Hi Art, Regarding weakness, many will say that ship sailed a few years ago with the (alleged) CAI compromise. Some have said that election margins were narrow and thus not a mandate, as my predecessor had wrote in an email to my division. This ignores the increase in turnout, almost 2x in my division and the fact that four out of five challengers won. Not to beat a dead horse, but based on feedback, this bill was a big driver of division voting. With that said, we do have an opportunity now to refocus into producing a better solution and do it carefully with experts and experience. The strong HOA lobby is always going to be there. It's easy to pass blame to (former) Senator Nelson but the reality is that the powerful R.E. industry is always going to search for, find, and fund a suitable spokesperson and surrogate. We have to work around that, and not by compromising our goals for the sake of "doing something, anything." I have no doubt that quickly reversing the FCC filing (in my opinion) made hastily in a lame-duck session right after the elections was the right thing to do. It's especially prudent since the FCC has said in the past that it will not act without a Congressional mandate, which we did not have. Fred's suggestion for a future approach seems very sensible to me and I'm of the belief that with expert architects and sound guidance, we can get something more robust. Onward and upward. 73 Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio n2rj@arrl.org On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 11:20, Arthur I. Zygielbaum <aiz@ctwsoft.com> wrote:
I agree with Rod. The quick change in course will be seen as an indication of weakness and uncertainty for the board. While the Board has made a decision, the question to me is whether the avocation and the organization are hurt more by staying the course or by taking this big step back.
The way the the release is written and the specifics of its language are really irrelevant against this bigger issue. You can't patch over a bad move with better language.
Howard, it is well drafted.
Count this as a note from the peanut gallery.
73, Art K0AIZ
On 1/24/2019 11:40 AM, Rod Blocksome wrote:
Howard and ODV,
Though I don't agree with the motion (and voted against it), I believe this version of the announcement is a factual, fair, and balanced statement. My thanks to you and the staff for your efforts in this matter. 73's, Rod, K0DAS
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:50 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org> wrote:
Dear Officers, Directors, and Vice Directors,
Thanks for helping make this release better. I believe that we have captured the Board's sentiment as expressed in the approved motion and the oral discussion captured in the audio recording. This press release does not go further than that.
ARRL Board Statement on Amateur Radio Parity Act
At its annual meeting, held Jan. 18-19 in Windsor, CT, the ARRL Board of Directors decided that the organization needs to “review, re-examine and reappraise the ARRL’s regulatory and legislative policy with regard to private land use restrictions.”
In order to effectively undertake such a review, the Board adopted a resolution to withdraw its Petition for Rule Making to the FCC (which would amend its Part 97 Amateur Service rules to incorporate the provisions of the Amateur Radio Parity Act), without prejudice to refiling. The resolution also asks the members of Congress who had refiled legislation to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA) to refrain from seeking to advance that legislation pending further input from the ARRL.
Board members noted that the ARRL has been pursuing adoption of the ARPA for the past several years and that objective has not yet been achieved. While everyone understands that getting Congressional approval on any matter can be a lengthy process, the difficulties getting the ARPA approved has been a source of frustration to the organization and its members. A majority of the board now believes that there is a need to reassess the organization’s approach to this issue.
The Board wants to make clear to its members, and to those whose policies and conduct prevent or impair the right of U.S. Amateur Radio operators to operate from their homes, that this pause is not, and should not be interpreted as an abandonment of its efforts to obtain relief from private land use restrictions. The Board noted that its “intent [is] to renew, continue and strengthen the ARRL’s effort to achieve relief from such restrictions.” This action represents a chance to get the best product possible for all U.S. amateur radio operators.
The Board did express its sincere appreciation for the thousands of ARRL members who took the time to contact their representatives in Congress to urge them to support the Amateur Radio Parity Act. The Board also offered its thanks to those members of Congress who have consistently and continuously supported the rights of U.S. amateur radio operators
73, Howard, WB2ITX
-- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv