Dick, I’ve had your e-mail in my inbox queue for some time. I’ve noted that the usual responses to your e-mails either are explanations of your observations or minor clarifications. Recently, a very pointed one was sent. So, I wanted to add a few thoughts. Dick, you intellectualize very well. You do the math, but it is apparent that in politics, the only math that truly matters is the vote at the end. You say that quantitative information is not given, but I believe the entire reason for our solicitation of co-sponsorship is that the representative is truly making a commitment to the bill. That is not to say that during the last vote we will have more support from those that do not actually commit to co-sponsorship. This fight is a good fight. Most hams can identify with the fact that HOA restrictions will limit our ability to communicate. This fight is unifying members, it is getting our name out to congressmen, and for the first time, we actually have a chance to influence legislation on a national level. The grassroots effort is showing that the congressmen know who we are, what we do, and that we vote. As far as to committing member resources, it would be entirely justifiable to use general funds for this effort, if there wasn’t a special fund for this purpose. This is a fight that involves all members in some way. How many technicians do not upgrade to General or Extra, since HF is not even a possibility for them? How many hams would become more active if they could put up an even modest antenna where they live? How many hams will only know amateur radio as handhelds and repeater operation? There would be a lot of political capital for our congressmen to be gained by supporting our bill if there was another disaster on our shores, like Katrina. There are numerous news stories about hams helping post-earthquake in Nepal, but it is doubtful that would provide much political capital for our congressmen at this time. So, we have a bit more convincing to do. Dick, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but my observation and opinion is that when the board tries to show some “out of the box” thinking, you do try to pull us back into the box. Your usual justification is that of member resources, and inappropriate spending of same. Oddly, I remember when you characterized our Development efforts as “begging for money” during an informal session of one of our board meetings, which had nothing to do with member resources. Any large non-profit organization has to “think out of the box” and have a development effort to survive. I expect any non-profit organization to which I belong to do the same. The ARRL offers many more advantages to members for what equates to the cost of a tank of gas. I do think that what they get in return for their membership matters much more to them than the cost of membership. What I get from the ARRL as a member is heads and shoulders above what I get from other non-profits, and even professional organizations to which I belong. This is why I believe that the ARRL is a world leader, an organization to which amateur radio organizations across the globe look to us for guidance. A less global view would delegate us to the unenviable role of a being a large non-profit organization that happens to publish a magazine. My view as being a Board Member is not just to represent the members of my Division. It is to do my best to support the League, both with my actions and financially through the development campaign. It is to show that I support the actions of the board, of which I have had an opportunity to add input. I do not think any board member should think they are responsible for anything less. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J Norton Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:05 PM To: Kay Craigie Cc: ODV Reflector Subject: [arrl-odv:24234] Re: 5 more I am also pleased to see that there are now 44 co-sponsors of HR-1301. This number comports with the information on the bill shown on the govtrack web-site. See https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1301 . Govtrack has now raised the estimate-of-enactment up to one percent. It is uncertain if proponents want to include ARRL's hitting the 1% milestone in communication with our members. Lobbyist Effectiveness? President Craigie has pointed out that 21 co-sponsors of last year's HR-4969 have not signed up to support HR-1301. Why has our new lobbyist not been able to single-handedly get supporters of what is the same bill they co-sponsored last year on board? Around 2002, former lobbyist John Chwat was reported to have garnered co-sponsorship of an ARRL-related bill from over 30 House members, without House visits by board members. Meetings With Staff Effectiveness? General Counsel Imlay reported that over 100 meetings were held with Congresspersons or staff in conjunction with the recent EC meeting. It appears that 5 or so additional co-sponsors have now signed on. Even if the co-sponsor capture-rate eventually gets to many times that amount, this doesn't look promising. Over half the House needs to vote in favor of a bill for it to pass. Sadly, Mr. Imlay's report gave no quantitative data concerning meeting outcomes. One League participant did mention being treated cordially by the staff that he encountered, something certainly not unexpected from the representatives of successful politicians. Investing in Lottery Tickets? My business background dissuades my committing substantial assets to fund opportunities with a 1% chance of success. Southwestern Division members elected me to represent their interest and investment in the ARRL. I've honestly communicated my views on ARRL activity to the membership, and expect to continue to do so. I have publicly expressed my support for the objectives of HR-1301, but have also suggested that, with the evidence I've seen, members might not count on the bill ever passing. The essence of my remarks to the ARRL Forum at the recent Visalia DX Convention on the topic are essentially as follows. The ARRL's Efforts Have Not Been Wasted Recent activity by the ARRL has strengthened the ability of Amateurs in Home Owner Association residences to negotiate reasonable accommodation of radio antennas. 1) The League has produced a brochure describing Amateur Radio's service to communities. This can be part of information given to HOA boards to showcase Amateur Radio's positive impact. 2) ARRL's legislative activities have prompted CAI, the national HOA association, to publicly state that HOA's have a good track record of accommodating ham radio. See http://www.caionline.org/govt/news/Pages/default.aspx , which says: "The truth is CAI members have a good track record of accommodating HAM radio hobbyists. Many communities work with HAM radio hobbyists on the design and installation of antennas. Some communities even set aside space in community centers for HAM radio clubs." I make no claim of how true CAI's statement may be. What I said to the Visalia group was essentially that I recommend that those working with HOA groups exploit that statement in any negotiation. A New Ballgame? Last year, the ARRL had a fanciful, stealthy plan to get the FCC to obtain our objectives with merely a phone call from a key legislator to the FCC. This was to be achieved on ARRL's part by simply garnering co-sponsors to 2014's HR-4969. The plan did not work. We now have apparently undertaken the much more burdensome task of having to get our concept passed by both chambers of Congress and then signed by the President. Yet, we appear to be following the same path of attempting to gather co-sponsors. Is this an effective plan for success? HR-1301 As I have said before, and said in public at every group I've addressed, I personally wish we could get HR-1301 enacted. Unfortunately no evidence shows any sign that this will happen. Our opposition has what many will perceive to be a somewhat reasonable argument. Even the FCC essentially bought it recently. Also unfortunately for us, only one in every 400 US citizens has an Amateur Radio license, and likely less than half of them are active. We don't have the political muscle to pull this off. I hope we can simply declare victory and exploit CAI's statement to our advantage. Having CAI, our major opposition, state that they already do what we desire should hold weight in negotiations. I've saved copies of their web-pages concerning the matter. 73, Dick Norton., N6AA On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote: Chris, thanks for summarizing what has happened since your last report. Five more co-sponsors have signed on. They are Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-At Large] Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] Rep. Maloney, Sean Patrick [D-NY-18] Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] I'm especially happy to see Mr. Johnson on the list again, since his office was one of those I visited last month. There's no keeping up with Mike Lisenco, but a person has to try! Mike, thanks for posting on the ODV the materials you have used to such good effect. I'd like to join Mike in encouraging everyone to be an active advocate for the legislation, in whatever ways fit your life and the opportunities existing in your Division. Those of you who're already been active, thanks! The issue needs to be refreshed in members' minds periodically, so please repeat the message in future communications with your Division's members. This is definitely not a one & done topic. If I counted correctly, 12 co-sponsors from last session are no longer in the House because they were defeated, chose not to run again, or were obliged to resign for some reason. That leaves 21 co-sponsors who have not yet signed up again this session. They are listed alphabetically in the attachment. If some of them are in your Division, please light fires under members to write to them c/o Dan Henderson at HQ. As I'm sure you know, you can send bulletins to ARRL members in specific Congressional districts, making it unnecessary to bother other members with messages not relevant to them. Thanks for being part of this full-team effort. 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv