ARRL Hudson Division webinar recording

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W0PV, Feb 13, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
  1. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Setting the record straight. I have never met Mike in person, so nothing posted was ever meant personally. I do think some of his actions as a ARRL Director have been detrimental and that he is probably not a good fit for the position. I am open minded that the latter opinion could be changed but not from what I have learned so far and heard lately.

    Groucho is great, but the clip is a poor analogy. Nothing posted by me is against the ARRL nor a potentially revised ARPA bill. They both need a serious tune-up though.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  2. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    This signature line pretty much sums it up for some, o_O

    "QRZed, the hub of amateur radios' demise" - KB4QAA
  3. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page


    I appreciate your civil tone. You open with a point we agree on, imperfection of ARRL and ARPA.

    Of course the intent of ARPA is not to harm amateur radio, quite the opposite. But that doesn't mean the result profered today is harmless. Perfection isn't being asked, simply a bit more precision in wording of the next bill revision to prevent foreseeable serious challenges in litigation if passed.

    Per legit legal authorities outside current League management, leaving this all to be done at the next step with the FCC is fraught with serious risks for hams. The FCC can or will not override action by Congress, or perform without Congressional mandate, on many factors. This was a painful lesson learned from PRB-1 that cost a lot in time and individual ham litigation.

    Agreed that ARPA has been a difficult project and lots of hard work and time have gone into it. But IMO those reasons alone are not valid for accepting it as the (imperfect) best that it can be, or for moving ahead to the next step with potentially avoidable greater risks. It seems to me there are many ham attorneys and/or hams willing to suggest, perhaps even pay, non-ham attorneys, or other lobbying experts, to help with crafting the language of ARPA. But these suggestions given to Directors apparently fall on deaf ears.

    The crickets being heard have been coming from the ARRL BoD. Not total silence, but the repeated chirping out of support requests, funding and letters, for the current flawed ARPA bill. In contrast there has been a roar of support offered from qualified rank-and-file membership to assist hands-on with the legislative activity that has been ignored, repelled, for whatever reasons.

    If that isn't enough, add to that numerous Director electoral shenanigans, an avoidable lawsuit and Director censure, and a Code of Conduct fiasco, and its not to hard to see why so many are now concerned and vocal about the conduct and makeup of the BoD and improving the health & welfare of the future ARRL.

    73, John, WØPV
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  4. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Now to show support for the League I am hunkering down to interface with the "elite" of amateur radio and attempt to make QSO's from my modest station in the 2018 ARRL DX CW Contest.

    Hope to hear y'all OTA ! :D

    73, John, WØPV
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2018
  5. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I appreciate what you are saying, and I am enjoying our civil discussion we are having with one another despite that we may have differences on this particular subject.

    John, the point here is the "potential" for litigation exists regardless of what the actual words in ARPA might say. If people are going to litigate, they are going to litigate. Yes, it's true we don't know what may happen in reality if APRA passes and I suppose we can sure speculate about the endless possibilities almost forever.

    But we can't paralyze ourselves from accomplishing anything or moving forward because there are the possibilities of risks that may, or may not be in the way.

    Thanks for considering my comments.

    73 Charles - KC8VWM
  6. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am shocked by what this recording reveals.

    This is the man who believes that he represents, and speaks for, the entire US amateur radio service, in front of the US congress and US Senate.

    It is time for N2YBB to step down, IMO.

    Nathan Cohen,Ph.D.
    ARS W1YW
    N2AMM likes this.
  7. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    edited for clarity.
  8. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am disappointed that N2YBB is invoking his expertise as a voice-over actor, IMO, in this webinar.

    I am interested in facts. Not,IMO, hyperbolic allusions to extreme word-choice adjectival images.

    Unless you work in an abattoir, 'eviscerated' --an example of what I mean--should not be in informational discussions on behalf of a non-profit. Certainly one I have membership in for life.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
    N2AMM likes this.
  9. K8BZ

    K8BZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    In this recording, in responding to questions about the adopted ARRL POLICY ON BOARD GOVERNANCE AND CONDUCT OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND VICE DIRECTORS, N26BB said, "The ability of a division director to discuss with his or her members how he or she voted has always been; is always open to discussion." And he further said that the only time you might not see how a director voted is when it is a voice or hand vote that the vote result is the only thing that goes on the record of board.

    Here is what the adopted code of conduct says:

    "c. A Board member may not, in disclosing anything about the Board’s deliberations, discuss or disclose the votes of the Board or of individual Board members (including his/ her own) unless the Board has previously made the votes public. Nor shall any Board member falsely characterize the positions, policies or decisions of the Board or the points of view taken by any member of the Board with respect to them."

    I listened to about 90% of this recording and many of the questions I would have had were not asked. Such as:

    1. In the League's response to the FCC's request for comments about the 2017 hurricane season, Why did the ARRL say that, “Equipment dispatched with the “Force of 50” to Puerto Rico included data transmission equipment capable of PACTOR 4 operation, but it could not be legally used in the Hurricane Maria disaster relief effort.” When in fact the ARRL requested and was granted a waiver from the FCC to use Pactor 4 mode in the PR hurricane response effort.

    2. Why, in the same response to the FCC, did the ARRL say that the waiver that was quickly granted, "greatly facilitated the disaster relief communication", when they never actually used any mode that wasn't authorized before the waiver was granted?

    3. What was the rational for wanting to "appoint" 3 new voting members on the board of directors who were not elected by their constituents? What would the resulting benefit be to the general membership?

    4. How would the general membership have benefited from the elimination of Vice Director positions?

    5. Will there be a thorough and HONEST written debriefing and analysis of the PR "Force of 50" deployment to use as a basis for improving future deployments of this type?
    KG7LEA and K0IDT like this.
  10. K0IDT

    K0IDT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Even better, why did he go in front of a Congressional hearing and repeat the same claims and more even though not true?

Share This Page

ad: Schulman-1