[CW] ARRL stand on CW testing?

[Thomas Beaudry]

I, and many others on the CW reflector, are becoming concerned due to 
the deafening silence coming from ARRL headquarters on the subject.  
The following questions are mine and mine alone.  I haven't taken a 
poll of the reflector and do not wish to falsely represent anyone.  I'm 
sure though that there are others on the list that would be very 
interested in the replies.

1.  Why has there been no announcement from the ARRL of the NCVEC's 
decision to petition the FCC to immediately drop the Morse Code testing 
requirement?  Considering that the last two surveys of the US ham 
populace indicated a majority in favor of retaining a Morse Code test 
element, this was very big news.  And since the ARRL participated in 
the meeting, there is no lack of knowledge defense.

2.  One member of the reflector was informed by ARRL HQ that the ARRL 
representative on the NCVEC board refrained from voting.  Further that 
he had no choice about it since he lacked guidance from ARRL 
leadership.  How could this be?  Leadership has long been aware of the 
ham population's preference that I mentioned in the first question.  
That alone should have been enough to give guidance to anyone needing 
it to vote to retain, or at the very least, wait while ARRL conducts a 
more up to date survey.  Further, it has been known for a while that 
the most likely outcome of the Morse Code issue at WARC would be for it 
to cease to be an international requirement.  There was no lack of 
warning, being caught off guard, etc.  Thus ARRL leadership should have 
had guidance in place based on the likely outcome of WARC and the 
likeliness that some person/group would move fast to petition for the 
removal of the Morse Code testing element.  It seems to many of us that 
the ARRL representatives vote of abstain was a disguised vote in favor 
of the resolution.  It is difficult to see it any other way with the 
ARRL knowing the desires of the ham population but failing to carry 
them out with a no vote.

3.  In the August, 2003 issue of QST, page 49, in the article on the 
latest Hamvention, the author states "Haynie also noted the great 
success in licensing new hams enjoyed in the United Kingdom with the 
new Foundation License.  The Foundation License is similar in concept 
to the original US Novice ticket, but without a hard Morse 
requirement."  The author of the article was K7CCC, Assistant News 
Editor for QST.  This suggests that the ARRL management has already 
decided that the Morse testing element should be done away with.

4.  In the past, whenever there has been a petition to alter the 
licensing requirements, the ARRL has been quick to file comments on the 
issues raised by the petition.  We see no such response yet from the 
ARRL to the NCVEC petition.  It would seem logical that at the very 
minimum, you file comments asking for consideration of the petition to 
be delayed while ARRL HQ conducts a new survey to ascertain the 
feelings of the current ham population on the subject.

All in all, the lack of even a breath of air coming out of ARRL HQ and 
it's actions (and inactions) to date seem to scream that the ARRL is in 
favor of dropping the Morse testing requirement and is desperately 
seeking a means of doing so without losing the >50% membership that 
supports retainment of the test element.

I'm looking forward to your response on this vital issue.  Further, I'm 
looking for ARRL HQ to start treating it like the vital issue that it 
is to the previously mentioned >50% membership.

If you are not the person(s) to answer these questions, please forward 
this email onto someone that can.  Promptness in understanding the 
position of ARRL on this issue is of great importance to many of us.  
Some, like me,  have suspended our support of ARRL due to the 
suspicious lack of comment from HQ.  A few have jumped the gun, decided 
they know what HQ's reply will be, and have cancelled their membership.

The ARRL has always represented itself as the organization that stands 
up for what the membership desires.  A representative organization in 
other words.  Communications between the organization and it's members 
is essential for an organization to be truly representative.  Based on 
this, I hope and pray to receive a response from you soon.

73,

-- 
Thomas M. Beaudry
k8la / ys1ztm
K2 # 3422