Thanks for the background, Chris. Our board reps were probably right to try to initially try to get a bigger voice on the committee. However, when that didn't fly, I think it was an error not to participate as a full member. As a general rule, these sorts of groups give one vote to every member. So, I don't see their reaction to our request for bigger voting voice as a slap in the face of the League. Our subsequent behavior looks arrogant and stubborn. Moreover, it's not in our best interest to attempt to monopolize the regulatory discourse on amateur radio. I hope we've learned that much in the ensuing years. 73, Walt W0CP _____ I've stopped 35,726 spam messages. You can too! Get protection at http://www.w0cp.com/mailwasher.htm _____ From: W3KD@aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:30 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10803] Re: VEC meeting In a message dated 6/29/2004 4:05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, k1ro@arrl.org writes: I think that we should un-tie Bart's hands and let him fully participate in their deliberations. His having to constantly abstain on all the votes makes us look foolish at best. The VEC group has asked for our help and I think we should also extend an "olive branch" as well. What are your thoughts? Jim Haynie A bit of historical perspective on this for those who don't go back to the early 80s with ARRL. When the NCVEC was formed, the ARRL officers then presiding dispatched Jay Holladay, me and one or two others to the organizational meeting of the group. No one on the Board was happy about the formation of this group, which was fomented by John Johnston, W3BE, then chief of the Personal Wireless Branch, Private Radio Bureau. John felt that the amount of influence ARRL had in Amateur Radio policy matters at FCC was unhealthy. In fact, at the time, it was extensive, since Jim McKinney, and largely, Bob Foosaner and Ralph Haller after him allowed ARRL to have what it wanted, with few limitations (spectrum issues being foremost among the exceptions). Jay Holladay and I were charged with insuring that, since the ARRL administered the vast majority of the examinations, the voting in this organization should be based on the percentage of examinations administered. That was our pitch at the time. It wasn't taken well, to say the least. The NCVEC group had some rather strident personalities at the time, and we were told it was one VEC, one vote. This was long before Bart's time running the VEC. So we retaliated by not voting in this organization. We participated, because we really had no choice. But dignifying the NCVEC by voting in their group was deemed improper. There was an undercurrent of having staff vote on issues about which the Board may not have spoken, but which relate to regulatory policy, but the initial impetus for the abstentions was the voting structure of NCVEC itself. This goes back a lot of years. NCVEC in the meantime, through the machinations of Fred Maia and others, attempted to expand their area of regulatory influence, and our quandary about the extent of participation seemed to worsen. Now, though, NCVEC is somewhat more "tame" than it was, and at least somewhat less overtly political. The purpose of that recitation is to note that the Board policy on abstentions in the NCVEC was never reflective of any lack of confidence in Bart or his predecessors. I am sure everyone on the Board realizes what a real prize we have in Bart Jahnke, who is one of my favorite people, and whose judgment and is beyond doubt. 73, Chris W3KD