[ARRL-OK] Convergent Volunteers

[Jim Glover]

Hello again, Lloyd...

> 1) Convergent volunteers are no longer the rule in disasters. 
<snip>

If you'd asked any of the ARES folks around here on May 2, 1999,
they'd have been glad to explain that in the event of a disaster,
only ARES personnel would be useful.

Sometimes, things are only the way they are, until they become
different.

> 2)  Your experience with Red Cross is because Red Cross has
> their own rules and guidelines.  When they ask for volunteers,
> you certainly have the right to step up to that plate.  Anything
> you do brings glory or shame to them.  With lawyers waiting in
> the wings to bring shame to everyone, I can't afford convergent
> volunteers.  

That's your decision.  When disaster strikes, I'm sure no one
would argue with your right to accept or decline assistance as
you see fit.

If you don't need assistance (and the disaster is sufficiently
widespread) someone else will.

> 3)  Speaking of liability, were you a volunteer with Mayes
> County Emergency Management assigned to your Red Cross post and
> had been injured, would Red Cross insurance have paid for your
> medical care?  Mayes County covers all their volunteers, hams
> and non-hams alike, because it's the right thing to do.  I can't
> insure convergent volunteers.  That's just one more reason for
> registering before hand.

That's an excellent policy.  As you said, it's the right thing 
to do, and I think it's a very good thing that you're willing to
make it happen in your arena.  It's unfortunate that doing so
constrains your choices about from whom to accept assistance (but
I don't think it's interfering with anything you'd rather be doing
instead, so that's just as well).

> 3)  I am surely saddened to hear that an "ARES-sponsored net"
> turned you down.  There are too many hams, I am sure, just like
> you.  Move to Mayes County and apply
> (http://lloyd.colston.com/application.htm).  After the
> background check, we'll plug you in somewhere, unless, of
> course, you are proven to be a terrorist.    :)

I'd have predicted that you'd welcome qualified help!  :)

> Having said that, it sounds like you have found a niche.  I know
> that Red Cross needs capable volunteers.  I know a number of my
> friends ... that I'd like to have in EM ... are too busy helping
> Red Cross ... because they took the time to get the training
> that Red Cross expects of its volunteers.  You opened to the
> door.  I hope you walk through it.

I helped the Red Cross in the May 3, 1999 aftermath because they
were in need of help, and I was in need of someone to help.  From
my conversations with many amateur radio operators who were Red
Cross volunteers doing things other than amateur radio, I came to
understand that if I had become specifically a Red Cross volunteer,
they would have soon explained to me that they could always find
hams, but that they really needed me to train for _______ instead.
For now I'm a freelancer, but who knows--at any time I could decide
to become affiliated with ARES or Infragard or who-knows-whom.

> 4)  Your post assumes that I don't value those who "belong to
> groups which focus on emergency preparedness".  That is an
> incorrect assumption.

Likewise, your assumption that I'd assumed that you don't value 
those who belong to groups which focus on emergency preparedness
is *very much* an incorrect assumption.  I assume you must be
quoting from the following context, from my last post:

: However, I
: reject the notion that only those who belong to groups which
: focus on emergency preparedness are doing their part to help
: keep the amateur radio hobby/service ready to be useful in
: emergencies.

When I said that, I was very much assuming that you do value
those who belong to groups which focus on emergency preparedness.

Perhaps you meant to say that I assume you do *not* value those
who do *not* belong to such groups.

I really don't know if you value us, or not.  I do know that
you proposed legislation which would have afforded us *less*
protection under the law against anti-antenna forces, than you
folks who *do* belong to such groups would have been afforded.

In a lot of text I'm not quoting here, you go on to make the case
for why hams who want to be involved in emergency communications
should be trained, certified, and so forth.  You don't have to sell
me on the value of those things.  I've said before, and I'll say
again, that I understand there is substantial value to that sort
of preparation.  Frankly, I'll be a little surprised if I never
someday get around to joining one of the official emergency
preparedness groups.  Meanwhile, I have taken part in emergency
communications before, and probably will again.  Also, my ongoing
support of amateur radio contributes to the presence of a strong
foundation upon which amateur radio's public service accomplishments
of *any* sort depend.

Inasmuch as your point is that *only* those who are members of
ARES, RACES, MARS, or whatever, can be helpful in providing emergency
communications, I respectfully disagree.  It is my opinion that in
response to disasters requiring up to some level of response, you
folks who are rehearsing on a regular basis make perfect sense as
the first responders of emergency communication, and can handle the
task quite well.  It is also my opinion that when the need goes
beyond what you guys can handle, the rest of us can pitch in and
be useful, too.  It's my opinion that meanwhile, the contributions
we *all* make to amateur radio are *essential* to providing the sort
of firm foundation upon which those of you who choose to do so can
base your amateur radio emergency response programs.  Through all
of this, it is my opinion that you folks who are active members of
emergency response preparedness groups of all sorts are making an
extremely valuable and important contribution, and I applaud you.
(I really do.)

Inasmuch as your point might be that members of ARES, RACES, MARS,
or whatever really deserve a little better right in the eyes of the
law to have good antennas than the rest of us, I think you are a
serious danger to amateur radio, and I will oppose your efforts to
promote that sort of policy any way I can, and I hope others will,
too, for *everyone's* sake.  That's really the only important point
I'm trying to make.

Cheers!

...es 73...
Jim  WB5UDE