One of the issues that I had (in the days of a CEO who wasn't exactly sharp, IMO) was that I arrived and had to ask for a list of appointees. My contact info was taken from my qualification form, and it had changed, so it ended up in QST. I think you probably all know one another personally in Dakota 😉, but there are 15k members and 7 sections in Southeastern! At some point in time, new directors should have an onboarding process that includes lists of appointees, time in the job, the Field org people. Maybe one day we will have all this in a directory... An onboarding process with information would be a lot more valuable than the 5 or so hours sitting in front of attorneys. The attorney session should be done with a readable document and a brief quiz.... Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:24 PM AC0W Bill <ac0wmoo11@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings Ria,
As for your comments concerning term limit, the present rules currently have members are to serve 3 year terms and a maximum of 2 terms. I think a good starting point is to abide the current rules, below is link to the rules. Very simple no changes need just follow the current rules. This will force us to replace several members as many have been on there for more than 6 years.
Updating the appointments will allow us to address some of your other points during this appointment process. I find it interesting some of your comments are similar to comments I've received from some of the CAC members.
One thing in the current rules I think that should be changed at some point is the appointment being "for a term concurrent with that of the Director". Being brand new at this and all the stuff I'm learning about I find it very challenging to comply with that rule in the short amount of time I've been at this. Who knows maybe that is part of the issue why the terms aren't being properly followed and applies.
Bill AC0W Director Dakota Division
http://www.arrl.org/arrl-rules-regulations
-----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 5:55 PM To: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:31657] Re: PSC Motion 1 thoughts
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the feedback. I still oppose this motion as written.
#1. Membership still sees the PSC as being in control. They see the PSC as not having membership comprised of those who are heavily involved in the two main radiosport activities - contesting and DXing. They do see the CAC as having those. Sure, the one per division advisory committees have largely really no impact on the final decisions coming out of PSC. However, the impression I get is that CAC and DXAC really don't have a say in anything and are largely ignored. I can name several times the PSC and other Board committees went against what the DXAC and CAC recommended. Some pretty big ones - like the addition of Scarborough Reef to the DXCC list - were a result of overruling what the DXAC had recommended. The abolishment of these advisory committees and the new ad-hoc working groups in its place have given the impression that the PSC wants more or less full control and does not want significant external input. We've since abolished the requirement that contest rules changes get approved by the full Board. So this means that five directors now get to decide on contest rules, pretty much on their own. They can call an ad-hoc committee if they wish, but there's really no requirement to do so and the recommendation can once again be ignored.
#2. The DXAC and CAC are not allowed to bring their own ideas to the PSC for consideration. Instead they are tasked with ideas and have to evaluate them. This is a waste of their talent, as the ideas come from the PSC and the PSC is still likely to overrule them. See #1.
Here is how I would strengthen the CAC and DXAC.
1. Impose term limits. 4 years and you're out, with staggered terms. We need to have a rotation of CAC and DXAC members and not make it a patronage position as it has largely been. 2. Encourage diversity - youth, women, minorities etc. This should be taken as a suggestion and not a hard requirement for a quota. 3. Actively recruit VHF+ contesters. As it is, much of the CAC is HF-centric. DXAC is an HF centric activity so this does not apply. there. 4. Have the editors of NCJ and the contest newsletter as ad-hoc members. For the DXAC, recruit one to three international members, preferably one from each ITU region.
Additionally: Demand that they be proactive, not reactive. They should be convening regularly and submitting their own ideas to the PSC. PSC can have their own ideas, but you have a pool of experts, use them. Empower the chair to lead, and not follow. Disruptive members can be removed with consent of the division director, and a new one appointed. If we choose to not bind to divisions, that is fine, let the PSC consent to removal. This should be rare, anyway. At a high level, PSC and CAC/DXAC should be discussing ideas that both committees come up with.
And finally - Data, data, data. The decisions out of these committees don't seem to be driven by properly surveyed and collected data. NCJ did a survey and it was a rare event, but it gave us an insight into contesting. Our decisions should be data driven. What do the members want? How do members do these activities? That should be driving the CAC and DXAC.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:30 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
As a member of PSC for the last two years, I thought I'd provide my
fellow Board members my thoughts on the motion to restructure the two PSC advisory committees. Take it for what it is worth.
1. The current two advisory committees (CAC and DXAC), are fixed, and are
comprised of one appointed representative from each ARRL Division per committee. The committees rarely change members, so the committee make-up remains pretty stoic over time, and arguably, somewhat ceremonial in nature.
2. While members of these committees are certainly "subject matter
experts" themselves, are they all up on the latest technologies? How many of the CAC members operate digital contests using FT8/FT4, the most popular mode on HF operating at the moment? The answer is "very few, if any", so are they really the best ones to consult on a digital mode contest rule? Wouldn't it be be better to "ask the experts" themselves?
3. It is felt that with the advent of e-mail, e-surveys that can be
conducted by the Radiosport team at HQ, and social media, the "one member per division, per committee" structure is archaic. At present ARRL HQ has the ability to work directly with the contest and DX community on issues, they don't need individual Division representatives to "work their territories" to provide feedback. The survey and questionnaire that HQ put out last year about Sweepstakes activities is a great example of this. They received great feedback from the Sweepstakes participants themselves.
4. The current advisory committees are tasked assignments from the PSC as
required to provide input on a matter, they are not autonomous. Nothing will change here. Tasks will be assigned by HQ radiosport staff to those that know the most about the subject at hand, and not be limited to consulting whomever a Director appoints for his or her Division.
5. There was a PSC tasking requested by the Executive Committee way back
in 2018 that started this all, as there have been issues in the past in getting tasks completed by the two advisory committees in a timely fashion. It is thought that the new "tiger team" approach will be much faster in getting things accomplished. With a larger "pool of experts" to draw on, the PSC is not limited to just those two fixed committees for input. Adhoc committees can be put together specific to a particular topic as well.
6. Current DXAC and CAC members will be encouraged to apply to be a part
of the new "pool of experts", as well others within the DX and contest community. Nobody will be purposefully left out, or is going to get thrown out in the streets.
7. This change will allow the PSC to draw on "experts" with expertises
beyond the current two advisory committees to tackle other issues beyond just the DX and contest genres.
In my opinion, this change is to both increase efficiency and the quality
of input provided to help the PSC make good decisions for our members. It's not to squelch input from anybody. In fact, I'm sure many of the best of each discipline (contesting and DXing), in the world will end up becoming members of the "expert pools".
Lastly, if for some reason this doesn't work out, we can always go back
to what we had before.
Just my two watts.
73; Mike W7VO
_______________________________________________ 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