Turnabout for League Lawyer

[wa3vjb]

Many of you may know that Chris Imlay, W3KD, is a communications lawyer for clients beyond the little non-profit group in Newington. One of his other clients is the Society of Broadcast Engineers, a non-profit professional association.

Imlay offered us an outrageous response to the 8 to 1 ratio of Comments Opposed to the ARRL bandwidth scheme, the Petition the FCC has called RM-11306. He ignored the widespread criticism it generated, and consequently illustrated that the League does not represent mainstream ham radio.

Move the clock ahead to last month. He filed a rather ordinary petition to improve the coordination of radio links from television trucks back to the studio. One Commenter completely misinterpreted the proposal, and Imlay amazingly showed two things: He can refute such opposition in a professional and logical manner; and he appears to have done a disservice by failing to offer that sort of response on behalf of his other client, the ARRL.

Here's the Comment file on the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System.
RM-11308 (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=RM-11308&start=1&end=10&first_time=N)
Over on another site, a defender of the ARRL has failed to see my point, so I laid it out a bit more strongly.

The filing by Sprint Nextel is a taste of the same medicine Imlay coughed up to ham radio operators. I wonder how it feels to him that he has been so utterly misinterpreted? Maybe it's the same sort of outrage he provoked in his Reply to the Amateur community, ultimately illustrating why his client no longer represents most of our active, lawful, licensed operators.

Then again, one person or group filing against your proposal is perhaps no big deal, yet Imlay filed a Reply to Sprint nonetheless. When an overwhelming majority files against your proposal and you, as counsel, FAIL to refute it, or worse, disingenuously Reply as Imlay has done, then he is not serving his client and does not demonstrate that he is a good communications lawyer.

Where Imlay completely ignored in his Reply the 8 to 1 ratio of Comments opposed to the bandwidth petition which he had the misfortune to be involved with, here now his points are being ignored by a cellular telephone group commenting on the proposal he filed on behalf of the "Society of Broad Engineers"*.

"SBE's proposal would impose extraordinary and unnecessary burdens on virtually all wireless licensees," said Nextel.
"Indeed, the requirements that SBE proposes are a solution looking for a problem," Nextel said.

Showing dramatic inconsistency in his treatment of the responses to the Newington petition compared with the SBE petition, Imlay tallied up all seven parties that filed comments in RM-11308, and was able to count high enough to tell us that only one filed opposed. Sprint.

Do you think he ran out of fingers counting up the supportive comments for the Newington plan, quit while he was ahead, and then wrote his Reply based only on that ?

A-henh !

The SBE proposal is well-founded, and clear. It is easy to validate its merits.
Also well founded, clear and with merit are the vast number and depth of arguments opposed to the Newington bandwidth proposal.

For Imlay to overlook this opposition in his cavalier fashion speaks very poorly for his level of professionalism, and opens an opportunity for additional lines of attack against the League and its counsel. His response to the Sprint/Nextel filing shows that he is capable of being receptive to oppositon and handling it in a manner that is above reproach.

*Imlay's filing with the FCC incorrectly lists the name of the company he represents, as seen in the ECFS listing for the Pettion accepted into the public record as the first document in RM-11308.

[w4hwd]

That's nice.

I would be more interested to know whether or not that stupid RM-11305 proposal from those "Communications Think Tank" imbeciles has died a well deserved death.

I would hope it's been dismissed by now.

[W5JO]

Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Mar. 28 2006,12:19)]That's nice.

I would be more interested to know whether or not that stupid RM-11305 proposal from those "Communications Think Tank" imbeciles has died a well deserved death.

I would hope it's been dismissed by now.
Not yet but it will be considered. What will you do if it is granted?

[w4hwd]

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Mar. 28 2006,20:44)]Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Mar. 28 2006,12:19)]That's nice.

I would be more interested to know whether or not that stupid RM-11305 proposal from those "Communications Think Tank" imbeciles has died a well deserved death.

I would hope it's been dismissed by now.
Not yet but it will be considered. #What will you do if it is granted?
It won't be granted.

If by chance the FCC is silly enough to grant such slapstick, I'll sell my gear and explore all the other hobbies in life I could be doing besides amateur radio.

[wa3vjb]

Mr. Dull -
According to your QRZ.com profile, 160 meters is your favorite band, and it's the one that today enjoys a relaxed regulatory structure, where the entire band is free for all to use. Thank you for, in effect, supporting RM-11305.

Now, did you have something to contribute to the discussion here, or would you rather post a few more distractions?

Paul/VJB

[AC0H]

I doubt seriously that Imlay wrote those comments on RM-11306. He posted what he was told to post. Kind of an enlightening nugget into the ARRL's overall arrogance. "Damn it, we're the ARRL. Sit down, shut up and do as we tell you!"

[wa3vjb]

Kevin, you're probably right about his passing along what he was told to say. But the problem we have is finding someone accountable. The ARRL likes to say that their volunteer Board of Directors reviewed and approved the proposal from the informal panel comprised of digital buffs, but no one seems to want to publicly "own" the premise, the manifestation, and the implementation that would have followed this proposal had it drawn any significant support.

Now it's doomed, and the League is likely to get spanked by the FCC for it's failure to lay a proper foundation among the people it supposedly represents.

Imlay, with a responsiblity to his client, will hopefully have tried to warn them that their path presents a poor outcome, harmful side effects, and political punishment.

The closest we have to a face on this scheme is Paul Rinaldo, the League's DC lobbyist and "technology" guru, who had to personally pitch the idea at a puzzled board of directors meeting last year.

You may have noticed he is virtually invisible in the proceeding and its defense.


Paul/VJB

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]But the problem we have is finding someone accountable. The ARRL likes to say that their volunteer Board of Directors reviewed and approved the proposal from the informal panel comprised of digital buffs, #but no one seems to want to publicly "own" the premise, the manifestation, and the implementation that would have followed this proposal had it drawn any significant support.

Exactly.

This is the definition of a "disfunctional" organization.
The top down management style they use has been out of vogue for years. They don't seek input from the membership and when they get it they ignore it if it's counter to the breeze blowing through the board room.

Did they think no one was going to notice that the ad-hoc digital committee that 11306 came out of was dominated by by Winlink/SCS?

Organizations like the ARRL live and die by member perceptions of the organization. Letting that committee get run rough shod over by the WinLink crew was a major political FUBAR. Did they actually think Skip Teller was going to sit on his hands and the real goings on wouldn't come out?

Mistake, after mistake, after mistake have been made, a pretty even mix of technical and political.

I don't blame the BoD for not standing up and owning this mess. I'd be surprised if half of them actually knew what they voted on. If I was on the board I'd be running full speed in the other direction.

[NL7W]

In writing the League's response, lawyer Imlay was only doing the bidding of his paying customer, Mr. David Sumner and the ARRL.

Obviously, he is quite capable of writing clear, concise, sensible, and well understood filings. Generally speaking, lawyers cannot always fall on the right side of the fence with every issue brought before them. Mr. Imlay didn't with this one.

Enough said...

[k0cmh]

Lawyer = hired gun. They shoot whoever you ask to be shot and ask no questions.

I worked in a large corporation, in the regulatory complaince group, and often had to work with our corporate lawyers. They always came to us to find out what the regulations said. My boss (department head) used to make the jesture of a person working a dummy when the left the room.

[N5PVL]

It always easier to make a strong statement of position when you've got a leg to stand on... When you don't, sometimes a little razzle-dazzle and misdirection is about the best that you can really expect to do.