Chris' last paragraph resonates with me.  If our revamped OO plan's major points are verbally OK with Laura Smith and Dave Dombrowski and the FCC has had the document for about a year with no response, I think we should go ahead and roll it out and proceed to implement.  We can always tweak the document later on as required.

Let's not draw a "delay of game" penalty when we are this close to the goal line.

BTW - the letter to the editor in this month's QST is from one of my assistant directors re;  the idiots on 7200 kHz.  The revamped OO program can help stem this problem.

Rod, K0DAS

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> wrote:
Well I am thoroughly confused. Is the proposal to appoint new OOs to participate in the old program that neither Laura Smith or anyone else at FCC is using now? Will they be asked to work under the old provisions of the old training manual that is of no value any longer? If so, why?  Or will these be new appointments for the newly revised program that hasn't been launched yet because, admittedly, the program is more than a year late getting started? For what term will these new appointees be asked to serve? It seems to me that to resume appointments under the old program does nothing at all to put in place a program that Laura Smith very much intends to use. It is not even a band-aid, because it is a regressive action. 

Sorry for being so dense here, but I don't see any benefit in going backwards here. The effort should be to start the new program immediately, and get new appointees in the new program. It is our program and if FCC doesn't want to offer their edits to our training manual or for an MOU that we can't enforce anyway, even if they sign it, why should we wait any longer? We have no expectation of any FCC enforcement actions based on the work of OOs under the old program. We do have an expectation and promises, at least from Laura and Dave Dombrowski, that if we revise the program as proposed, they will use the work product of the new OOs. To me, if action is called for now, then let's make it forward action, not a full retreat. 

Chris 

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> wrote:
I wasn't going to make a decision unilaterally. I'll defer to the committee, but Jim Boehner needs to appoint some right now and I don't think he should have to wait.

On April 17, 2018 at 11:40 AM Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> wrote:

Riley, I realize that the work of the OO Committee has taken far longer than it should have and that has been a source of frustration to the members of the OO Revitalization Committee (as I have been calling it), including Dan Henderson, me, and I dare say, you too.  As can be seen from the Comments from ODV,  on your suggestion, there is a great deal of frustration with the inordinate delay in launching the new program, all of it justified. This new program should have been in place a year ago, as I see it. That was FCC's anticipation as well.

However, restarting OO appointments under the old program now, when we have about 700 people on the rolls already (which everyone, including FCC agree is far too many) and a plan on the verge of execution to seriously reduce the aggregate number of OOs nationwide in the near term to a far lower number of vetted, trained OOs, creates very practical problems of volunteer management and expectations that stand to derail the entire revitalization plan and necessitate suspending OO appointments twice.  

I hope that the OO Committee members can discuss this further before you make a decision to do this. I note also that the status of the OO Revitalization program is on the agenda for this weekend's  EC meeting and that President Roderick has asked that you participate in that part of the meeting by telephone.

Could we bat this around before you make any decisions, either within the OO Revitalization Committee (which hasn't had a meeting since the Board meeting) or the EC this weekend?

73, Chris W3KD

  

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:54 AM, RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> wrote:
Does anyone have any objection to resuming the appointment of OO's as needed, until the FCC meets with us on the new agreement? That will probably be within a few months, i.e., as soon as they get out the three major cases they are working on now in our service.

I recommend that we resume the appointments.

On April 5, 2018 at 2:16 PM "Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:

Hi gang:

I’ve appointed Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, as Chair of the OO Program Study Committee to replace Brian who is rolling off. I’ve also appointed Bob Vallio to serve on the Committee.

I appreciate Riley stepping up to the plate to take the reins.
 
73
Rick – K5UR

 ...
_______________________________________________
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




--
Christopher D. Imlay
Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC
(301) 384-5525 telephone
(301) 384-6384 facsimile

 



--
Christopher D. Imlay
Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC
14356 Cape May Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011
(301) 384-5525 telephone
(301) 384-6384 facsimile

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv