FEMA's proposed, mandated switch to all-digital communication or some other change(s), we can easily be left out in the proverbial cold unless we stick tightly to the same page as them. Let's be sure we don't ill advisedly toss out important ideas simply because they are clothed in a poorly conceived and prepared proposal. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel: 513-459-0142 ARRL Great Lakes Division ARRL, the Reason Amateur Radio is! Members, the Reason ARRL is! -----Original Message----- From: warren morton [mailto:mortonwg@bresnan.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:31 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re: Board of Section Managers proposal Wade: I could not agree with you more. It is bad idea and I feel it will indeed go no where. Rev WS7W On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:39:43 +0000 walstrom@mchsi.com wrote:
Hi Gary!
This is not a Board proposal. This sounds like someones pet idea that will go no where.
73,
Wade W0EJ
Anybody look over that Board of Section Managers proposal from Allan Handforth, KC6VJL?
The first thing that comes to mind is where is the ARRL Board in all
this,
and where does the Board of Section Managers get any authority, or are they advisory to the BOD or what?!? He talks about having 15 SM directors, one each for the 15 divisions, with most of their meetings in chat rooms. But if you are going to do that, why not have ALL the SMs in on the discussions? Does this place an additional layer between the SMs and the ARRL field organization? Why do that?
Seems kind of off the wall to me.