Dave:
I note your September “It Seems to Us” editorial provides a HQ email address, for
questions, comments and expressing whether the respondent likes the petition. Perhaps
I misunderstood the board discussion but I thought the question of whether we would
have a self-selected nationwide poll or whether it would be up to the director
in each division to seek counsel of their members was left unresolved.
Though the invitation in the editorial is
not specifically labeled a poll it could be viewed as such. And members will
likely want to know the results. I question whether a “yes I like it”
or “no, I don’t like it” response is very helpful to the board
in considering this proposed petition. In the past I was under the impression
that directors have sought to obtain feedback from their respective divisions
on issues of significant interest to League members While knowing that X%
nationwide may favor the proposal and Y% are against it may be interesting it
really doesn’t help me in “taking the temperature” of members
in the Dakota Division.
My intention is to seek input from the Dakota
Division through a division wide email and (Yes, I’m going to use the “P”
word) poll as soon as the summary is available. Others may choose the same or
different options. It seems to me that so long as we are a representative
organization based upon geographical boundaries any nationwide poll can be misleading
and misconstrued as a vote by the members. This could lead to unintended
consequences and claims the League is not responsive, particularly if pockets
of members in certain areas have strong feelings and whip up local votes to
support that view.
I’ve been told I am process oriented.
That’s probably true. We have all seen and heard enough instances where
the League has been accused of not listening to the members. Each time it
happens we suffer a little chink in our credibility. So long as the members’
control of the organization is exercised through electing Division
representatives my preference is to have them direct their comment to and voice
their views and concerns through those representatives rather than a HQ address.
73,
Jay, KØQB
-----Original Message-----
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
[mailto:dsumner@arrl.org]
Sent:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10953] Bandwidth petition status
This will bring you up to date on the petition to
regulate subbands by bandwidth. Because not everyone receiving this message was
at the Board meeting I will start with a brief recap.
July 2002 Board Meeting, Minute 64, says:
"64.
On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Stinson, it was VOTED that at the
next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise Part 97 to
regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode."
Turning that principle into a practical draft
petition took a while and involved getting input from the Ad Hoc HFDigital
Committee. At the January 2004 Board Meeting you were provided a draft petition
along with a list of questions on which we needed further guidance. Based on
the discussion at that meeting, the draft petition was revised and was given to
the Executive Committee for its review on March 13. The EC's review showed that
a bit more "cleaning up" of the draft needed to be done. The EC also
decided that the petition should be explained to the ARRL membership BEFORE it
was filed. We don't want to publish the entire draft petition prior to filing;
that would give someone the opportunity to take our work product and either put
their own name on it and file it, either as written or with some modifications.
However, we do need to give members a clear explanation of what's being
proposed and why, and how it might affect their operating interests. We also
need to give them an opportunity to ask questions and offer comments, without
submitting to a referendum the decision that the Board alreasdy made back in
2002.
Between the EC Meeting and the Board Meeting there
was not much time available to address this, our principal preocupation being
BPL. During and since last week's Board Meeting two things have occurred.
First, Paul, Chris and I have reviewed the March
draft and have determined that it can be simplified somewhat. We also
identified several corrections that needed to be made. As I type this, Chris is
revising the draft and will leave it with Paul and me for our review when he
goes on vacation at the end of the day.
Second, as mentioned at the Board Meeting, I have
devoted the September QST editorial (attached) to "Regulation by
Bandwidth." The editorial, written yesterday around dealing with the North
Carolina BPL situation, sets the stage for our putting the synopsis and
explanation of the petition on the Web by the time September QST reaches
members. Note: the URL mentioned in the editorial is NOT YET ACTIVE. I plan to
have the final draft of the petition in the Board's hands next week. Then,
while you're reviewing it and asking whatever questions you may have, the
synopsis and explanation will be prepared. When it goes on the Web, preferably
during the second week of August, a special temporary email address such as
"bandwidth@arrl.org" will be established to collect
comments/questions. When we've "taken the temperature" of the
membership we can make the final determination as to filing, certainly no later
than the October 16 EC Meeting.
73,
Dave
Sumner, K1ZZ
<<qs0409.pdf>>