HNY All! First off I want to thank Dan and Chris for the excellent Options Paper they have drafted for the Board. Good work gentlemen. My Director K5MC is giving a spot-on accurate view of what we are seeing in Delta Division WRT EM's in TN, AR and to a lesser extent MS and LA. He is also correct on the hospital assessment with the firm understanding from the hospitals that amateur radio is only to be used "when all else fails". The hospitals in AR and LA have spent a tremendous amount of grant and institutional money to establish amateur radio installations for emcomm purposes. In AR as well as the rest of the sections in Delta division many "hospital hams" have been licensed, some are employees while others are volunteers licensed for the purpose of manning the hospital stations. The problem we are running in to is that some communities in the Delta Division simply lack the number of active and able bodied amateurs to man these essential facilities ergo the push to gain "hospital hams" or an occasional EMA employee ham in a state or County EOC. We have licensed 300 plus in AR through the AR DOH and AR Hospital Assn with the majority being volunteers; however in those low ham population areas we must rely on employees. We must be able to drill and train these new hams. Furthermore, I should point out that we have seen a benefit in these communities with lower amateur population as it has brought about the resurrection of three local clubs on the brink of collapse and the formation of several new ones. There is a tremendous advantage and opportunity to gain new amateurs as a good number of these employee hams are now "catching the bug". I actually worked two groups in AR participating in the ARRL 10m Contest! Again, we have a tremendous opportunity here if we do it correctly and apply the "Dave Question": Who benefits? As for EMA's in Delta Division, TN is absolutely and positively going to use MARS and drop ARES if the 97.113 issue isn't resolved and in AR, ADEM is looking at using MARS also. I for one do not want to see ARES and amateur radio made impotent or irrelevant in emergency communications or public service roles which is a risk we may be running in some states by doing nothing. For what it is worth, I strongly urge the BoD to consider backing option B (pp2-3) or option C (pp 3-4) with some time limits similar to 97.407(e)(4) RACES drills and perhaps with the addition of some specific language prohibiting business systems restoration. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to be proactive on this issue but in a reasonable and fair way. The majority of emails, personal conversations and phone calls I have received on the subject support a proactive ARRL role on a reasonable approach towards 97.113. That is the observation and opinion from the past AR SM and the Delta Division V. Dir. Thanks for letting me vent. I'm going back to work on my 160m verticals! GUD DX Y'all! 73 ES HNY David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Cox [mailto:mcoxk5mc@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:16 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18374] Re: Options paper, Section 97.113 ODV, There are a number of unhappy members in the Delta Division right now concerning the "strict" interpretation of 97.113 by Bill Cross, etc. For example, over the past several years a lot of hospital employees (particularly in AR, but also in LA, MS, and TN) have received their ham tickets with an obvious eye toward emcomm operations "on behalf" of their employers. In addition, I've heard from disgruntled ARRL members who are either professionally employed in emergency management or closely allied with such organizations. One emcomm manager in TN (who also happens to be a Delta Division Assistant Director) has directly told me that he will use MARS rather than ARES until/unless this issue is resolved. At this time I would like to see more flexibility as outlined in Option C (Expanded Training Option) on page 3 in the Options paper. However, I would also suggest that some time limitations be included with this option in a similar spirit as found in 97.407(e)(4) for RACES tests and drills. For example, an amateur participating in emergency tests and drills "on behalf of an employer" should be limited to one hour per week or a total of 72 hours per year. (We can debate the best choice of numbers later.) A time limitation along these lines would help minimize the risk that businesses would use amateur radio for inappropriate purposes. I look forward to hearing the thoughts from other Board members on this issue! 73, Mickey K5MC ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <mailto:dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 3:18 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:18367] Options paper, Section 97.113 Item 10.d. on the draft agenda for next month's Board meeting is the development of the ARRL position on possible amendment of the FCC rules concerning pecuniary interest and communications on behalf of one's employer (Section 97.113). To assist the Board in its deliberations the Executive Committee requested that an options paper be prepared. General Counsel Imlay and Regulatory Information Manager Henderson developed an excellent paper, which is attached for your review. There will be ample opportunity for discussion of the issues addressed in this paper at the meeting, but of course any consideration that you can give to them in advance of the meeting will facilitate the Board's work. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary <<97.113 Options FINAL.doc>>