Jim, et al., It was a very educational week, and this was one of the prime topics. I spoke with many regarding this issue, and even talked with Mike Corey for a half hour or so for some history. Hopefully minute 31 of the Board Minutes, draft recently distributed, will inform members of our position of the issue. I think Mike was trying to standardize terminology with our partners (New term for served agencies). He may not have understood how members would react. That being said, another ARRL staffer came down to my division and addressed an audience of diehard ARES/AUXCOMM members with the same message. Things did not go well. It took about 6 months to fully dig out of that ****storm. Live and Learn. The term "Emergency" evokes an emotion, one that is actually associated with amateur radio by federal statute, to our advantage. We can use that emotion to gain public support for a number of things, currently and most important, HR-4969. Whether the term "Emergency" is correct or not by definition, we do not gain anything at this time by trying to be semantically correct by using a broader term. We may have a fairly silent majority of members that probably do not care one way or the other, but those who care REALLY care! So, I hope that with ARRL publications and e-publications, we slowly restart using the term "emergency communications", but in doing so, not throwing Mike Corey "under the bus". He has worked to build relationships with other organizations, and needs to keep credibility with those agencies and members so that he can continue his work effectively. On a very personal opinion, the term "When all else fails, Amateur Radio" is going away because some in the emergency community are offended by that slogan. I am sorry they're offended, but that's what we do... '73 de JIM N2ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:19 PM To: ODV Subject: [arrl-odv:23049] Emergency Communications vs. Public Service Hi all: I assume you all returned home safely and in an almost timely manner. I certainly enjoyed that great convention and my first time in the hot seat on the front table (very interesting) After taking some time to think about the subject of the QST article and subsequent writings on the issue of Emergency Communications vs. Public Service, I'd like to point out a couple of things: First, Part 97.1(a) is very clear that one of the purposes of our license grant is "emergency communications". Although I agree that 'emergency communications' comes under a very broad umbrella called 'public service', I am not willing to concede to the second term and the elimination of the first. Second, the addition of amateur radio in ESF-6 and ESF-15 (in addition to already being in ESF-2), in the new ARRL/FEMA MOU, was a welcome sight to me. Although not previously written into those Emergency Support Functions (ESF) we, at least here in the Northwest, have always provided communications for those ESFs when asked to do so - which is quite often. I suspect that my colleagues in the hurricane regions find the same thing. Third, in my opinion, the CQ article didn't seem to be a put down or attack on Mike Corey but was merely quoting him. I must admit that, for this forum only, I agree with some of what is put forth in the article. While I do think the Gordon West video was way over the top - and the ARRL deserves an apology - I don't think the CQ article is too far off base, if at all. (Unless Mike was mis-quoted). My conclusion: This was a very poor time and subject matter to be discussed in our monthly Journal. It may, in my opinion, represent a systemic problem we have in communications with our membership, and that is the timing of our releases. Releasing an article talking about eliminating the term 'emergency communications' from our lexicon - or even just minimizing it - at the same time when we are trying to get Congressional consideration based partly on 'emergency communications'..well, that pain you feel is where you just shot yourself in the foot and the smoking gun is in your hand. This is much like releasing the notice of HR 4969, asking the membership to help with our efforts and releasing a 'talking points' paper well after the announcement. NOTE HERE: I think the 'talking points and suggested letter are excellent and commend Chris and all that worked on them, but in my opinion, the time for their release is at the time of the original notice. We here in the Northwest and FEMA Region 10, write into our plans and use amateur radio for emergency communications when other communication systems are overloaded or fail. We also use the term 'EmComm' and our served agencies do understand it and use it as well. We also use the term 'public service' and conclude that events, other than emergency/disaster, are great training events for our ARES teams. I am certain that Mike did not intend to start such a fire storm, as has developed. I am also certain that Mike did not intend to establish policy..which as I understand it is the board's charge - not staff...even if the article and subsequent talks and writings make it appear as if he has established a policy. Speaking of talks; did you hear the excellent talk by Craig Fugate, FEMA Administrator - he actually said that ham radio was important to 'emergency communications'..or am I mis-quoting him? 73 and good hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX Director, Northwestern Division