Now that our effort on HR4969 has run its course, I think it’s important that we inform the membership as to the outcome and do so on a timely basis. To whomever it falls to complete that task, I offer the following as an outline of what we should tell them: 1) We know that the only way the FCC would act positively on our request would be at the direction of Congress. (We’re not besmirching anyone here; it’s the truth, and I believe the FCC has said as much.) 2) Our strategy was to muster sufficient support among House members to demonstrate to the FCC that what we ask is, in fact, the intent of Congress, and we believe that amassing over 60 co-sponsors in a relatively short time frame amply demonstrates that intent. Unfortunately, that was not enough to move the FCC to action. (There is no other logical explanation we can offer; clearly we did not intend for a bill to be signed into law, as there was no corresponding Senate bill. Of course, we need not and should not mention the hoped-for influence of Rep. Walden’s involvement on the outcome.) 3) We now have a full two-year Congress before us to take the more arduous route of getting a bill passed by both houses and signed into law, in which case the FCC will have no choice but to act. The grass-roots work done this year is not wasted; it will allow our upcoming effort to ramp up that much more quickly. I urge whoever crafts our member advisory to do so as soon as possible. Perhaps that effort is already underway, which would be good to know. I would also ask that the Board and vice-directors have a chance to see and comment on that communication before it is finalized. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:48 AM To: Tom Frenaye Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23603] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Tom, any failure to keep the Board more closely apprised of the status (and the details) of this really falls to me, since I have been on the front line here with the Keelen folks on a daily basis. I am sorry if you or other Board members felt out of the loop; it was certainly not my intention to hold anything back at all. But honestly, until Monday, I thought that we had a chance, with Redl and Walden firmly in our corner, to have the heavy hand of Walden push former staffer Roger Sherman (who we had been told was by far the most sensitive FCC staff person to the wishes of Walden's subcommittee) into doing the right thing, despite the subversive efforts of Cross and Stone, whose responses were predictable. It didn't happen, but Redl thought it would as well. And also, frankly, there was very little to tell until Monday. I thought the Board was pretty clear about what the strategy was. That strategy has never changed in the year since we started negotiating with Redl. Some of the tactics did (and those changes were reported to the EC), but the strategy didn't. I am disappointed that Redl didn't push this more actively, and sooner, with Sherman. But Sherman offered Redl good and sufficient justification for putting other issues ahead of this and we couldn't very well puppeteer Redl at all. We don't drive his bus and we never will. But he is supportive and so is Walden and we are closer to the goal than we have ever been before. I think we should just stay the course. 73, Chris W3KD

Marty, one thing about your summary. It isn’t necessary for there to be a companion bill in the opposite chamber in order for legislation to move forward. Once a bill is adopted in one chamber it is referred to the other chamber for consideration. Dave From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Woll, Marty, N6VI Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:55 PM To: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23607] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Now that our effort on HR4969 has run its course, I think it’s important that we inform the membership as to the outcome and do so on a timely basis. To whomever it falls to complete that task, I offer the following as an outline of what we should tell them: 1) We know that the only way the FCC would act positively on our request would be at the direction of Congress. (We’re not besmirching anyone here; it’s the truth, and I believe the FCC has said as much.) 2) Our strategy was to muster sufficient support among House members to demonstrate to the FCC that what we ask is, in fact, the intent of Congress, and we believe that amassing over 60 co-sponsors in a relatively short time frame amply demonstrates that intent. Unfortunately, that was not enough to move the FCC to action. (There is no other logical explanation we can offer; clearly we did not intend for a bill to be signed into law, as there was no corresponding Senate bill. Of course, we need not and should not mention the hoped-for influence of Rep. Walden’s involvement on the outcome.) 3) We now have a full two-year Congress before us to take the more arduous route of getting a bill passed by both houses and signed into law, in which case the FCC will have no choice but to act. The grass-roots work done this year is not wasted; it will allow our upcoming effort to ramp up that much more quickly. I urge whoever crafts our member advisory to do so as soon as possible. Perhaps that effort is already underway, which would be good to know. I would also ask that the Board and vice-directors have a chance to see and comment on that communication before it is finalized. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:48 AM To: Tom Frenaye Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23603] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Tom, any failure to keep the Board more closely apprised of the status (and the details) of this really falls to me, since I have been on the front line here with the Keelen folks on a daily basis. I am sorry if you or other Board members felt out of the loop; it was certainly not my intention to hold anything back at all. But honestly, until Monday, I thought that we had a chance, with Redl and Walden firmly in our corner, to have the heavy hand of Walden push former staffer Roger Sherman (who we had been told was by far the most sensitive FCC staff person to the wishes of Walden's subcommittee) into doing the right thing, despite the subversive efforts of Cross and Stone, whose responses were predictable. It didn't happen, but Redl thought it would as well. And also, frankly, there was very little to tell until Monday. I thought the Board was pretty clear about what the strategy was. That strategy has never changed in the year since we started negotiating with Redl. Some of the tactics did (and those changes were reported to the EC), but the strategy didn't. I am disappointed that Redl didn't push this more actively, and sooner, with Sherman. But Sherman offered Redl good and sufficient justification for putting other issues ahead of this and we couldn't very well puppeteer Redl at all. We don't drive his bus and we never will. But he is supportive and so is Walden and we are closer to the goal than we have ever been before. I think we should just stay the course. 73, Chris W3KD

Don't mind at all, Chris: here it is; it will go out in my newsletter later today. 73, Jim HR 4969: As we all have experienced, the political process is complex and slow and the wheels of government are even slower. That being said, our efforts with HR 4969 have had measures of success; we intended to obtain 30 co sponsors for the Bill and actually ended up with almost 70 co sponsors, and ARRL’s advocacy is once again being known and gleaning interest in the halls of Congress. Although we got a very late start on the legislative effort last June, because of waiting for a minority cosponsor to make a commitment so that a truly bipartisan bill could be introduced, we were able to amass an exceptional and surprising level of support for the Bill, given the co sponsorship. This will give us a big head start in the 114th Congress beginning in January. We have in mind reassembling at least 60 of the cosponsors that we had for H.R. 4969 as original cosponsors for the new Bill which should give us momentum to obtain a much larger list of cosponsors for the new Bill. We have also had expressions of interest from Senators in sponsoring a Senate version of the Bill. So far, opposition from the one association representing HOAs has been only minimally active in attempts to oppose the Bill and they have been unsuccessful due to their misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of the actual effect of the Bill. We were well-aware that there was likely not enough time to pass H.R. 4969 in the 113th Congress, but it was urgent to begin the process and amass the largest showing of support for the good work of Amateur Radio operators that we could, so as to build momentum for the continuation of the process in the 114th Congress. So far, we are way ahead of where we hoped to be by this time. Many thanks to all of you who wrote, called and visited your Congressional Representatives, as we began our travel in the maze of representative government; your efforts have not gone un-noticed and have built a strong foundation for the next phase. From: Chris Imlay Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:55 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: Woll, Marty, N6VI ; Frenaye, Tom,K1KI ; arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23611] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL,NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Jim Pace developed a very positive and straightforward text to send to his division folks. I think it reads well. We might consider using a version of it if Jim doesn't mind. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote: Marty, one thing about your summary. It isn’t necessary for there to be a companion bill in the opposite chamber in order for legislation to move forward. Once a bill is adopted in one chamber it is referred to the other chamber for consideration. Dave From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Woll, Marty, N6VI Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:55 PM To: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23607] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Now that our effort on HR4969 has run its course, I think it’s important that we inform the membership as to the outcome and do so on a timely basis. To whomever it falls to complete that task, I offer the following as an outline of what we should tell them: <!--[if !supportLists]-->1) <!--[endif]-->We know that the only way the FCC would act positively on our request would be at the direction of Congress. (We’re not besmirching anyone here; it’s the truth, and I believe the FCC has said as much.) <!--[if !supportLists]-->2) <!--[endif]-->Our strategy was to muster sufficient support among House members to demonstrate to the FCC that what we ask is, in fact, the intent of Congress, and we believe that amassing over 60 co-sponsors in a relatively short time frame amply demonstrates that intent. Unfortunately, that was not enough to move the FCC to action. (There is no other logical explanation we can offer; clearly we did not intend for a bill to be signed into law, as there was no corresponding Senate bill. Of course, we need not and should not mention the hoped-for influence of Rep. Walden’s involvement on the outcome.) <!--[if !supportLists]-->3) <!--[endif]-->We now have a full two-year Congress before us to take the more arduous route of getting a bill passed by both houses and signed into law, in which case the FCC will have no choice but to act. The grass-roots work done this year is not wasted; it will allow our upcoming effort to ramp up that much more quickly. I urge whoever crafts our member advisory to do so as soon as possible. Perhaps that effort is already underway, which would be good to know. I would also ask that the Board and vice-directors have a chance to see and comment on that communication before it is finalized. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:48 AM To: Tom Frenaye Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23603] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Tom, any failure to keep the Board more closely apprised of the status (and the details) of this really falls to me, since I have been on the front line here with the Keelen folks on a daily basis. I am sorry if you or other Board members felt out of the loop; it was certainly not my intention to hold anything back at all. But honestly, until Monday, I thought that we had a chance, with Redl and Walden firmly in our corner, to have the heavy hand of Walden push former staffer Roger Sherman (who we had been told was by far the most sensitive FCC staff person to the wishes of Walden's subcommittee) into doing the right thing, despite the subversive efforts of Cross and Stone, whose responses were predictable. It didn't happen, but Redl thought it would as well. And also, frankly, there was very little to tell until Monday. I thought the Board was pretty clear about what the strategy was. That strategy has never changed in the year since we started negotiating with Redl. Some of the tactics did (and those changes were reported to the EC), but the strategy didn't. I am disappointed that Redl didn't push this more actively, and sooner, with Sherman. But Sherman offered Redl good and sufficient justification for putting other issues ahead of this and we couldn't very well puppeteer Redl at all. We don't drive his bus and we never will. But he is supportive and so is Walden and we are closer to the goal than we have ever been before. I think we should just stay the course. 73, Chris W3KD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

Brian, we will have a web story and we’re working on a legislative newsletter. A note from Directors with a personal touch would certainly be appropriate. My one minor quibble with Jim Pace’s well-crafted note is with “waiting for a minority cosponsor to make a commitment.” The main problem we faced in lining up an original minority cosponsor was the very short list we were given of potential co-sponsors that were acceptable to the sponsor. Saying that it took us a while to line up an original minority cosponsor would be accurate and more neutral. Dave From: Mileshosky, Brian, N5ZGT Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:26 PM To: Pace, Jim, K7CEX Cc: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Woll, Marty, N6VI; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:23613] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Outstanding note, Jim. Jim's writing has a pretty personal touch to it. Would it be better for us Directors to send it their constituents themselves? I'd personally like to send it to my Division members but it might be but awkward if a copy were sent via to same members via another League. 73, Brian N5ZGT Sent from iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 09:29, Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director <nwdvd@comcast.net<mailto:nwdvd@comcast.net>> wrote: Don't mind at all, Chris: here it is; it will go out in my newsletter later today. 73, Jim HR 4969: As we all have experienced, the political process is complex and slow and the wheels of government are even slower. That being said, our efforts with HR 4969 have had measures of success; we intended to obtain 30 co sponsors for the Bill and actually ended up with almost 70 co sponsors, and ARRL’s advocacy is once again being known and gleaning interest in the halls of Congress. Although we got a very late start on the legislative effort last June, because of waiting for a minority cosponsor to make a commitment so that a truly bipartisan bill could be introduced, we were able to amass an exceptional and surprising level of support for the Bill, given the co sponsorship. This will give us a big head start in the 114th Congress beginning in January. We have in mind reassembling at least 60 of the cosponsors that we had for H.R. 4969 as original cosponsors for the new Bill which should give us momentum to obtain a much larger list of cosponsors for the new Bill. We have also had expressions of interest from Senators in sponsoring a Senate version of the Bill. So far, opposition from the one association representing HOAs has been only minimally active in attempts to oppose the Bill and they have been unsuccessful due to their misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of the actual effect of the Bill. We were well-aware that there was likely not enough time to pass H.R. 4969 in the 113th Congress, but it was urgent to begin the process and amass the largest showing of support for the good work of Amateur Radio operators that we could, so as to build momentum for the continuation of the process in the 114th Congress. So far, we are way ahead of where we hoped to be by this time. Many thanks to all of you who wrote, called and visited your Congressional Representatives, as we began our travel in the maze of representative government; your efforts have not gone un-noticed and have built a strong foundation for the next phase. From: Chris Imlay<mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:55 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ<mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> Cc: Woll, Marty, N6VI<mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com> ; Frenaye, Tom,K1KI<mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com> ; arrl-odv<mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:23611] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL,NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Jim Pace developed a very positive and straightforward text to send to his division folks. I think it reads well. We might consider using a version of it if Jim doesn't mind. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org<mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>> wrote: Marty, one thing about your summary. It isn’t necessary for there to be a companion bill in the opposite chamber in order for legislation to move forward. Once a bill is adopted in one chamber it is referred to the other chamber for consideration. Dave From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Woll, Marty, N6VI Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:55 PM To: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23607] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Now that our effort on HR4969 has run its course, I think it’s important that we inform the membership as to the outcome and do so on a timely basis. To whomever it falls to complete that task, I offer the following as an outline of what we should tell them: 1) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->We know that the only way the FCC would act positively on our request would be at the direction of Congress. (We’re not besmirching anyone here; it’s the truth, and I believe the FCC has said as much.) 2) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Our strategy was to muster sufficient support among House members to demonstrate to the FCC that what we ask is, in fact, the intent of Congress, and we believe that amassing over 60 co-sponsors in a relatively short time frame amply demonstrates that intent. Unfortunately, that was not enough to move the FCC to action. (There is no other logical explanation we can offer; clearly we did not intend for a bill to be signed into law, as there was no corresponding Senate bill. Of course, we need not and should not mention the hoped-for influence of Rep. Walden’s involvement on the outcome.) 3) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->We now have a full two-year Congress before us to take the more arduous route of getting a bill passed by both houses and signed into law, in which case the FCC will have no choice but to act. The grass-roots work done this year is not wasted; it will allow our upcoming effort to ramp up that much more quickly. I urge whoever crafts our member advisory to do so as soon as possible. Perhaps that effort is already underway, which would be good to know. I would also ask that the Board and vice-directors have a chance to see and comment on that communication before it is finalized. 73, Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:48 AM To: Tom Frenaye Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23603] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE Tom, any failure to keep the Board more closely apprised of the status (and the details) of this really falls to me, since I have been on the front line here with the Keelen folks on a daily basis. I am sorry if you or other Board members felt out of the loop; it was certainly not my intention to hold anything back at all. But honestly, until Monday, I thought that we had a chance, with Redl and Walden firmly in our corner, to have the heavy hand of Walden push former staffer Roger Sherman (who we had been told was by far the most sensitive FCC staff person to the wishes of Walden's subcommittee) into doing the right thing, despite the subversive efforts of Cross and Stone, whose responses were predictable. It didn't happen, but Redl thought it would as well. And also, frankly, there was very little to tell until Monday. I thought the Board was pretty clear about what the strategy was. That strategy has never changed in the year since we started negotiating with Redl. Some of the tactics did (and those changes were reported to the EC), but the strategy didn't. I am disappointed that Redl didn't push this more actively, and sooner, with Sherman. But Sherman offered Redl good and sufficient justification for putting other issues ahead of this and we couldn't very well puppeteer Redl at all. We don't drive his bus and we never will. But he is supportive and so is Walden and we are closer to the goal than we have ever been before. I think we should just stay the course. 73, Chris W3KD ________________________________ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

Yes, mea culpa. It was not our fault that it took a long time to get a minority cosponsor. It was actually two problems: one, we got a short list from Kinzinger and two, we went first to Kinzinger's first choice and that person strung us along for many weeks before declining to be the original minority cosponsor. But some shorthand was necessary in describing those events. Chris Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director <nwdvd@comcast.net> wrote:

sorry Dave but that language was given to me by Chris. jdp

From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:45 AM To: Mileshosky, Brian, N5ZGT ; Pace, Jim, K7CEX Cc: Imlay, Chris, W3KD ; Woll, Marty, N6VI ; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI ; arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:23613] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE

Brian, we will have a web story and we’re working on a legislative newsletter.

A note from Directors with a personal touch would certainly be appropriate. My one minor quibble with Jim Pace’s well-crafted note is with “waiting for a minority cosponsor to make a commitment.” The main problem we faced in lining up an original minority cosponsor was the very short list we were given of potential co-sponsors that were acceptable to the sponsor. Saying that it took us a while to line up an original minority cosponsor would be accurate and more neutral.

Dave

From: Mileshosky, Brian, N5ZGT Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:26 PM To: Pace, Jim, K7CEX Cc: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Woll, Marty, N6VI; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:23613] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE

Outstanding note, Jim.

Jim's writing has a pretty personal touch to it. Would it be better for us Directors to send it their constituents themselves? I'd personally like to send it to my Division members but it might be but awkward if a copy were sent via to same members via another League.

73, Brian N5ZGT

Sent from iPhone

On Dec 12, 2014, at 09:29, Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director <nwdvd@comcast.net> wrote:

Don't mind at all, Chris: here it is; it will go out in my newsletter later today. 73, Jim

HR 4969:

As we all have experienced, the political process is complex and slow and the wheels of government are even slower. That being said, our efforts with HR 4969 have had measures of success; we intended to obtain 30 co sponsors for the Bill and actually ended up with almost 70 co sponsors, and ARRL’s advocacy is once again being known and gleaning interest in the halls of Congress.

Although we got a very late start on the legislative effort last June, because of waiting for a minority cosponsor to make a commitment so that a truly bipartisan bill could be introduced, we were able to amass an exceptional and surprising level of support for the Bill, given the co sponsorship. This will give us a big head start in the 114th Congress beginning in January. We have in mind reassembling at least 60 of the cosponsors that we had for H.R. 4969 as original cosponsors for the new Bill which should give us momentum to obtain a much larger list of cosponsors for the new Bill. We have also had expressions of interest from Senators in sponsoring a Senate version of the Bill. So far, opposition from the one association representing HOAs has been only minimally active in attempts to oppose the Bill and they have been unsuccessful due to their misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of the actual effect of the Bill.

We were well-aware that there was likely not enough time to pass H.R. 4969 in the 113th Congress, but it was urgent to begin the process and amass the largest showing of support for the good work of Amateur Radio operators that we could, so as to build momentum for the continuation of the process in the 114th Congress. So far, we are way ahead of where we hoped to be by this time.

Many thanks to all of you who wrote, called and visited your Congressional Representatives, as we began our travel in the maze of representative government; your efforts have not gone un-noticed and have built a strong foundation for the next phase.

From: Chris Imlay Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:55 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: Woll, Marty, N6VI ; Frenaye, Tom,K1KI ; arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23611] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL,NOT FOR DISCLOSURE

Jim Pace developed a very positive and straightforward text to send to his division folks. I think it reads well. We might consider using a version of it if Jim doesn't mind. 73, Chris W3KD

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote:

Marty, one thing about your summary. It isn’t necessary for there to be a companion bill in the opposite chamber in order for legislation to move forward. Once a bill is adopted in one chamber it is referred to the other chamber for consideration.

Dave

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Woll, Marty, N6VI Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:55 PM To: Imlay, Chris, W3KD; Frenaye, Tom, K1KI Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23607] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE

Now that our effort on HR4969 has run its course, I think it’s important that we inform the membership as to the outcome and do so on a timely basis. To whomever it falls to complete that task, I offer the following as an outline of what we should tell them:

1) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->We know that the only way the FCC would act positively on our request would be at the direction of Congress. (We’re not besmirching anyone here; it’s the truth, and I believe the FCC has said as much.)

2) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->Our strategy was to muster sufficient support among House members to demonstrate to the FCC that what we ask is, in fact, the intent of Congress, and we believe that amassing over 60 co-sponsors in a relatively short time frame amply demonstrates that intent. Unfortunately, that was not enough to move the FCC to action. (There is no other logical explanation we can offer; clearly we did not intend for a bill to be signed into law, as there was no corresponding Senate bill. Of course, we need not and should not mention the hoped-for influence of Rep. Walden’s involvement on the outcome.)

3) <!--[if !supportLists]--><!--[endif]-->We now have a full two-year Congress before us to take the more arduous route of getting a bill passed by both houses and signed into law, in which case the FCC will have no choice but to act. The grass-roots work done this year is not wasted; it will allow our upcoming effort to ramp up that much more quickly.

I urge whoever crafts our member advisory to do so as soon as possible. Perhaps that effort is already underway, which would be good to know. I would also ask that the Board and vice-directors have a chance to see and comment on that communication before it is finalized.

73,

Marty N6VI

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Imlay Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:48 AM To: Tom Frenaye Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23603] Re: Status Memo re H.R. 4969 -- CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE

Tom, any failure to keep the Board more closely apprised of the status (and the details) of this really falls to me, since I have been on the front line here with the Keelen folks on a daily basis. I am sorry if you or other Board members felt out of the loop; it was certainly not my intention to hold anything back at all.

But honestly, until Monday, I thought that we had a chance, with Redl and Walden firmly in our corner, to have the heavy hand of Walden push former staffer Roger Sherman (who we had been told was by far the most sensitive FCC staff person to the wishes of Walden's subcommittee) into doing the right thing, despite the subversive efforts of Cross and Stone, whose responses were predictable. It didn't happen, but Redl thought it would as well.

And also, frankly, there was very little to tell until Monday. I thought the Board was pretty clear about what the strategy was. That strategy has never changed in the year since we started negotiating with Redl. Some of the tactics did (and those changes were reported to the EC), but the strategy didn't. I am disappointed that Redl didn't push this more actively, and sooner, with Sherman. But Sherman offered Redl good and sufficient justification for putting other issues ahead of this and we couldn't very well puppeteer Redl at all. We don't drive his bus and we never will. But he is supportive and so is Walden and we are closer to the goal than we have ever been before. I think we should just stay the course.

73, Chris W3KD _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv