Good Morning, As the debate over the proposed By-Law revisions heats up in advance of the October Executive Committee meeting, here are some thoughts I’ve had and the perspective I’m looking at them. First, as to Minute 27 and the role of the Vice-Director (I hesitate abbreviating it to V.D.). There have been a few comments regarding the “heartbeat away” role of the Vice-Director. This is a specious argument. We are not talking about the President and Vice President of the United States and this doesn’t involve national security. Nor do I see anyone carrying around the “Nuclear Football” a step or two behind Kay as she makes her rounds. I have not made up my mind on this one, and can be swayed in either direction, but I have yet to hear any meaningful reason as to why I should support changing the way we do business at this point in time. As to Minute 28, I am opposed to making the E&E an elected committee. In my opinion this would politicize the committee. Frankly, I’d worry about someone who wants this particular job and is willing to seek votes for a position on this committee. Membership on the E&E is a thankless but necessary job. I would not change the way members are chosen. I would, however, look to make changes in the ability to disqualify a Board member stemming from any action regarding conflict of interest. In my opinion, this should always require a vote by the full board. At no time should as few as two or three people be allowed to decide the fate of a Board member. As to conflict of interest of a sitting Director or Vice Director, I believe the E&E should be charged only with making recommendations and not final decisions. This, of course, would also require a complete overhaul of By-Law 45, which is how we got here in the first place. My argument at the time was (and still is) that we need to deal with the By-Laws as a whole package and reevaluate the by-laws in that vein with the idea that one item affects others. In my opinion, to piecemeal this issue would be sell ourselves short and only leave other more pressing issues, such as By-Law 45, out of the mix. Let’s look at the problem as a whole and not attempt to put band-aids on only two rules. - - - - - A short note about HR-4969. We still have two weeks before Congress goes back into session. I know many of us have been busy chasing down local appointments with legislators and their staffers, however, there are still some who have not met the challenge. Please, please, please get involved. If not now, then when? 73 de Mike N2YBB

One point to remember is that Techs (and Novices…) already have complete digital privileges on 10m at a power level of 200W. This proposal does not grant entirely new privileges (IE: HF digital), it just expands where Techs can utilize those privileges. There is a 25 page thread on this proposal on QRZ: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?445185-Proposed-Future-Technician-Data-.... Unfortunately, like many QRZ threads, the SNR is exceedingly low. The pro and con arguments in the thread are along the same lines as when I surveyed my Division on it. The pro’s see it as a way to entice new (and old) Techs to try HF digital modes, thereby expanding their participation in the hobby and knowledge/skills. The con’s see it as a giveaway of privileges that should be earned by taking the General exam. In my Division survey, the response was 2 to 1 in favor of it. Given the possibilities of relatively inexpensive QRP radios that can be used on digital modes, I believe this is an opportune time to try something new with amateur licensing. Ten meters is not enough of an incentive for the vast majority of Techs to have interest in buying an HF radio and putting up an antenna. I agree with Greg that a member comment period should be included. 73, Doug K4AC From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of G Widin Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 2:54 PM To: Kay Craigie Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23260] Re: EC study motions, again With regard to the Technician privileges proposal, in my opinion, it is fine for the EC to take up the proposal and evaluate its merits. However, I learned my lesson on RM-11708. Neither that proposal nor a proposal for new allocations for Techs is an urgent matter. Thus, we can afford to be deliberate about our actions in pursuing this proposal. We should not file anything with the FCC until we have had a chance to get member input on it. Though we cannot expect agreement on everything that might be proposed, we should encourage and accept comments from members, and genuinely be prepared to modify the proposal in the face of cogent arguments, or even to abandon the proposed filing if member sentiment is heavily against it. I have seen a few comments that note that the proposed change would give Techs privileges that the content of the current Element 2 does not prepare them for (frequency allocations and HF operating practice). I would encourage EC to deal with this, since a major feature of the proposal seems to be that Techs would be able to use the new allocation without any additional testing or training. However, regardless of the technical and regulatory sense (or not) of the proposal, I emphasize again that members ought to be asked for input before we take any formal action. 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> wrote: Since posting ODV:23143, I have received one message about the study motions now on the EC's agenda and the matter of BL 45. The EC will take into account the posts made on the ODV when the motions were first brought up. After the Minutes were published, I received one message from a member about the Technician privileges proposal, which I acknowledged and forwarded to the person's Director, who happens to be on the EC. That isn't a lot of input for the EC to work with. Again, I encourage you to post your comments and analyses of these items so the EC will have the benefit of your viewpoints. Thanks and 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv