[arrl-odv:24977] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA
Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. *Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017* 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. *Election Costs* Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. *Web-site and Magazine Changes* The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. *Other Options - Gradual Phase-in* It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. *Summary* The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dick,
I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes.
Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions.
I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC.
Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division.
Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it).
So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary.
In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board.
I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members.
So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
*Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections*
*ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™*
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard J. Norton *Sent:* Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM *To:* arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average.
*Why?*
1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another.
2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair.
3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable.
*Overview*
This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous.
There may be a desire to change division names in some cases.
*Details*
The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division.
There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same.
*Division by Division Proposed Restructuring*
Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%.
Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%.
Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division.
Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%.
Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%.
Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%.
Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%.
New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%.
Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%.
Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%.
Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%.
Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%.
Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%.
West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%.
The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised.
Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%.
Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%.
*Event Coverage*
I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it.
*Summary*
The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state.
I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this.
I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim,
Thank you for your interest.
The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once.
Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017
1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes.
2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions.
Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal.
Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost.
Election Costs
Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting.
Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee.
Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000.
Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes.
Web-site and Magazine Changes
The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected.
Other Options - Gradual Phase-in
It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017.
The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet.
Summary
The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment.
...or propose something better.
73,
Dick, N6AA
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote: Dick,
I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes.
Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions.
I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC.
Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division.
Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it).
So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary.
In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board.
I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members.
So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections
ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average.
Why?
1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another.
2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair.
3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable.
Overview
This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous.
There may be a desire to change division names in some cases.
Details
The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division.
There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same.
Division by Division Proposed Restructuring
Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%.
Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%.
Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division.
Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%.
Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%.
Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%.
Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%.
New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%.
Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%.
Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%.
Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%.
Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%.
Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%.
West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%.
The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised.
Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%.
Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%.
Event Coverage
I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it.
Summary
The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state.
I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this.
I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Although I understand the principle of attempting to find an equitable solution to Division budgeting, I think, at least in the case of the NW Division, using a member number count only, overlooks an important fact – the relationship between Sections. While to cede the Montana Section to another Division may make some sense (distance and access to reliable air travel being as difficult as it is) the Idaho Section has a strong connection to Eastern Washington Section and the Oregon Section. To sever that long time relationship, which wasn’t built overnight, would not be in the best interests of the members. Let’s be careful that we don’t, on a whim, suggest redefining boundaries without serious consideration of what goes on within those current boundaries. 73 Jim Pace, K7CEX Northwestern Division From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of David Norris Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 2:38 PM To: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com> > wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com <mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com> > wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto: <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
There is nothing in the proposed restructuring that would in any way sever any relationship between Idaho and Washington hams. Hams work together regardless of ARRL division boundaries. A much more significant boundary situation exists around Washington DC. The Potomac River forms the boundary between the present Roanoke Division and the present Atlantic Division. People often live in one division and work in another. Radio clubs operate with members from both divisions, without concern about which ARRL director represents individual member interests in board meetings. In California, the International DX Convention is run by clubs in both the Southwestern and Pacific divisions. There is no thought of division boundaries resulting in relationship severing. Amateurs have worked together on the event for years. The Pacific Division director and I work together on anything that affects both of our divisions. It is unclear to me how you determined that the restructuring proposal was put together on "a whim." The concept has been brought up to the board a number of times. This year, a specific program was put together, and has been detailed. It is a carefully crafted proposal to remedy a serious inequity in ARRL membership representation.I hope your concern for equity will support it. Note also, that the proposal continues the current number of divisions at 15. There is no 16th division. 73, Dick Norton N6AA. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX <nwdvd@comcast.net> wrote:
Although I understand the principle of attempting to find an equitable solution to Division budgeting, I think, at least in the case of the NW Division, using a member number count only, overlooks an important fact – the relationship between Sections.
While to cede the Montana Section to another Division may make some sense (distance and access to reliable air travel being as difficult as it is) the Idaho Section has a strong connection to Eastern Washington Section and the Oregon Section. To sever that long time relationship, which wasn’t built overnight, would not be in the best interests of the members.
Let’s be careful that we don’t, on a whim, suggest redefining boundaries without serious consideration of what goes on within those current boundaries.
73
Jim Pace, K7CEX
Northwestern Division
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *David Norris *Sent:* Sunday, January 10, 2016 2:38 PM *To:* Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
Dick,
I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense.
I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug.
There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed?
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ
Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim,
Thank you for your interest.
The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once.
*Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017*
1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes.
2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions.
Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal.
Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost.
*Election Costs*
Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting.
Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot.
Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail
Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee.
Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000.
Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes.
*Web-site and Magazine Changes*
The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected.
*Other Options - Gradual Phase-in*
It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017.
The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet.
*Summary*
The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment.
...or propose something better.
73,
Dick, N6AA
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dick,
I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes.
Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions.
I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC.
Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division.
Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it).
So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary.
In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board.
I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members.
So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
*Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections*
*ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™*
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard J. Norton *Sent:* Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM *To:* arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average.
*Why?*
1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another.
2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair.
3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable.
*Overview*
This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous.
There may be a desire to change division names in some cases.
*Details*
The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division.
There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same.
*Division by Division Proposed Restructuring*
Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%.
Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%.
Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division.
Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%.
Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%.
Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%.
Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%.
New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%.
Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%.
Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%.
Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%.
Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%.
Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%.
West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%.
The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised.
Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%.
Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%.
*Event Coverage*
I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it.
*Summary*
The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state.
I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this.
I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I would like to publicly apologize to Mr. Norton for characterizing his Division Restructuring Proposal as being created on a whim. Although I was unaware of his previous submissions of such a proposal, and realizing that I am quite defensive in regards to items that impact the NW Division, my comment was not very professional and certainly not fair to him or the thought that went into his proposal. In my 58 years as a Ham Radio Operator, I have certainly learned that we do work across boundaries, be they County, State or Region – in this case District, Section and Division. However, I believe there is more to cooperation than conventions and club meetings. For the past 20 plus years, the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska, have been working hard to develop working relationships between our Emergency Management organizations. Some time ago the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Agreement (PNEMA) was developed, to foster cooperation and activity between jurisdictions. In addition to the aforementioned States, British Columba and the Yukon Territories are signatory to that agreement. This year (2016) FEMA is heading up a major exercise, known as Cascadia Rising, which involves all of those jurisdictions. Both the PNEMA agreement and the exercise include Emergency Support Function 2 (ESF2) which includes participation by Pacific Northwest ARES units. Certainly the agreement and the exercise would survive any restructuring of Division boundaries, but overall management would be more efficient, with the current Division structure of the NW Division. Make no mistake; I am certainly in support of finding an equitable way of dealing with Division Budgets. However, as I stated in my previous email, there is more to consider in the redefining of boundaries. Once again, Mr. Norton, I apologize. I would hope in the future, any proposal from any Director that impacts any of our Divisions, would have a prerequisite of discussion with the impacted Division’s Director. 73 and good Hamming Jim Pace, K7CEX ARRL the National Association for Amateur Radio Northwestern Division Director From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 9:29 PM To: Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX <nwdvd@comcast.net> Cc: David Norris <k5uz@suddenlink.net>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring There is nothing in the proposed restructuring that would in any way sever any relationship between Idaho and Washington hams. Hams work together regardless of ARRL division boundaries. A much more significant boundary situation exists around Washington DC. The Potomac River forms the boundary between the present Roanoke Division and the present Atlantic Division. People often live in one division and work in another. Radio clubs operate with members from both divisions, without concern about which ARRL director represents individual member interests in board meetings. In California, the International DX Convention is run by clubs in both the Southwestern and Pacific divisions. There is no thought of division boundaries resulting in relationship severing. Amateurs have worked together on the event for years. The Pacific Division director and I work together on anything that affects both of our divisions. It is unclear to me how you determined that the restructuring proposal was put together on "a whim." The concept has been brought up to the board a number of times. This year, a specific program was put together, and has been detailed. It is a carefully crafted proposal to remedy a serious inequity in ARRL membership representation. I hope your concern for equity will support it. Note also, that the proposal continues the current number of divisions at 15. There is no 16th division. 73, Dick Norton N6AA. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX <nwdvd@comcast.net <mailto:nwdvd@comcast.net> > wrote: Although I understand the principle of attempting to find an equitable solution to Division budgeting, I think, at least in the case of the NW Division, using a member number count only, overlooks an important fact – the relationship between Sections. While to cede the Montana Section to another Division may make some sense (distance and access to reliable air travel being as difficult as it is) the Idaho Section has a strong connection to Eastern Washington Section and the Oregon Section. To sever that long time relationship, which wasn’t built overnight, would not be in the best interests of the members. Let’s be careful that we don’t, on a whim, suggest redefining boundaries without serious consideration of what goes on within those current boundaries. 73 Jim Pace, K7CEX Northwestern Division From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of David Norris Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 2:38 PM To: Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com> > Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com> > wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com <mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com> > wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto: <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Addressing David’s question, Bylaw 15 provides as follows: 15. The President, the Vice Presidents, and the Treasurer shall possess all of the rights and duties of directors save the right to vote and the right to participate in the call of a special meeting of the Board, as referred to in Article 4 of the Articles of Association, provided, however, that the President shall be required to cast a vote on any matter as to which a tie is found to exist. Speaking of the Bylaws, the definition of division boundaries is of course contained in the Bylaws. Therefore, 12 affirmative votes would be required for adoption of any change at this week’s meeting. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:38 PM To: Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com<mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com>> wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com<mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com>> wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Dave: Can you give us an idea of when the current boundaries were created and any other prior changes you are aware of please? Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:07 AM To: Norris, David, K5UZ <k5uz@suddenlink.net>; Norton, Richard, N6AA <richardjnorton@gmail.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:24997] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Addressing David’s question, Bylaw 15 provides as follows: 15. The President, the Vice Presidents, and the Treasurer shall possess all of the rights and duties of directors save the right to vote and the right to participate in the call of a special meeting of the Board, as referred to in Article 4 of the Articles of Association, provided, however, that the President shall be required to cast a vote on any matter as to which a tie is found to exist. Speaking of the Bylaws, the definition of division boundaries is of course contained in the Bylaws. Therefore, 12 affirmative votes would be required for adoption of any change at this week’s meeting. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:38 PM To: Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com <mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com> > wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com <mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com> > wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> ] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Doug, I will not have time this week to do a thorough review and report. A very quick peek shows that there have been more tweaks than I was aware of. For example, New Mexico was a part of the West Gulf Division until 1957. The most significant postwar change in the governance structure occurred when at the 1946 Board meeting, effective January 1, 1947, the Central Division was split in half to create the Great Lakes Division. I am aware of minor adjustments between Pacific and Southwestern and between Atlantic and Hudson, but have not researched the details. I note that in the Strategic Plan the Board will be considering is the following under Goal 6, Initiative 6.5: “Practice good governance – ARRL Board and Committees. Ensure the transparency and continuity of governance procedures and association decision-making. Define the most effective governance structure for the future.” Fairness in geographic representation is certainly an element in defining the most effective governance structure although it is not the only one. 73, Dave Sumner, K1ZZ From: Rehman, Doug, K4AC Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:43 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; Norris, David, K5UZ; Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:24997] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dave: Can you give us an idea of when the current boundaries were created and any other prior changes you are aware of please? Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:07 AM To: Norris, David, K5UZ <k5uz@suddenlink.net<mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net>>; Norton, Richard, N6AA <richardjnorton@gmail.com<mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com>> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> Subject: [arrl-odv:24997] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Addressing David’s question, Bylaw 15 provides as follows: 15. The President, the Vice Presidents, and the Treasurer shall possess all of the rights and duties of directors save the right to vote and the right to participate in the call of a special meeting of the Board, as referred to in Article 4 of the Articles of Association, provided, however, that the President shall be required to cast a vote on any matter as to which a tie is found to exist. Speaking of the Bylaws, the definition of division boundaries is of course contained in the Bylaws. Therefore, 12 affirmative votes would be required for adoption of any change at this week’s meeting. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:38 PM To: Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com<mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com>> wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com<mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com>> wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Dave, True, however how does that apply in an officers' election? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> wrote:
Addressing David’s question, Bylaw 15 provides as follows:
15. The President, the Vice Presidents, and the Treasurer shall possess all of the rights and duties of directors save the right to vote and the right to participate in the call of a special meeting of the Board, as referred to in Article 4 of the Articles of Association, provided, however, that the President shall be required to cast a vote on any matter as to which a tie is found to exist.
Speaking of the Bylaws, the definition of division boundaries is of course contained in the Bylaws. Therefore, 12 affirmative votes would be required for adoption of any change at this week’s meeting.
Dave K1ZZ
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:38 PM To: Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
Dick,
I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense.
I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug.
There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed?
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim,
Thank you for your interest.
The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once.
Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017
1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes.
2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle.
The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions.
Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal.
Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost.
Election Costs
Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting.
Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee.
Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000.
Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes.
Web-site and Magazine Changes
The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected.
Other Options - Gradual Phase-in
It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017.
The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet.
Summary
The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment.
...or propose something better.
73,
Dick, N6AA
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote: Dick,
I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes.
Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions.
I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC.
Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division.
Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it).
So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary.
In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board.
I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members.
So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)?
’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring
This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average.
Why?
1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another.
2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair.
3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable.
Overview
This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous.
There may be a desire to change division names in some cases.
Details
The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division.
There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same.
Division by Division Proposed Restructuring
Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%.
Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%.
Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division.
Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%.
Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%.
Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%.
Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%.
New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%.
Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%.
Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%.
Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%.
Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%.
Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%.
West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%.
The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised.
Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%.
Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%.
Event Coverage
I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it.
Summary
The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state.
I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this.
I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board.
73,
Dick Norton, N6AA
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
It does not. To be elected to an office requires that a candidate receive 8 votes from among the 15 Directors. Dave From: Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:04 AM To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Cc: Norton, Richard, N6AA; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:24997] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dave, True, however how does that apply in an officers' election? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org<mailto:dsumner@arrl.org>> wrote: Addressing David’s question, Bylaw 15 provides as follows: 15. The President, the Vice Presidents, and the Treasurer shall possess all of the rights and duties of directors save the right to vote and the right to participate in the call of a special meeting of the Board, as referred to in Article 4 of the Articles of Association, provided, however, that the President shall be required to cast a vote on any matter as to which a tie is found to exist. Speaking of the Bylaws, the definition of division boundaries is of course contained in the Bylaws. Therefore, 12 affirmative votes would be required for adoption of any change at this week’s meeting. Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Norris, David, K5UZ Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 5:38 PM To: Norton, Richard, N6AA Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24991] Re: ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring Dick, I understand your goal here and I agree with this in principle but I'd prefer to keep TN in Delta while adding AL. This would make it a bit less unwieldy from a geographic sense. I'd also take PR or USVI... Hi! SRI Doug. There is one other potential problem I see with this plan: 16 directors sets up the potential or increases the odds on tied votes. How is that going to be addressed? 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard J. Norton <richardjnorton@gmail.com<mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com>> wrote: Jim, Thank you for your interest. The cost would be a function of the implementation scheme. Let's start with the idea of getting it over at once. Option 1 - Fully Effective Starting January 1, 2017 1) Hold elections this summer as planned. This will cover SE, SW, WG, PAC, and RMT divisions, at likely no more cost than would be expected without the boundary changes. 2) Hold two concurrent additional elections for reconstituted Midwest and Delta divisions for an initial term of one year. After one year, they will revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. 3) Hold another two concurrent elections for Roanoke and Deep South with a two-year term. After the two-year term, they will also revert to the regular 3-year election cycle. The cost will depend on the number of nominees for the positions. I would be surprised if there will be any changes in nominees for the Deep South and Delta divisions. In fact, I'd support keeping the current directors in place until the next scheduled election, but include them to moderate possible claims of favoritism. Their current division boundaries encompass most of the proposed new divisions. Again, if there are single nominations for Roanoke and Midwest divisions, costs are minimal. Holding the special term elections at the same time as the scheduled election simplifies staff activities, and likely reduces cost. Election Costs Election costs are detailed here in 3 parts, printing, postage, and ballot-counting. Printing 0.10 each for 2 envelopes, a flyer, and a ballot. Postage 0..147 per piece, non-profit 5-digit standard mail Ballot counting $2500. Probably less if locals are assigned to E&E Committee. Total cost - Between zero and $13,700, depending on number of candidates. Take the mid-point, and the estimate is $7000. Note that there have been very few, if any, elections in the areas encompassing the divisions with the largest changes. Web-site and Magazine Changes The web-site and QST boilerplate will need to be updated to reflect the new boundaries. This should take a day or so, and staff continually works on both products continually. Very small financial impact expected. Other Options - Gradual Phase-in It would be possible to phase in the changes, with only those offices with elections scheduled impacted. The overall expected cost of doing it all at once is so low, that I recommend option 1, complete adoption for 2017. The $0 to $7000 expected costs are approximately the same as holding one committee meeting that could be accomplished over the Internet. Summary The membership deserves fair representation. We have the opportunity to further that aim. Please support the realignment. ...or propose something better. 73, Dick, N6AA On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com<mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com>> wrote: Dick, I know you have brought this up before, and your points are well taken. The numbers seem to justify the changes. Since my Division would be significantly impacted, I just have a few implementation questions. I am Director of the Roanoke Division and live in SC, and Bill N2COP is the Vice Director, and he lives in NC. Geographically, your proposal would be ideal for me, as I am currently in the most Southern part of my division. Under your proposal I would be in the middle. Bill, however, lives on the coast of NC, and would be on the far Eastern part of the new division. Under your proposal, the Roanoke Division would no longer have a Director or Vice Director. The new Deep South Division would not technically have them either, as it is a new Division (although Bill and I would be residing in it). So would this mean immediate elections in both the Roanoke and Deep South Divisions? In order to have true representation for the members, both would seem to be necessary. In fact, elections would need to be carried out in all divisions that are changed to ensure true representation on the board. I know all considering this proposal would be estimating their electability in the new Divisions. However, in the end, we must look forward to what is best for the ARRL Members. So, what would be the estimated cost of this proposal with the elections, staff time (and IT time)? ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>] On Behalf Of Richard J. Norton Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 12:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:24976] ARRL Division Population Balance Restructuring This memo presents a possible remedy to the present significant inequity in ARRL division sizes. We have one division with approximately five times the membership of the smallest. This memo proposes a realignment of division boundaries that if enacted, will result in balance, such that division populations are all within approximately 10% of the average. Why? 1) It is simply unfair that the votes of one member are worth 5 times the vote of another. 2) For a prospective director candidate in the smallest division, a mail campaign might cost $2500. For the largest division, this would run $12,500. This is simply not fair. 3) The 9 smallest divisions have a total population smaller than the largest 6, but command 50% more voting power. This is not equitable. Overview This presents a minimal redistricting. In most cases, small changes produce the desired result. No section boundaries are impacted, although it may make sense to change some of them. All divisions are contiguous. There may be a desire to change division names in some cases. Details The attached spreadsheet, on page 1, shows the current population breakdown. It is extracted from the latest ODV membership page. The additional column shows the percentage of average population in that division. The percentages range from 32% of average in the Dakota Division to 153% in the Southeastern Division. There are 170,528 members of all kinds. 10,272 are foreign, leaving 160,256 USA members. If these were split evenly, there would be 10,664 in each division. This analysis could have been done using only Full Members, but the result would be essentially the same. Division by Division Proposed Restructuring Atlantic Division - move all W2 sections to the Hudson Division. This involves SNJ, NNY, and WNY. Atlantic would go from 131% to 91%. Central Division - no changes. Remains at 106%. Dakota Division - basically combined with Midwest Division. Delta Division - adds AL, OK, and MO. releases TN. Goes from 72% to 108%. Great Lakes Division - Sheds KY to Roanoke. Goes from 121% to 105%. Hudson Division. adds WNY, NNY, and SNJ. Goes from 61% to 100%. Midwest Division - Adds ND, SD, and MN from Dakota, Adds CO from Rocky Mountain. Sheds MO to Delta. Goes from 68% to 106%. New England Division - no changes. Remains at 89%. Northwestern Division - Sheds MT and ID to Rocky Mountain. Goes from 118% to 99%. Pacific Division - Sheds PAC to Southwestern. Goes from 106% to 100%. Rocky Mountain Division - Sheds CO to Midwest. Gains ID and MT from Northwestern. Gains AZ from Southwestern. Goes from 71% to 97%. Southeastern Division - Sheds AL to Delta, and GA to a new division. Goes from 153% to 94%. Southwestern Division - Sheds AZ to Rocky Mountain. Adds PAC from Pacific. Goes from 129% to 94%. West Gulf - Sheds OK to Delta. Goes from 123% to 105%. The biggest changes come in Roanoke and a new division, which is called "Deep South" in the spreadsheet. Again, better names can be devised. Roanoke - sheds NC and SC to the new division. Adds KY from Great Lakes and TN from Delta. Goes from 124% to 110%. Deep South - new division which adds NC and SC from Roanoke. Adds GA from Southeastern. Ends at 101%. Event Coverage I hope others are comfortable with having an event covered by an adjacent director when it makes sense. For example, the Yuma Hamfest and Quartzfest Convention are both in the Colorado River portion of Arizona, and are frequented by a considerable number of California hams. I would have no problem covering these should the Rocky Mountain director desire it. Summary The last change in ARRL USA division boundaries appears to have taken place in the 1930's. The imbalance has reached an unjustifiable state. I receive no joy giving up the Arizona section, the largest in the Southwestern Division, but certainly need to set an example if others are to be convinced to accept this. I request that you consider this proposal, and make your views on it known to the rest of the board. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (6)
-
David Norris -
Doug Rehman -
James F. Boehner MD -
Northwestern Division Director - Jim K7CEX -
Richard J. Norton -
Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ