I noticed that in the latest issue of QST that anyone with a Novice license is not eligible to run for the post of Division Director. It used to be that you needed at least a General Class license to be able to run for director but this changed sometime back. I admit that I should have known this, but after realizing it, I wonder why this is.
Now, a Technician can run for director but a Novice can not. So what is the real difference between a Novice and a Tech and why would the ARRL not allow a Novice to run for director?
The immediate answer might be that the Novice license is essentially a dead license that is not tested for.... but so is the Advanced. It could be that the ARRL feels that there are no Novices operating on the bands, and it could be that there is a thought process that somehow equates the class of license with the ability or inability to be able to grasp the broad scope of what a director must know and accomplish when he or she is elected.
Does having a Novice license make one incompetent and short on ability concerning administrative matters? Does the class of license really matter as much as the ability of the person to take on the directorship?
My take is that the ARRL might actually be ashamed if a Novice license holder would actually be elected. I dont think that this is a matter of technical ability as a Tech or higher class licensee can run without having to demonstrate any technical prowness. In fact anyone from those classes can run just by virtue of holding a tech or up license.
The ARRL talks a lot of all hams being the same in their eyes regardless of license. So why is the ARRL biased against a Novice license holder from running for director?
Good question, George. Would like to hear the answer on that one.
My guess (purely unsubstantiated) is that it's a holdover from when Tech was the next step up from Novice instead of the default entry licence that it is now.
I'd suggest that they either eliminate the rule or roll it back to General and above.
.- .-. . .-- . - .... . .-. . -.-- . - ..--..
The dingdong formerly known as kd8bsr
I have a soft spot for Novices because I was one at one time. While a Novice, I was refused membership in a local club because I was a Novice and told to come back when I upgraded.
I tend to agree with kd8sbr that this was codified into the bylaws at some point and never reviewed since. I can not imagine, in this day and age that the ARRL would discriminate against any member licensee who wanted to run for elected office. Much better to be inclusive than exclusive.
On the other hand (and a bit off topic) there is the case of Carl Stevenson, WK3C, who, at least in my mind was discriminated against when he ran for director. Carl and I don't agree on which road Amateur Radio should take but I think he got a rather dirty deal at the hands of the ARRL.
It seems that you are making a case for eliminating the Tech from being able to run for director. As you say, the General test is just one step away from a Novice becoming a General but the Tech has two steps to take, and many of them are not doing it. Since the Novice is a bit closer to the General by virtue of having passed the dreaded code test, maybe it is the Novice who should be eligible. (flame suit on )
Actually you can be very knowledgeable about Amateur Radio and how to advance it without being a General or higher. Director is an administrative position anyway and as we have seen in the regulation by bandwidth wars, there seems to be a general lack of knowledge of how to get it done right among the board.
Walter Cronkite is a Novice.
He's ok for promo films but can't hold office.
what kind of blinking fools
Originally Posted by [b
where these people
the club i joined as a kid
loved novice ops
nothing like having lots of willing kids
to do the dirty work on field day
my club knew where the next generation
of hams were comming from
even alowed SWL's to join as non voting members
I am going to go with George on this one, why should they leave out Novice hams? There could very possibly be Novice operators who know a lot more than me about amateur radio. Technically I would assume now that I am 18 and holding an Extra class license I would be eligible to run for office with the League as a full member; however, there are many out there who have a much better knowledge of amateur radio and much more experience who would be able to do a much better job. I believe that Novice hams are just as capable, perhaps even more so (as pointed out) than some current techs, generals, or even *gasp* Extras.
I assume that the prohibition on Novices holding office was formulated back when Novice licenses were only valid for a year and not renewable. Under that condition, it made pretty good sense to not let someone hold office if their license was going to expire by the time the election was over. I suspect that the issue was never revisited when things changed.
And I suspect that not many Novices really give a flip. It seems to me that this is a non-issue.
But, for OWO who said:
If there are some who are interested, then all they have to do is take the Technician written test. They then become a Tech with code and can run for office.
Originally Posted by [b
As far as whether a particular person is more or less qualified, that is, supposedly, the decision of the voters. Of course, voters are sometimes wrong, but that's life.
How about this:
A fellow can get elected as a member to the United States CONGRESS, but is not eligible to be elected to a leadership post with the LEAGUE.
Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, WD5DVR
The new guy in Newington (also from Arkansas) had better fix this quick because the name of Mr. Ross gets invoked fairly often.