It might be helpful at this point to provide to you a compendium of materials that we can use initially (until just before the Board meeting when we have a grassroots lobbying session scheduled with the Keelen Group on Sunday after the Convention) in helping ARRL members support H.R. 4969. Hoping that this will be helpful to you for the short run, here are the following.

1. A PDF copy of the Bill.

2. A PDF copy of a "leave-behind" that was prepared by the Keelen Group from materials we gave them.

3. Our "bullet points" paper that Mike Lisenco and I have been using as talking points in our Congressional visits so far.

4. Mike Lisenco's thought piece (with template for Congressional letter) on grassroots lobbying. (Note, I have edited this and Mike has not seen these edits. So, he may have some remarks about the edits, which are entirely my own. Don't blame Mike if you don't like this).

I am also including a list of the numbers of hams in each Congressional District that we and TKG have found to be very valuable.

73, Chris W3KD

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Doug Rehman <doug@k4ac.com> wrote:

Chris:

Is there a danger in “reasonable accommodation” as it has been interpreted/defined by the courts in PRB-1 cases being affected by amateurs now saying that verticals and wire antennas are “reasonable accommodation” in CC&R cases? Could opponents of towers take the CC&R “acceptable antennas” and make a strong argument that those same antennas would be reasonable accommodation in PRB-1 situations?

My concern is that we win the battle for antennas in CC&R restricted areas, but lose the war by having courts now say towers are unnecessary in PRB-1 cases. It would seem that trying to proffer two different definitions for “reasonable accommodation” is a potentially dangerous game.

Doug

K4AC

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Imlay
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2014 4:31 PM
To: James F. Boehner MD
Cc: Marty Woll; arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:22956] Re: Co-sponsor HR.4969, the “Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2014”

Jim, glad you raised this. Yes, the strategy is still the same. The strategy is that of Greg Walden and we want to do this according to his plan. This is seriously confidential and under no circumstances is it to be mentioned outside the Board family but when we reach critical mass on cosponsors, Walden plans to call his former staffer at WTB, FCC and tell them to do this on their own and not make Congress pass this Bill. Critical mass at this juncture is about 30 cosponsors. We can do this. As to the arguments to be made, Mike and I have a talking points paper that I thought had been circulated to the Board. It deals appropriately with what reasonable accommodation in the CC&R context means. I have a few edits for Mike's "how to sell this Bill" piece that I will get to the Board ASAP. We want to be ahead of the petition guys here who may be well-intentioned but on the wrong track. Also, the Keelen Group is working with us very closely on getting cosponsors on a surgical basis rather than on a shotgun basis so it is best not to get too far ahead of them on rounding up cosponsors. We are paying them a lot of money to strategize this and believe me, they know what they are doing.

73, Chris W3KD

Sent from my iPhone

Christopher D. Imlay

Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC

14356 Cape May Road

Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011

(301) 384-5525 telephone

(301) 384-6384 facsimile

W3KD@ARRL.ORG