Mickey -- My Section Managers were in favor of such a committee being formed, too. I called each of them while the board meeting was in progress to gauge their support, since something like this could be perceived to step on their (or their SEC's) toes. I ultimately voted against the motion because, in my opinion, it was essentially a "This committee is formed. Period." motion, even after all of the discussion that happened. The motion, despite the title of the advisory committee, contained no roles or responsibilities; no scope. The motion only noted that it follow the rules and regulations, concerning Advisory committees, except that Section Managers could be a part of it, that it be filled with qualified people, and that it report to PSC. Otherwise it shall exist, so let's vote on it. That didn't sit well with me. I see potential value in such an advisory committee, especially if it took up strategic topics of national or regional scopes and largely (or completely) left the tactical topics and local/Section topics up to the SMs. But unless the proposed committee's roles and scope is defined along with the motion to create it, I likely will not support it again. This doesn't have to be overly restrictive, but I don't care for open-ended motions, especially when it touches on topics that the Field Organization is charged with. My two cents. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Mickey Cox wrote:

ODV,

Last July the Board barely rejected the motion to establish an Emergency Communications Advisory Committee (ECAC), with seven Directors voting in favor and eight voting against. One concern that several Directors had at that time was the degree of support for an ECAC among the Section Managers.

A poll was conducted by K5GLS, the LA SM, in November on the "unofficial" SM reflector. The results of that poll are as follows:

30 - YES (in support of the ECAC motion) 8 - NO (not in support of the ECAC motion) 2 - UNDECIDED

Thus, 56.3% of the SMs participated in the poll and 75% of those voting were in favor of the ECAC motion. (The details of this poll are shown in the attached spreadsheet.)

More recently a similar poll has been conducted by K5GLS on the "official" SM reflector established by the ARRL. The question asked in this second poll was as follows:

"As a Section Manager, do you support the BOD proposal to establish a standing ARRL Emergency Communications Advisory Committee (ECAC) similar to the other ARRL standing committees? EMCOMM and public service is not represented by an advisory committee as all other operating activities are."

Section Managers were requested by the LA SM to respond via email to k5gls@arrl.org with a simple YES or NO answer to the poll question. A few hours ago K5GLS forwarded Steve Ewald and me all of the SM responses he received. (If anyone would like copies, please let me know.) The overall results of this second poll are as follows:

28 - YES 3 - NO 1 - NOT SURE

Thus, 45.1% of the SMs participated in the second poll and 87.5% of those voting support the establishment of an EmComm Advisory Committee.

In light of these results, I think the Board can conclude that most of the SMs are either in favor of the motion or they simply don't care one way or the other.

Next Thursday during the PSC meeting I intend to make a motion that the Board establish an EmComm Advisory Committee. The text of this motion will be identical to the ECAC motion rejected by the Board last July except that a "sunset" provision will also now be included. Just as the Board included a term of three years for the VHF/UHF Advisory Committee motion adopted in 2005, I believe a term of three years is long enough for the proposed ECAC to prove to the Board whether it is effective or not. (The ECAC motion I'm planning to make next week is attached.)

Your support of this motion would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks very much and CU next week.

73, Mickey K5MC Delta Division Director

ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org