Like Larry, I believe our Division has also been blessed with great leadership over the last several years. Every month, without fail, all members of our division receive an e-mail (if they signed up for it) newsletter, to keep us all informed of happenings and current or future issues on the table relative to the amateur radio service. This is generally over and above the weekly "ARRL Letter" that all members can receive.
When the initial ARRL draft proposal was still being formulated in 2003, our Director and Vice-Director made it point to attend local hamfests to discuss the draft proposal idea with as many as possible of the hamfest attendees. They also attended club meetings in their area to discuss the pending draft proposal, along with other issues of the time, to solicit input before the draft proposal came to print. Since he knew I enjoyed the AM mode, we also discussed that aspect of the proposal on two occasions when he stopped at my hamfest table. Some things we agreed on, and others we didn't see eye to eye, but at least we had the dialogue. After the initial draft proposal was made public, there was a time frame of 15 months to make comments back to the ARRL. The initial draft proposal was modified several times before it was finally submitted to the FCC. Anyone who believes the ARRL should have come personally "knocking on your door" asking for "your personal input", before they submitted the proposal, is living in a fantasy land. The access for making personal input was available for 15 months via e-mail, from a link on the ARRL site, and via your Director prior to submission to the FCC. Contrast this to the CTT proposal members, RM-11305, whose members solicited little to no input from the entire amateur radio community and wrote and submitted a proposal that affects us all going forward. With their proposal, they effectively want to turn amateur radio back 80 years (any mode, any where), rather than moving amateur radio and the amateur radio service forward. In my opinion, a very shameful display of total lack of consideration for our amateur radio service. Pete, wa2cwa On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:49:28 -0800 (PST) Larry Knapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems to me with all the skewering of the ARRL, one item that > appears to be very relevant is > the communication to the members of a division and the reverse and > thus to the board of the ARRL. > I believe I've heard something like "they don't listen to me or > there is no avenue for comments". > As a member you have the option, that is, make your views known or > remain silent. As a non-member > you also have made a choice. Forums such as this reflector and > other avenues are just that...a > grip and complain session; for the whiners. Real progress is made > when people care, when people > converse, when people have factual data and mostly when there are > those who really wish to be part > of the solution and not part of the problem. Whether one agrees > with the two RM proposals, I > really don't care. But I do care about the relevance of > communications to and from ARRL members. > Those who choose not to be an ARRL member have by default lost that > option. Much as been said > here about the ARRL not caring. I for one don't believe that. > Perhaps we, those in the Great > Lakes division, are just blessed with great leadership. Somehow, > though, I don't believe we are > the only ones. I just have not heard from other divisions, nor do I > want to. > > If those wish to flame me, fine. I've got a delete key. If you > wish to be part of the solution, > then contribute your views to your own division director. > > Note especially the following: "...you will have considerable > opportunity to be heard and once > heard, your input will be considered very seriously." There are > those who will not believe > this...words mean little, action does. We will see. Today is a new > day....make the future count. > History is just that, history. > > Below is the most recent communications to the 'members' of the ARRL > Great Lakes division from: > RRL Great Lakes Division Director: James Weaver, K8JE > > > ********* > NOW FOR THE BANDPLAN > > All references to frequencies contained in ARRL's Regulation > Primarily by Bandwidth petition have > been limited to the where the several bandwidth segments will lie > within our bands. None of these > references said anything about the fine details of band planning -- > e.g., where will Techs be > allowed to operate, where can fully-automatic control be used, etc? > There are still more aspects > to band planning than this, but I think you have the idea. In other > words, the tough work has not > yet been discussed. > > More accurately, the tough work just began at the January ARRL Board > of Directors meeting. The > beginning was a discussion of the process to be used in developing > the bandplan. The most > critical conclusion the Board appropriately reached is that we will > need a lot of input from > members and nonmembers alike as we proceed with the band planning. > > It is too early to call for input on the bandplan, but I want to let > you know you will have > considerable opportunity to be heard and once heard, your input will > be considered very seriously. > The objective of all this is to develop a bandplan that is logical > and has sufficient buy-in from > the amateur community that it is respected and observed voluntarily > by the Amateur Radio > community. > ********************************** > > 73, Larry KC8JX
