Kay, et al, Tnx for refreshing our fleeting memories by submitting the two pages from the NERPC study. Am I correct that no particular action has been taken regarding the possible development of the "committee of expert volunteers" mentioned in the report? I ask this not to point fingers, but as a simple question. Off hand, a committee of volunteer experts sounds fairly good to me. Without suggesting we study the subject to death, I wonder if it might be useful to explore how such a committee or group (a rose by any other name . . .) might be structured? For example, one solution to the problem of being limited to only one delegate or member from each Division could be to appoint one or more sub-members from each Section to report to the committee delegate. Other organizational possibilities exist. I'm with Jay and Mickey (and possibly others) in thinking the idea is worthy of being revisited. Without suggesting I know more about the topic than "the least of my brethren," there clearly seems to be a large hole between what we amateurs know we can do and what many citizens and served agencies recognize we can do. My concern is that the things only we can bring to the EmComm party will be overlooked at least at the lower end of the ladder (e.g. local EMA, local RC Chapter, local Sheriff's Department, etc.) if we do not develop modified strategies to sell our benefits at this level. At the risk of having a few shoes heaved at me, I will also suggest there is some evidence (i.e. the apparent absence of an acceptable SOU with the National RC) that upper management of certain agencies also fails to appreciate what we offer. Could a committee of volunteer experts help improve our relations with served agencies in many instances? Could such a committee also help with our ability to support serve agencies? 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org, Tel.: 513-459-1661 ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN