We're entirely free to take positions on pending legislation. What we can't do is to support candidates in any way. With regard to S. 786, what is it we're trying to accomplish? We wouldn't take a stand on every piece of bad legislation that's filed -- we'd have no time to do anything else. I can only think of two ways in which our specific interests overlap those of NWS: 1) We have volunteers who gather severe weather information (principally hurricanes and tornadoes) and feed it to the authorities; and 2) We are consumers, probably to a greater extent than the general public, of NWS weather broadcasts on 162.4 MHz etc. I note that the Weather Coalition http://www.weathercoalition.org/Santorum%20Bill%20Letter%206-05.pdf has written a letter to Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens commenting on the bill. Would it be appropriate for us to send a letter along similar lines, expressing concerns rather than flat-out opposition? What I have in mind is something like this. Suggestions for embellishments welcome -- this is pretty bare-bones. Dave Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of its 150,000 members, the ARRL welcomes the opportunity to offer brief comments on the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 (S. 786). Many ARRL members are active Amateur Radio volunteers who provide real-time severe weather observations to NWS through the SKYWARN program as well as to the National Hurricane Center in Miami through the Hurricane Watch Net. These activities are conducted in a spirit of public service without compensation of any kind. Radio amateurs also make extensive use of NOAA Weather Radio, US Coast Guard radio broadcasts, and weather satellite imagery. After reviewing the legislation, the ARRL is concerned that it could impede the dissemination of weather information that should be freely available to citizens. Volunteer observers might be placed in the peculiar position of being denied access to forecasts based in part on data that they themselves have provided. It is our view that restricting the NWS to the preparation and issuance of severe weather forecasts and warnings would poorly serve the public interest. As your committee considers S. 786 we ask that our concerns be kept in mind. Sincerely, DS/CEO -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:04 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12821] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786 If we are considering taking a stand on this legislation we ought to do so in a manner that reflects ARRL is committed to public service and non-partisan. In this instance that may not be difficult. According to the cited Infoweek article" "Everyone seems to agree with the ostensible goal of the bill, which is 'to make all data and information that the public has already paid for available in real time' ..... (b)ut there's disagreement about whether the text of the proposed legislation will function as advertised." Most critics and even some proponents agree " ambiguities in the bill could leave room for new restrictions to be placed on National Weather Service data." David Moran, assistant professor of law at Wayne State University said "(t)he bill is poorly drafted because, after reading it several times, I'm not at all clear as to exactly what information the [National Weather Service] would be prohibited from releasing to the public." If the Board feels the need to take a stand on Senate Bill 786, we should frame our position as support for the stated purpose of the Bill, namely that the National Weather Service ought to be free to make all data and information that the public has already paid for available in real time, but that in its' present form Senate Bill 786 is so ambiguous and contradictory to its' stated purpose the we are compelled to oppose it. Of course before opposing any pending legislation we need Counsel Imlay to advise us whether this action would negatively affect our status as a 501(c) (3) organization. -----Original Message----- From: w5jbp@aol.com [mailto:w5jbp@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 4:59 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:12820] Re: NWS - Senate Bill 786 I agree. This bill is totally self-serving and we should come out against it. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:34:34 -0400 Subject: [arrl-odv:12802] NWS - Senate Bill 786 I thought we spent a little time at the recent Board meeting talking about Senate Bill 786 (regarding weather information), introduced by Senator Santorum. Couldn't find any reference to it in the minutes so I guess it was a brief mention - perhaps in John Chwat's presentation. I guess the bottom line was that we (John, Chris, etc) didn't think there was a real chance if it becoming law, so we didn't take any action. I'm second-guessing that now after reading an article about it in Information World: http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle. <http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165702845> jhtml?articleID=165702845 I also believe we have a lot of members who find our association with the NWS to be very positive (and vice versa). I think it'd be a good move for us to publicly state that we do not support S.786. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org <mailto:k1ki%40arrl.org> ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444