[arrl-odv:27773] Factually False and Misleading Statements in the Draft ARPA Petition
There are many flaws in the ARPA petition draft that need significant discussion before proceeding with any filings. Here a a few of the most serious. 1) Paragraph 8 reads: “The specific language for the single rule change proposed in the attached Appendix represents a full and complete accommodation reached . . . between ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the only national association representing HOAs. That accommodation resulted in CAI’s and ARRL’s written expressions of support for Federal legislation containing the provisions proposed herein in Appendix A.” The text in Appendix A is not the same as what was in the legislation in at least four respects. a) The compromise legislation did not specify “all Amateur Radio Frequency bands." b) There was no grandfathering of pre-enactment antennas already installed. c) The rules-and-requirements provisions were not subject to the minimum practicable restriction” provisions. d) The “lawful purposes” did not have to be specifically articulated in the declaration of covenants. Therefore, saying or suggesting that CAI agreed with the proposed language in Appendix A is false and misleading, and CAI will not hesitate to point that out in its comments on any NPRM that may result from this effort. That could damage or destroy whatever credibility we might currently have with the FCC. 2) In Paragraph 65, Imlay further refers to “The rule in the attached Appendix, taken from the Parity Act legislation . . ." In fact the language was taken from the Parity Act and then modified to better suit ARRL. The text in Appendix A is not an accurate reflection of what the legislature was asked to pass. I am not saying we shouldn’t try to make the language more favorable (setting aside the question as to whether it can ever be worthy of passage without a complete rewrite); I’m saying the petition should not make false and misleading statements to the effect that either Congress or CAI already approved the language of our proposal. That will surely catch up with us, and probably in a bad way. 3) Imlay uses the adverb “invariably” at least six times with no perceivable basis for doing so. In Paragraph 6 on page 5, for example, he says, “ In ARRL’s extensive experience, the answer to a request made by a landowner of an HOA for approval of any antenna is invariably in the negative.” All it takes is one example of an Amateur getting approval, and that statement will be proven false and misleading. It is highly likely that CAI will be able to produce multiple examples that disprove Imlay’s statement. I personally know of a good number of these examples. In fact, I don't believe getting permission is even uncommon. For something as important as this draft filing to be so seriously flawed at this point shouts out that we need to pause and refine. I hope the incoming Board is not left with the somewhat embarrassing task of asking for a filed petition to be withdrawn. 73, Dick Norton,. N6AA
Dick thanks for the helpful edits. I am addressing each of them this moment. I agree with you that it is dangerous to overstate the extent to which the Appendix language is what CAI agreed to. When Fred Hopengarten and Mike Raisbeck and I met over two different full days in Cambridge, MA early this year, the intention was to balance the need to not change the substance of the Parity Act so much that it would trigger CAI's opposition, but at the same time to incorporate Fred's articulated concerns with the Bill language. Each of the differences that you note represent a collective effort of Fred, Mike and myself, in good faith, in an effort to walk that fence line. We adjourned the second meeting with a feeling that we had achieved that, as my recollection indicates. At the July Board meeting this year, I presented in my written report that specific language and heard no concern from anyone about it thereafter. As to the references in the Petition to it, in my view it is fair to note that the substance of the appendix is consistent with the language in the Parity Act, but I appreciate your concern that we avoid overstating the case. I am making changes addressing your concerns. Thank you for them. 73, Chris W3KD On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:07 AM Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
There are many flaws in the ARPA petition draft that need significant discussion before proceeding with any filings. Here a a few of the most serious.
1) Paragraph 8 reads: “The specific language for the single rule change proposed in the attached Appendix represents a full and complete accommodation reached . . . between ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the only national association representing HOAs. That accommodation resulted in CAI’s and ARRL’s written expressions of support for Federal legislation containing the provisions proposed herein in Appendix A.”
The text in Appendix A is not the same as what was in the legislation in at least four respects.
a) The compromise legislation did not specify “all Amateur Radio Frequency bands."
b) There was no grandfathering of pre-enactment antennas already installed.
c) The rules-and-requirements provisions were not subject to the minimum practicable restriction” provisions.
d) The “lawful purposes” did not have to be specifically articulated in the declaration of covenants.
Therefore, saying or suggesting that CAI agreed with the proposed language in Appendix A is false and misleading, and CAI will not hesitate to point that out in its comments on any NPRM that may result from this effort. That could damage or destroy whatever credibility we might currently have with the FCC.
2) In Paragraph 65, Imlay further refers to “The rule in the attached Appendix, taken from the Parity Act legislation . . ." In fact the language was taken from the Parity Act and then modified to better suit ARRL. The text in Appendix A is not an accurate reflection of what the legislature was asked to pass.
I am not saying we shouldn’t try to make the language more favorable (setting aside the question as to whether it can ever be worthy of passage without a complete rewrite); I’m saying the petition should not make false and misleading statements to the effect that either Congress or CAI already approved the language of our proposal. That will surely catch up with us, and probably in a bad way.
3) Imlay uses the adverb “invariably” at least six times with no perceivable basis for doing so. In Paragraph 6 on page 5, for example, he says, “ In ARRL’s extensive experience, the answer to a request made by a landowner of an HOA for approval of any antenna is invariably in the negative.” All it takes is one example of an Amateur getting approval, and that statement will be proven false and misleading. It is highly likely that CAI will be able to produce multiple examples that disprove Imlay’s statement.
I personally know of a good number of these examples. In fact, I don't believe getting permission is even uncommon.
For something as important as this draft filing to be so seriously flawed at this point shouts out that we need to pause and refine.
I hope the incoming Board is not left with the somewhat embarrassing task of asking for a filed petition to be withdrawn.
73,
Dick Norton,. N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
participants (2)
-
Christopher Imlay -
Richard J. Norton