[arrl-odv:25982] A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16
Good Afternoon: Attached, for your information, are the minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee meeting held on November 12, 2016. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org
A reading of these minutes leads me to a couple of questions. Referring to page 3 of the A&F minutes, if it is intended that all OO contact would go through ARRL to the FCC, why would the FCC care how many volunteers are in the program? Are we going to fire 500 volunteer OO's? Further, if all Laura Smith is committing to do is write letters, an action that does not, I presume, require the same level of evidence as would be needed in a trial or hearing, how will our investment in the enhanced training benefit the enforcement process? Referring to page 4, if Sen. Nelson is still opposed to our bill, does that suggest that CAI signed onto the compromise with a wink and a nod in the Senator's direction or that there is another factor beyond CAI at work? Is the bill too insignificant to be brought up for a voice vote on its own such that we must rely on the process of unanimous consent? Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:16 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25982] A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16 Good Afternoon: Attached, for your information, are the minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee meeting held on November 12, 2016. 73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org
Marty since I presented these items to the A&F Committee (as well as the EC) I think you are stuck with my responding to your questions. 1. FCC doesn't care how many OOs are in the program. That is up to us. The number offered by Laura Smith was just a suggestion, in response to the concern raised by Dan Henderson, Mike Lisenco and I at the most recent meeting at FCC Gettysburg about the cost and staff burden of vetting of OOs under the revised program. That is a very real concern, and there is an urgent need to vet OOs because we have had ongoing problems with misdirected and overzealous OOs during the entire past history of the program. And no, the suggestion from FCC is not to "fire 500 volunteer OOs". In fact, there are not anywhere near that number of OO volunteers now active; the program is almost moribund, due to (1) FCC's failure to use their volunteer work in the past, and (2) unreasonable expectations that OOs have (which is largely our own fault). The idea is to make the OO program more functional, better trained and with reasonable expectations, and it can be done with fewer OOs than we have on our rosters at the moment. Whether we downsize the program, however is not for FCC to decide but for the Board and management to decide. 2. Writing letters is not "all that Laura Smith is committing to do"; it is all that she is empowered to do on her own initiative without getting further approval from the Spectrum Enforcement Division. You are of course correct that her warning letters to perpetrators does not require the same level of evidence as would be needed in an enforcement proceeding such as an NAL or license revocation or non-renewal hearing, and that is precisely why further approvals are required for direct sanctions. Laura's commitment to base warning letters only on HQ-vetted OO information is an improvement over the past use of OO-gathered evidence. Our investment in the improvements in the OO program benefits the enforcement process because it validates the work of the volunteers. They will see a direct result of their work and it will improve the visibility of FCC enforcement which, according to our longstanding theory, improves deterrence. There will not be a situation in which we can have OO evidence used in FCC enforcement proceedings. That is a given. Some rule violators will respond to Laura's warning letters. Some won't. If they don't, the process goes on using OO-gathered information as a shortcut for FCC's own evidence gathering. Viewed another way, Marty, we have no choice here. Suppose we don't revitalize the OO program according to those of the recommendations offered by FCC that we feel are appropriate? What we are left with is a surgically gutted FCC Field Office system that has no ability to help with Amateur Radio enforcement, pirate broadcasting, or anything else any longer. Laura Smith therefore, now newly back on the job after being taken off of Amateur enforcement for most of this past year and a half, will have no ability to do her job for us (whether or not you believe that she is willing to do so with our help). The Board has made it abundantly clear that improved enforcement is a primary goal for our organization. We believe that Laura Smith, now back full time on Amateur enforcement, needs a revitalized OO program in order to do her job. And so in that respect we have an identity of interest with her because in January, 14 more field offices are going to close. We can launch a new OO program that is not moribund, or we can fiddle while Rome burns. 3. Nelson's continued opposition to our Bill is most likely due to a big money donor real estate developer whispering in his ear, but we don't know for sure. There is much to report about this due to a meeting that Frank McCarthy, Mike Lisenco and I had with Nelson's Chief of Staff and the minority Commerce Committee staff yesterday morning. Mike will likely report to the Board on that soon. But the bottom line is that CAI is not to blame as far as we can tell. Nelson's people have been far, far less than forthcoming with us and our latest meeting with them was infuriating to say the least. But CAI has nothing to gain by actively supporting our amended Bill, and we are told that Nelson is not at all interested in any of the bills that were batched with H.R. 1301 and sent to the Senate by the House. There is also information that the Democrats are furious about the opposition to the reappointment of Jessica Rosenworcel as an FCC Commissioner. So there is the not-so-sweet smell of politics in the air on this as well. Hard to find one cause to blame, but it is easy to pin it on Nelson. There is no other opposition known. Our Bill is, in fact, as you well-stated the problem, too insignificant to get Senate Floor debate time. That simply won't happen. So unanimous consent in the Senate is and always has been our only option this time. Likely, this Friday will be the death knell of all legislation that isn't passed by UC by then. There are other options for next year, including an FCC authorization bill because the continuing resolution is very short this time and authorization legislation will have to be taken up early next year. That would be a must-pass vehicle if we could attach to that. Frank McCarthy has a bunch of other ideas as well, if we have to go through this process again and if the Board is willing to do so. Hope this helps. If you need details on the OO program revitalization I would be happy to send the memos that I presented to the EC on the subject at the EC's recent meeting. 73, Chris W3KD On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> wrote:
A reading of these minutes leads me to a couple of questions.
Referring to page 3 of the A&F minutes, if it is intended that all OO contact would go through ARRL to the FCC, why would the FCC care how many volunteers are in the program? Are we going to fire 500 volunteer OO’s?
Further, if all Laura Smith is committing to do is write letters, an action that does not, I presume, require the same level of evidence as would be needed in a trial or hearing, how will our investment in the enhanced training benefit the enforcement process?
Referring to page 4, if Sen. Nelson is still opposed to our bill, does that suggest that CAI signed onto the compromise with a wink and a nod in the Senator’s direction or that there is another factor beyond CAI at work? Is the bill too insignificant to be brought up for a voice vote on its own such that we must rely on the process of unanimous consent?
Marty N6VI
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] *On Behalf Of *Shelley, Barry, N1VXY *Sent:* Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:16 PM *To:* arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:25982] A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16
Good Afternoon:
Attached, for your information, are the minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee meeting held on November 12, 2016.
73,
Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY
Chief Financial Officer
ARRL, Inc.
The National Association for Amateur Radio
(860) 594-0212
www.arrl.org
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
Hello Chris, Marty et al; Just as a point of reference - we do need a consistent and unifiedmessage from our Leadership about the OO program. While I was presentingat a local club meeting last night that topic was brought up - and the situationnow is that the lack of information has given rise to the dark spectre of speculationrampant on the various lists. It would be very well timed if a well-worded announcement from HQ was penned to calm the volunteers and to helpquell the comments about the OO's and OOC's being treated as "mushrooms". While we all recognize a need to cull some participants and redefine the program,a well crafted statement is warranted. We do not need to take ownership of commentsby Laura Smith but we do need to speak frankly and openly to our volunteers. 73, Kermit W9XA From: Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> To: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> Cc: "Shelley, Barry, N1VXY" <bshelley@arrl.org>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 9:33 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:25984] Re: A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16 Marty since I presented these items to the A&F Committee (as well as the EC) I think you are stuck with my responding to your questions. 1. FCC doesn't care how many OOs are in the program. That is up to us. The number offered by Laura Smith was just a suggestion, in response to the concern raised by Dan Henderson, Mike Lisenco and I at the most recent meeting at FCC Gettysburg about the cost and staff burden of vetting of OOs under the revised program. That is a very real concern, and there is an urgent need to vet OOs because we have had ongoing problems with misdirected and overzealous OOs during the entire past history of the program. And no, the suggestion from FCC is not to "fire 500 volunteer OOs". In fact, there are not anywhere near that number of OO volunteers now active; the program is almost moribund, due to (1) FCC's failure to use their volunteer work in the past, and (2) unreasonable expectations that OOs have (which is largely our own fault). The idea is to make the OO program more functional, better trained and with reasonable expectations, and it can be done with fewer OOs than we have on our rosters at the moment. Whether we downsize the program, however is not for FCC to decide but for the Board and management to decide. 2. Writing letters is not "all that Laura Smith is committing to do"; it is all that she is empowered to do on her own initiative without getting further approval from the Spectrum Enforcement Division. You are of course correct that her warning letters to perpetrators does not require the same level of evidence as would be needed in an enforcement proceeding such as an NAL or license revocation or non-renewal hearing, and that is precisely why further approvals are required for direct sanctions. Laura's commitment to base warning letters only on HQ-vetted OO information is an improvement over the past use of OO-gathered evidence. Our investment in the improvements in the OO program benefits the enforcement process because it validates the work of the volunteers. They will see a direct result of their work and it will improve the visibility of FCC enforcement which, according to our longstanding theory, improves deterrence. There will not be a situation in which we can have OO evidence used in FCC enforcement proceedings. That is a given. Some rule violators will respond to Laura's warning letters. Some won't. If they don't, the process goes on using OO-gathered information as a shortcut for FCC's own evidence gathering. Viewed another way, Marty, we have no choice here. Suppose we don't revitalize the OO program according to those of the recommendations offered by FCC that we feel are appropriate? What we are left with is a surgically gutted FCC Field Office system that has no ability to help with Amateur Radio enforcement, pirate broadcasting, or anything else any longer. Laura Smith therefore, now newly back on the job after being taken off of Amateur enforcement for most of this past year and a half, will have no ability to do her job for us (whether or not you believe that she is willing to do so with our help). The Board has made it abundantly clear that improved enforcement is a primary goal for our organization. We believe that Laura Smith, now back full time on Amateur enforcement, needs a revitalized OO program in order to do her job. And so in that respect we have an identity of interest with her because in January, 14 more field offices are going to close. We can launch a new OO program that is not moribund, or we can fiddle while Rome burns. 3. Nelson's continued opposition to our Bill is most likely due to a big money donor real estate developer whispering in his ear, but we don't know for sure. There is much to report about this due to a meeting that Frank McCarthy, Mike Lisenco and I had with Nelson's Chief of Staff and the minority Commerce Committee staff yesterday morning. Mike will likely report to the Board on that soon. But the bottom line is that CAI is not to blame as far as we can tell. Nelson's people have been far, far less than forthcoming with us and our latest meeting with them was infuriating to say the least. But CAI has nothing to gain by actively supporting our amended Bill, and we are told that Nelson is not at all interested in any of the bills that were batched with H.R. 1301 and sent to the Senate by the House. There is also information that the Democrats are furious about the opposition to the reappointment of Jessica Rosenworcel as an FCC Commissioner. So there is the not-so-sweet smell of politics in the air on this as well. Hard to find one cause to blame, but it is easy to pin it on Nelson. There is no other opposition known. Our Bill is, in fact, as you well-stated the problem, too insignificant to get Senate Floor debate time. That simply won't happen. So unanimous consent in the Senate is and always has been our only option this time. Likely, this Friday will be the death knell of all legislation that isn't passed by UC by then. There are other options for next year, including an FCC authorization bill because the continuing resolution is very short this time and authorization legislation will have to be taken up early next year. That would be a must-pass vehicle if we could attach to that. Frank McCarthy has a bunch of other ideas as well, if we have to go through this process again and if the Board is willing to do so. Hope this helps. If you need details on the OO program revitalization I would be happy to send the memos that I presented to the EC on the subject at the EC's recent meeting. 73, Chris W3KD On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> wrote: A reading of these minutes leads me to a couple of questions. Referring to page 3 of the A&F minutes, if it is intended that all OO contact would go through ARRL to the FCC, why would the FCC care how many volunteers are in the program? Are we going to fire 500 volunteer OO’s? Further, if all Laura Smith is committing to do is write letters, an action that does not, I presume, require the same level of evidence as would be needed in a trial or hearing, how will our investment in the enhanced training benefit the enforcement process? Referring to page 4, if Sen. Nelson is still opposed to our bill, does that suggest that CAI signed onto the compromise with a wink and a nod in the Senator’s direction or that there is another factor beyond CAI at work? Is the bill too insignificant to be brought up for a voice vote on its own such that we must rely on the process of unanimous consent? Marty N6VI From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@ reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Shelley, Barry, N1VXY Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:16 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:25982] A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16 Good Afternoon: Attached, for your information, are the minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee meeting held on November 12, 2016. 73,Barry J. Shelley, N1VXYChief Financial OfficerARRL, Inc.The National Association for Amateur Radio (860) 594-0212www.arrl.org ______________________________ _________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/ mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv -- Christopher D. ImlayBooth, Freret & Imlay, LLC14356 Cape May RoadSilver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011(301) 384-5525 telephone(301) 384-6384 facsimileW3KD@ARRL.ORG _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Right, Kermit, well, the problem with that is that our plans aren't yet firm as I understand the situation. The EC considered this at its October meeting and Brian Mileshosky and his designees are in the process of developing a plan for the revitalization of the OO program. The A&F Committee asked that the item be brought to them because of the commitment of staff resources that may (or may not) be necessary in the revision of the OO Manual, the vetting of OO volunteers by telephone interview, and the development of new contracts/MOUs with FCC about this program. Furthermore, the PSC clearly has jurisdiction over the OO program and they have not yet been heard from on the subject as far as I know. So while I agree with you that time is of the essence in publishing our plans for the OO program going forward (and in firming up our mutual understanding with FCC), there hasn't been yet a plan presented to the Board and hence nothing to announce publicly yet. 73, Chris W3KD On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Kermit Carlson <w9xa@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Chris, Marty et al;
Just as a point of reference - we do need a consistent and unified message from our Leadership about the OO program. While I was presenting at a local club meeting last night that topic was brought up - and the situation now is that the lack of information has given rise to the dark spectre of speculation rampant on the various lists. It would be very well timed if a well-worded announcement from HQ was penned to calm the volunteers and to help quell the comments about the OO's and OOC's being treated as "mushrooms".
While we all recognize a need to cull some participants and redefine the program, a well crafted statement is warranted. We do not need to take ownership of comments by Laura Smith but we do need to speak frankly and openly to our volunteers.
73, Kermit W9XA
------------------------------ *From:* Christopher Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com> *To:* Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> *Cc:* "Shelley, Barry, N1VXY" <bshelley@arrl.org>; arrl-odv < arrl-odv@arrl.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 7, 2016 9:33 AM *Subject:* [arrl-odv:25984] Re: A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16
Marty since I presented these items to the A&F Committee (as well as the EC) I think you are stuck with my responding to your questions.
1. FCC doesn't care how many OOs are in the program. That is up to us. The number offered by Laura Smith was just a suggestion, in response to the concern raised by Dan Henderson, Mike Lisenco and I at the most recent meeting at FCC Gettysburg about the cost and staff burden of vetting of OOs under the revised program. That is a very real concern, and there is an urgent need to vet OOs because we have had ongoing problems with misdirected and overzealous OOs during the entire past history of the program. And no, the suggestion from FCC is not to "fire 500 volunteer OOs". In fact, there are not anywhere near that number of OO volunteers now active; the program is almost moribund, due to (1) FCC's failure to use their volunteer work in the past, and (2) unreasonable expectations that OOs have (which is largely our own fault). The idea is to make the OO program more functional, better trained and with reasonable expectations, and it can be done with fewer OOs than we have on our rosters at the moment. Whether we downsize the program, however is not for FCC to decide but for the Board and management to decide.
2. Writing letters is not "all that Laura Smith is committing to do"; it is all that she is empowered to do on her own initiative without getting further approval from the Spectrum Enforcement Division. You are of course correct that her warning letters to perpetrators does not require the same level of evidence as would be needed in an enforcement proceeding such as an NAL or license revocation or non-renewal hearing, and that is precisely why further approvals are required for direct sanctions. Laura's commitment to base warning letters only on HQ-vetted OO information is an improvement over the past use of OO-gathered evidence. Our investment in the improvements in the OO program benefits the enforcement process because it validates the work of the volunteers. They will see a direct result of their work and it will improve the visibility of FCC enforcement which, according to our longstanding theory, improves deterrence. There will not be a situation in which we can have OO evidence used in FCC enforcement proceedings. That is a given. Some rule violators will respond to Laura's warning letters. Some won't. If they don't, the process goes on using OO-gathered information as a shortcut for FCC's own evidence gathering.
Viewed another way, Marty, we have no choice here. Suppose we don't revitalize the OO program according to those of the recommendations offered by FCC that we feel are appropriate? What we are left with is a surgically gutted FCC Field Office system that has no ability to help with Amateur Radio enforcement, pirate broadcasting, or anything else any longer. Laura Smith therefore, now newly back on the job after being taken off of Amateur enforcement for most of this past year and a half, will have no ability to do her job for us (whether or not you believe that she is willing to do so with our help). The Board has made it abundantly clear that improved enforcement is a primary goal for our organization. We believe that Laura Smith, now back full time on Amateur enforcement, needs a revitalized OO program in order to do her job. And so in that respect we have an identity of interest with her because in January, 14 more field offices are going to close. We can launch a new OO program that is not moribund, or we can fiddle while Rome burns.
3. Nelson's continued opposition to our Bill is most likely due to a big money donor real estate developer whispering in his ear, but we don't know for sure. There is much to report about this due to a meeting that Frank McCarthy, Mike Lisenco and I had with Nelson's Chief of Staff and the minority Commerce Committee staff yesterday morning. Mike will likely report to the Board on that soon. But the bottom line is that CAI is not to blame as far as we can tell. Nelson's people have been far, far less than forthcoming with us and our latest meeting with them was infuriating to say the least. But CAI has nothing to gain by actively supporting our amended Bill, and we are told that Nelson is not at all interested in any of the bills that were batched with H.R. 1301 and sent to the Senate by the House. There is also information that the Democrats are furious about the opposition to the reappointment of Jessica Rosenworcel as an FCC Commissioner. So there is the not-so-sweet smell of politics in the air on this as well. Hard to find one cause to blame, but it is easy to pin it on Nelson. There is no other opposition known.
Our Bill is, in fact, as you well-stated the problem, too insignificant to get Senate Floor debate time. That simply won't happen. So unanimous consent in the Senate is and always has been our only option this time. Likely, this Friday will be the death knell of all legislation that isn't passed by UC by then.
There are other options for next year, including an FCC authorization bill because the continuing resolution is very short this time and authorization legislation will have to be taken up early next year. That would be a must-pass vehicle if we could attach to that. Frank McCarthy has a bunch of other ideas as well, if we have to go through this process again and if the Board is willing to do so.
Hope this helps. If you need details on the OO program revitalization I would be happy to send the memos that I presented to the EC on the subject at the EC's recent meeting.
73, Chris W3KD
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com> wrote:
A reading of these minutes leads me to a couple of questions.
Referring to page 3 of the A&F minutes, if it is intended that all OO contact would go through ARRL to the FCC, why would the FCC care how many volunteers are in the program? Are we going to fire 500 volunteer OO’s?
Further, if all Laura Smith is committing to do is write letters, an action that does not, I presume, require the same level of evidence as would be needed in a trial or hearing, how will our investment in the enhanced training benefit the enforcement process?
Referring to page 4, if Sen. Nelson is still opposed to our bill, does that suggest that CAI signed onto the compromise with a wink and a nod in the Senator’s direction or that there is another factor beyond CAI at work? Is the bill too insignificant to be brought up for a voice vote on its own such that we must rely on the process of unanimous consent?
Marty N6VI
*From:* arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@ reflector.arrl.org <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>] *On Behalf Of *Shelley, Barry, N1VXY *Sent:* Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:16 PM *To:* arrl-odv *Subject:* [arrl-odv:25982] A&F Committee Minutes 11-12-16
Good Afternoon:
Attached, for your information, are the minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee meeting held on November 12, 2016.
73, Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY Chief Financial Officer ARRL, Inc. The National Association for Amateur Radio
(860) 594-0212 www.arrl.org
______________________________ _________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/ mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv>
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG
participants (4)
-
Christopher Imlay -
Kermit Carlson -
Marty Woll -
Shelley, Barry, N1VXY