David: An interesting suggestion. You and Mickey have the perspective of having been former SM's. I can't say I have heard concerns along the lines you mentioned in the Dakota Division and those SM's and SEC's have considerable experience in dealing with emcomm emergencies such as month long floods over many hundreds of square miles in sub-zero temperatures. My point is emcomm may not have a "one size fits all" solution. Perhaps you are right and we should listen to amateurs with professional emergency management experience a bit more. Still I feel we need to first listen to the elected SM's and volunteer SEC's who have the on the ground experience are in the best position to evaluate their needs and no allegiance to any particular system or technology. The NERPC committee did a fine job of identifying a way for ARRL to address future emcomm needs, particularly in wide area disasters. This Board accepted and praised the NERPC committee report and recognized the good work of the members and the leadership of VP Kay Craigie. New views and new ideas should always be welcome on the Board. BUT before creating another committee, advisory or otherwise we ought to first be clear that what we already have in place isn't adequate or can't be adjusted to meet the perceived shortcoming. The current discussion arose from comments from Steve Waterman, K4CJX to Mickey. Steve is an avowed Winlink zealot who feels Winlink isn't being given its due and isn't being backed and promoted by the NERPC committee or ARRL. Frankly I am inclined to think Steve wants a second bite at that apple and is pushing the committee idea to foster that result. I would be surprised and disappointed if true believers such as Steve and the D-Star advocates didn't press their case. ARRL ought to make sure that new useful technologies and systems are featured in QST and on the Website, but I don't believe ARRL should back or endorse any particular system or technology, particularly a proprietary technology. There are any number of excellent technologies and systems out there. There are any number of professional emcomm folks out there who are Amateurs. Just because a technology or system exists or an Amateur has expertise in structured governmental or NGO communications doesn't mean that technology, system or expertise is transportable to Amateur emcomm services. Let's not forget the needs or seek the input of guys on the line, the SM's and SEC's, when dealing with emcomm issues. 73, Jay, K0QB -----Original Message----- From: David A. Norris [mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:01 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17832] RE: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? Good Points Kay, I think we should look in to this PSAC/ECAC idea again citing the following from the NERPC Report: Conclusion Disaster preparedness is a moving target, moving faster all the time. No recommendations, no plans, no systems should be considered as graven in stone and the permanent answers for all circumstances and hazards. The level of professional expertise in emergency communications and emergency management among Amateurs in the USA is growing, and the expectations these Amateurs place upon their League to provide first-rate leadership and guidance is growing, too. This committee appreciates the opportunity to contribute to the ARRL's ability to provide that leadership and guidance. We trust that the process will continue. If "lessons learned" are not followed by "behaviors changed," then the lessons have not been learned at all. To coincide with this I hear a lot of talk about ARRL not sufficiently promoting and supporting Emcomm throughout the division and the need for the ARRL to "get out in front" WRT Emcomm. Many members cite the above report and these members are of the opinion that we aren't doing enough in support of Emcomm. The ECAC/PSAC idea is worth looking at as well as a "committee of experts" approach. Perhaps we could look at a hybrid committee with 15-16 division/Canada appointees and a number of additional Emcomm experts selected either by the President or a committee of the whole. Let's all bear in mind that there is a tremendous amount of expertise to draw from. I think we have a very good topic for discussion here. David A. Norris, K5UZ Vice Director, Delta Div. -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:53 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17824] RE: [arrl-odv:17815] EmComm Advisory Committee? [I sent this nearly 2 hours ago and it hasn't come through to me. Sorry if it causes a dupe.] During the NERPC study, I asked the group to consider whether or not the PSAC/ECAC should be revived. No one said yes. There are so many hams with so much expertise in the field that the rigid one-representative-per-Division structure of Advisory Committees seemed ill-suited to the task of ensuring that the Board and Staff have the most timely, highest-quality input reflecting a diversity of viewpoints. Having just 15 or 16 (if Canada's included as it is on the other AC's) voices seemed to the committee to make the funnel just too small. It would also make a Director's life a credible version of hell to have to choose just one person from a large number of possible appointees in his or her Division -- some of whom have great big axes to grind and do not listen at all well to viewpoints different from their own. The NERPC volunteers suggested a different model, if a committee of volunteers is thought to be desirable, and that is the PR Committee. Because it is not an Advisory Committee, the PR Committee is not limited to one representative per Division and so it's possible to achieve both geographic balance and a wide range of skill sets and viewpoints. We were looking specifically at input from the field to HQ, but that does not rule out the same input being available to, say, the Board's PSC as the basis for policy recommendations. I have appended the relevant two pages from the NERPC report. The relevant section starts about halfway down the first page. 73, Kay N3KN