[arrl-odv:26528] OO Program Study communications
Greetings — For your awareness, the following message was just emailed directly to every Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator to provide information and an update about the OO Program study that is underway. 73, Brian N5ZGT ========================= Fellow Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator -- My name is Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT, and I serve as ARRL’s Second Vice President. I have been tasked by ARRL’s Executive Committee (EC) to oversee ARRL’s Official Observer Program Revitalization Study. The purpose of my email to you is to provide some background on the study, what’s happening at present, and what you can expect going forward. I ask that you please share this note with the Official Observers in your Section. The study group is composed of Steve Ewald (ARRL Field Organization Supervisor), Dan Henderson (ARRL Regulatory Information Manager), Chris Imlay (ARRL General Counsel), Dave Patton (ARRL Field Services Manager), and myself. Serving in an advisory role is amateur radio’s great friend Riley Hollingsworth (Former FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement). Atlantic Division Director Tom Abernethy W3TOM and Central Division Director Kermit Carlson W9XA are also on hand as liaisons to ARRL’s Programs & Services and Administration & Finance, respectively. The Official Observer Program Revitalization Study came about for a couple of reasons: First, because it has been at least two decades since the OO program has undergone any considerable review for opportunities to modernize or become more efficient – both at the ARRL Headquarters level where the program is administered by staff, and in the field where the program is executed by you and your team. My very first voluntary role within ARRL, some 20 years ago, was as an Official Observer. I look back and don’t see much difference between today’s program and that of two decades ago. Both ARRL staff and the Board agreed a review was long overdue. The second motivation for the study is that FCC has changed over the years, for better or for worse. Ever increasing budget pressures have changed the way FCC has been able to monitor, investigate, and pursue offenders across all radio spectrum, not just amateur radio’s. Field offices across the nation have closed, many staff who manned those offices have left FCC, FCC personnel in general have been expected to do more with less resources, enforcement priorities have changed, and more. How does an Official Observer program that’s remained largely unchanged for 20 years provide the most efficient and effective support to an FCC that has changed tremendously over the same timeframe? As FCC is the primary customer and end-user of the Official Observer program, it is of vital importance that the "impedance match" between the OO program and FCC be as optimal as possible. Otherwise the valuable time and energy expended by volunteer OOs across the nation is largely for naught. With the two aforementioned motivations in mind, the team that I am leading has taken on a thorough review of the OO program — starting with its interface and relationship with FCC, then focusing on the program’s administration at ARRL HQ, then ultimately the volunteer/field aspects. We are reviewing everything, with an eye on improvement, efficiency, and optimizing that impedance match with today’s FCC. Here is a small sampling of the type of the questions we are asking and then studying: What’s working? What can be improved? What does today’s FCC, given its evolved landscape, need from the OO program to get maximum value from the work of its volunteers? What technologies are out there to help better administer the OO program? How can ARRL better collect, catalog, review, and forward observer field reports to FCC? Should observers' accreditation be perpetual or limited to a number of years to ensure an active and trained volunteer community? What periodic ‘continuing education’ activities could be offered to observers to build community and grow knowledge? Our charge is to develop ideas and recommendations that may contribute to a more efficient and modern program. Our ideas will be delivered in the next few months to ARRL’s Executive Committee (the committee that commissioned this study), which will then engage ARRL’s standing committees (Programs & Services, which looks at the programmatic aspects of ARRL, and Administration & Finance, which focuses on the staffing and financial aspects of ARRL). What is approved by these committees will ultimately appear before ARRL’s board of directors for its consideration. Only after the Board’s buy-in and approval will any major changes to the Official Observer program be implemented. Thoughtful ideas and feedback from within the Official Observer community will be solicited between now and, through your elected Director, prior to the full Board’s consideration. In the meantime, the current Official Observer program continues to operate as it always has. Continue to keep an eye on the bands. Document blatant rule violations and report them up the chain. Recognize good amateurs who are leading by example with ‘Good Operator notices’. Provide friendly heads up and assistance to those who make unwitting mistakes. The only change in operations at ARRL HQ is a temporary pause to the appointment of brand-new Official Observers that HQ staff has imposed upon itself. This was done to largely to allow staff to focus on the study that’s underway, and also to ensure that new volunteers aren’t trained and processed into the existing program, only to turn around and be potentially burdened with different training and processing under a potentially new program. I hope this note provides an idea of what’s underway, the important factors that motivated the study, and the steps to come. I welcome your questions and thoughtful input, and thank you for the time and energy you and your team devote to serving the amateur radio community. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Second Vice President
Brian Excellent. Impedance match is such an apt metaphor. Thanks Tom Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Mileshosky, Brian, (2nd Vice President), N5ZGT <n5zgt@swcp.com> wrote:
Greetings —
For your awareness, the following message was just emailed directly to every Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator to provide information and an update about the OO Program study that is underway.
73, Brian N5ZGT
=========================
Fellow Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator --
My name is Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT, and I serve as ARRL’s Second Vice President. I have been tasked by ARRL’s Executive Committee (EC) to oversee ARRL’s Official Observer Program Revitalization Study.
The purpose of my email to you is to provide some background on the study, what’s happening at present, and what you can expect going forward. I ask that you please share this note with the Official Observers in your Section.
The study group is composed of Steve Ewald (ARRL Field Organization Supervisor), Dan Henderson (ARRL Regulatory Information Manager), Chris Imlay (ARRL General Counsel), Dave Patton (ARRL Field Services Manager), and myself. Serving in an advisory role is amateur radio’s great friend Riley Hollingsworth (Former FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement). Atlantic Division Director Tom Abernethy W3TOM and Central Division Director Kermit Carlson W9XA are also on hand as liaisons to ARRL’s Programs & Services and Administration & Finance, respectively.
The Official Observer Program Revitalization Study came about for a couple of reasons:
First, because it has been at least two decades since the OO program has undergone any considerable review for opportunities to modernize or become more efficient – both at the ARRL Headquarters level where the program is administered by staff, and in the field where the program is executed by you and your team. My very first voluntary role within ARRL, some 20 years ago, was as an Official Observer. I look back and don’t see much difference between today’s program and that of two decades ago. Both ARRL staff and the Board agreed a review was long overdue.
The second motivation for the study is that FCC has changed over the years, for better or for worse. Ever increasing budget pressures have changed the way FCC has been able to monitor, investigate, and pursue offenders across all radio spectrum, not just amateur radio’s. Field offices across the nation have closed, many staff who manned those offices have left FCC, FCC personnel in general have been expected to do more with less resources, enforcement priorities have changed, and more. How does an Official Observer program that’s remained largely unchanged for 20 years provide the most efficient and effective support to an FCC that has changed tremendously over the same timeframe? As FCC is the primary customer and end-user of the Official Observer program, it is of vital importance that the "impedance match" between the OO program and FCC be as optimal as possible. Otherwise the valuable time and energy expended by volunteer OOs across the nation is largely for naught.
With the two aforementioned motivations in mind, the team that I am leading has taken on a thorough review of the OO program — starting with its interface and relationship with FCC, then focusing on the program’s administration at ARRL HQ, then ultimately the volunteer/field aspects.
We are reviewing everything, with an eye on improvement, efficiency, and optimizing that impedance match with today’s FCC. Here is a small sampling of the type of the questions we are asking and then studying: What’s working? What can be improved? What does today’s FCC, given its evolved landscape, need from the OO program to get maximum value from the work of its volunteers? What technologies are out there to help better administer the OO program? How can ARRL better collect, catalog, review, and forward observer field reports to FCC? Should observers' accreditation be perpetual or limited to a number of years to ensure an active and trained volunteer community? What periodic ‘continuing education’ activities could be offered to observers to build community and grow knowledge?
Our charge is to develop ideas and recommendations that may contribute to a more efficient and modern program. Our ideas will be delivered in the next few months to ARRL’s Executive Committee (the committee that commissioned this study), which will then engage ARRL’s standing committees (Programs & Services, which looks at the programmatic aspects of ARRL, and Administration & Finance, which focuses on the staffing and financial aspects of ARRL). What is approved by these committees will ultimately appear before ARRL’s board of directors for its consideration. Only after the Board’s buy-in and approval will any major changes to the Official Observer program be implemented.
Thoughtful ideas and feedback from within the Official Observer community will be solicited between now and, through your elected Director, prior to the full Board’s consideration.
In the meantime, the current Official Observer program continues to operate as it always has. Continue to keep an eye on the bands. Document blatant rule violations and report them up the chain. Recognize good amateurs who are leading by example with ‘Good Operator notices’. Provide friendly heads up and assistance to those who make unwitting mistakes. The only change in operations at ARRL HQ is a temporary pause to the appointment of brand-new Official Observers that HQ staff has imposed upon itself. This was done to largely to allow staff to focus on the study that’s underway, and also to ensure that new volunteers aren’t trained and processed into the existing program, only to turn around and be potentially burdened with different training and processing under a potentially new program.
I hope this note provides an idea of what’s underway, the important factors that motivated the study, and the steps to come. I welcome your questions and thoughtful input, and thank you for the time and energy you and your team devote to serving the amateur radio community.
73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Second Vice President _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Thank you Brian. This is very helpful. Bonnie AB7ZQ -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mileshosky Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:32 PM To: ARRL <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:26528] OO Program Study communications Greetings — For your awareness, the following message was just emailed directly to every Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator to provide information and an update about the OO Program study that is underway. 73, Brian N5ZGT ========================= Fellow Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator -- My name is Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT, and I serve as ARRL’s Second Vice President. I have been tasked by ARRL’s Executive Committee (EC) to oversee ARRL’s Official Observer Program Revitalization Study. The purpose of my email to you is to provide some background on the study, what’s happening at present, and what you can expect going forward. I ask that you please share this note with the Official Observers in your Section. The study group is composed of Steve Ewald (ARRL Field Organization Supervisor), Dan Henderson (ARRL Regulatory Information Manager), Chris Imlay (ARRL General Counsel), Dave Patton (ARRL Field Services Manager), and myself. Serving in an advisory role is amateur radio’s great friend Riley Hollingsworth (Former FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement). Atlantic Division Director Tom Abernethy W3TOM and Central Division Director Kermit Carlson W9XA are also on hand as liaisons to ARRL’s Programs & Services and Administration & Finance, respectively. The Official Observer Program Revitalization Study came about for a couple of reasons: First, because it has been at least two decades since the OO program has undergone any considerable review for opportunities to modernize or become more efficient – both at the ARRL Headquarters level where the program is administered by staff, and in the field where the program is executed by you and your team. My very first voluntary role within ARRL, some 20 years ago, was as an Official Observer. I look back and don’t see much difference between today’s program and that of two decades ago. Both ARRL staff and the Board agreed a review was long overdue. The second motivation for the study is that FCC has changed over the years, for better or for worse. Ever increasing budget pressures have changed the way FCC has been able to monitor, investigate, and pursue offenders across all radio spectrum, not just amateur radio’s. Field offices across the nation have closed, many staff who manned those offices have left FCC, FCC personnel in general have been expected to do more with less resources, enforcement priorities have changed, and more. How does an Official Observer program that’s remained largely unchanged for 20 years provide the most efficient and effective support to an FCC that has changed tremendously over the same timeframe? As FCC is the primary customer and end-user of the Official Observer program, it is of vital importance that the "impedance match" between the OO program and FCC be as optimal as possible. Otherwise the valuable time and energy expended by volunteer OOs across the nation is largely for naught. With the two aforementioned motivations in mind, the team that I am leading has taken on a thorough review of the OO program — starting with its interface and relationship with FCC, then focusing on the program’s administration at ARRL HQ, then ultimately the volunteer/field aspects. We are reviewing everything, with an eye on improvement, efficiency, and optimizing that impedance match with today’s FCC. Here is a small sampling of the type of the questions we are asking and then studying: What’s working? What can be improved? What does today’s FCC, given its evolved landscape, need from the OO program to get maximum value from the work of its volunteers? What technologies are out there to help better administer the OO program? How can ARRL better collect, catalog, review, and forward observer field reports to FCC? Should observers' accreditation be perpetual or limited to a number of years to ensure an active and trained volunteer community? What periodic ‘continuing education’ activities could be offered to observers to build community and grow knowledge? Our charge is to develop ideas and recommendations that may contribute to a more efficient and modern program. Our ideas will be delivered in the next few months to ARRL’s Executive Committee (the committee that commissioned this study), which will then engage ARRL’s standing committees (Programs & Services, which looks at the programmatic aspects of ARRL, and Administration & Finance, which focuses on the staffing and financial aspects of ARRL). What is approved by these committees will ultimately appear before ARRL’s board of directors for its consideration. Only after the Board’s buy-in and approval will any major changes to the Official Observer program be implemented. Thoughtful ideas and feedback from within the Official Observer community will be solicited between now and, through your elected Director, prior to the full Board’s consideration. In the meantime, the current Official Observer program continues to operate as it always has. Continue to keep an eye on the bands. Document blatant rule violations and report them up the chain. Recognize good amateurs who are leading by example with ‘Good Operator notices’. Provide friendly heads up and assistance to those who make unwitting mistakes. The only change in operations at ARRL HQ is a temporary pause to the appointment of brand-new Official Observers that HQ staff has imposed upon itself. This was done to largely to allow staff to focus on the study that’s underway, and also to ensure that new volunteers aren’t trained and processed into the existing program, only to turn around and be potentially burdened with different training and processing under a potentially new program. I hope this note provides an idea of what’s underway, the important factors that motivated the study, and the steps to come. I welcome your questions and thoughtful input, and thank you for the time and energy you and your team devote to serving the amateur radio community. 73, Brian N5ZGT ARRL Second Vice President _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
At 11:31 PM 6/22/2017, Brian Mileshosky/N5ZGT wrote:
For your awareness, the following message was just emailed directly to every Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator to provide information and an update about the OO Program study that is underway.
Hi Brian - Thanks for trying to keep the Board, SMs and OOCs updated. Since you consistently describe what you are doing as a revitalization of the OO program, do you intend to make changes to the traditional peer-to-peer activity of sending out postcards to people who may or may not know of rules infractions, or to those who deserve Good Operator Report? I'm guessing you don't intend major changes for these activities, maybe just modernizing the process. From our prior conversations, it sounds like the major focus is on the Amateur Auxiliary, which relates to our interaction with the FCC when we have significant problems that friendly postcards are not able to impact. None of your communications has mentioned the Amateur Auxiliary which was the formal name given to the portion of the OO program that supports enforcement activities with the FCC. Given that we eliminated the job of the person coordinating our interface with the FCC (K0BOG) more than a year ago, and that the study committee has been talking about OO changes for nearly a year now, it really feels like we're stuck in the quicksand. As of last July, we had 754 Official Observers in the Field Organization database, and it is the only individual field appointment where the number of volunteers has grown in the last five years.. I urge you and HQ to continue to encourage the OO program to do the peer-to-peer reminder job it has been doing since 1926. The formal involvement with FCC on enforcement is relatively new (25 years?), and I agree it needs to be updated, but working with the FCC is really a small portion of the overall effort we take to encourage amateurs to be aware of and follow the FCC rules. I fear the present communications and delays have only discouraged volunteers more. At last weekend's New England Division cabinet meeting, Tom Gallagher gave a brief update on the OO program issues and made it sound like the only focus of the program was on getting the bad guys in front of the FCC. It isn't. I know that's the focus of your committee's work though. By not acknowledging the peer-to-peer activities are and will continue, it makes every volunteer question whether his or her efforts are appreciated. 90% of the OO volunteers will never be involved in the more serious cases that should be referred to the FCC, we really should only need to focus on the subset of those who will. Keep the rest of the OO volunteers active, interested and appreciated. I was also surprised to learn that we have stopped allowing Section Managers to make Official Observer appointments while this study is pending. I don't know how long that policy has been in place but it was news to me and seems like a counter-productive step. Your update to SMs/OOCs says your report will be delivered to the Executive Committee. Does that mean you don't expect to finish until at least the fall EC meeting? The EC won't be able to approve action to change the program and any commitments we have with the FCC, that would have to be the full board. So are we now looking at waiting until January 2018? Hope not. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.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
Tom — QSLing your note below. I’m happy to address the questions and comments made during my verbal report to the Board. 73, Brian N5ZGT
On Jul 3, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> wrote:
At 11:31 PM 6/22/2017, Brian Mileshosky/N5ZGT wrote:
For your awareness, the following message was just emailed directly to every Section Manager and Official Observer Coordinator to provide information and an update about the OO Program study that is underway.
Hi Brian -
Thanks for trying to keep the Board, SMs and OOCs updated.
Since you consistently describe what you are doing as a revitalization of the OO program, do you intend to make changes to the traditional peer-to-peer activity of sending out postcards to people who may or may not know of rules infractions, or to those who deserve Good Operator Report? I'm guessing you don't intend major changes for these activities, maybe just modernizing the process.
From our prior conversations, it sounds like the major focus is on the Amateur Auxiliary, which relates to our interaction with the FCC when we have significant problems that friendly postcards are not able to impact. None of your communications has mentioned the Amateur Auxiliary which was the formal name given to the portion of the OO program that supports enforcement activities with the FCC.
Given that we eliminated the job of the person coordinating our interface with the FCC (K0BOG) more than a year ago, and that the study committee has been talking about OO changes for nearly a year now, it really feels like we're stuck in the quicksand.
As of last July, we had 754 Official Observers in the Field Organization database, and it is the only individual field appointment where the number of volunteers has grown in the last five years..
I urge you and HQ to continue to encourage the OO program to do the peer-to-peer reminder job it has been doing since 1926. The formal involvement with FCC on enforcement is relatively new (25 years?), and I agree it needs to be updated, but working with the FCC is really a small portion of the overall effort we take to encourage amateurs to be aware of and follow the FCC rules.
I fear the present communications and delays have only discouraged volunteers more. At last weekend's New England Division cabinet meeting, Tom Gallagher gave a brief update on the OO program issues and made it sound like the only focus of the program was on getting the bad guys in front of the FCC. It isn't. I know that's the focus of your committee's work though. By not acknowledging the peer-to-peer activities are and will continue, it makes every volunteer question whether his or her efforts are appreciated. 90% of the OO volunteers will never be involved in the more serious cases that should be referred to the FCC, we really should only need to focus on the subset of those who will. Keep the rest of the OO volunteers active, interested and appreciated.
I was also surprised to learn that we have stopped allowing Section Managers to make Official Observer appointments while this study is pending. I don't know how long that policy has been in place but it was news to me and seems like a counter-productive step.
Your update to SMs/OOCs says your report will be delivered to the Executive Committee. Does that mean you don't expect to finish until at least the fall EC meeting? The EC won't be able to approve action to change the program and any commitments we have with the FCC, that would have to be the full board. So are we now looking at waiting until January 2018? Hope not.
-- Tom
===== e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ <http://www.arrl.org/>Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (4)
-
Bonnie Altus -
Brian Mileshosky -
Gallagher, Tom, NY2RF (CEO) -
Tom Frenaye