Coy, Jay, As the most open self-flagellator (and yes, I do it in public) on the Board, I want to say "right on," "go baby go," and a number of similar trite sayings to Jay's recommendation. Jay's full-size article would be a tremendous way to keynote the new beginning of modern-day communication with members and non-members, alike. Jim Excellent, Jay. Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok@arrl.org] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:55 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15633] Re:A way to respond to the CQ "Secret Society" Editorial Jay, I think you are right. It could be an opportunity for us to straighten out the record and clarify our position. I would be careful about attacking Rich though. I think he could be an asset in this. Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632 John Bellows wrote:

In his “Secret Society” editorial in the June 2007 issue of CQ Magazine Rich Moseson, W2VU describes, sometimes incorrectly, the recent actions of ARRL with regard to the RM 11306 band width petition. He also speaks to League’s actions regarding the broad scale background check requirements imposed by the American Red Cross. W2VU asserts ARRL is “revealing information only when absolutely necessary, and saying one thing while doing another.”

W2VU’s comments raise a series of questions about our post petition actions regarding RM11306 and the ongoing discussions with the ARC. While he castigates the officers and board for “secrecy and subterfuge”, alludes to actions “under the table” and repeats a number of misstatements and misperceptions about recent ARRL actions, he says” I am not suggesting that anything improper is actually going on, just that this sort of secrecy provides ammunition for those who are suspect of the League’s motives to begin with.”

There is a certain contradictory element to this editorial. Moseson starts out recognizing the process leading to the RM11306 petition “was the culmination of a multi-year process—ironically, one of the most open in memory---in which the ARRL, repeatedly sought input from members before drafting the petition” but then accuses us of secrecy. Then again, viewing the post filing RM 11306 process from the outside a suspicious mind could view our actions as being secret, because in a sense they were and in the context of the circumstances should have been.

The question is what should we do, if anything? We seem to have concluded as a Board that the reason RM11306 engendered such negative response was not necessarily do to a lack of technical merit but OUR failure to adequately advance the benefits of the proposal and our failure to engender vocal support from the many amateurs who supported the proposal. Our product and preparation was great but we didn’t “close the sale.”

The Moseson editorial provides an excellent opening to make clear what actually happened, prepare for a possible future petition and see if Moseson and CQ are serious in finding out why ARRL took the actions it did. This is an opportunity to ask Moseson and CQ for a fair chance to answer those questions he raised by allowing our President a to respond in the pages of CQ. I’m not thinking of a short letter to the editor but an opportunity to provide a full, carefully crafted answer to those serious questions raised in the June CQ editorial. This could be a win-win situation. It could also be an opportunity to see if W2VU is seriously looking for answers or just fanning flames.

73,

Jay, KØQB