Greetings, The author of the note below gave me permission to share it with you, and Director Vallio gave me his blessing to raise the issue with you. I believe the note raises valid concerns that many of our members must have. In particular, if we don't have a formal and uniform process for collecting our members opinions on an issue as important (to some at least) and controversial as the code requirement, we won't have a defensible position. And at least in terms of QST, it may be too late to anything formal in print. But we really do have to have firm numbers (e.g. xx% said they want code requirements retained as is, xx% said retain the requirement only for Extra class, xx% said they want the requirement eliminated, xx% said they have no strong preference) or those who feel like they lost on the issue will have an easy claim that we did not properly represent them. Could we at least put a survey form up on the web site that we can point to in Division newsletters and maybe sneak a late reference to in the December or January QST? For those who don't have web access, we can ask them to send the responses to their Director via e-mail, NTS message, phone or other means. I firmly believe that without something approaching a properly conducted poll, we are just leaving ourselves open to more criticism, which ultimately leads to lost memberships. 73, Andy Oppel, N6AJO Pacific Division Vice Director

Delivered-To: andy@5 From: "Martin Fouts" <fouts@fogey.com> To: "Andy Oppel" <andy@andyoppel.com>, "Glenn Thomas" <glennt@attglobal.net>, <wb6w@arrl.org> Cc: <w6rgg@sbcglobal.net>, <n6ajo@arrl.org> Subject: RE: Re: ARRL code/no-code feedback Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:01:12 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal

Hi Andy

Thanks for taking the time to answer Glenn's question on my behalf. I'm still somewhat puzzled about the process, not at the board level, but within our division. I wonder if you could tell me what form "collect that information" is going to take within the division.

As a VE, and a new ham, I can honestly say that I agree and understand that the code/no-code issue is a small thing in and of itself. The real issue isn't the final decision, it's the divisiveness within the amateur radio community in the US, which will only get worse as time passes.

I think the ARRL made an unfortunate mistake by not knowing its position sooner, and by not being ready with its petition once WRC-03 has ended. I believe the ARRL is doing itself, its members and the US amateur radio community a disservice by "waiting until the smoke has cleared". I can't see how yet another petition, much later than all of the others, is going to do anything but increase the acrimony.

73

Marty AE6IP