[CW] ARRL stand on CW testing?

[N7DC@cs.com]

N2EY@aol.com wrote:

>The following is just my own thoughts...
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 5:07:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, k8la@arrl.net 
>writes:
>
>
>> 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 
>>




Believe they did announce that in last weeks bulletin.

Also the last time they queried membership on the CW testing question was not that long ago.  They asked for input no more than a year or so ago, when getting ready to go to the ITU meeting.  I answered an ARRL poll, and the results were a fairly large majority wanted to KEEP CW.  They then said they would support that view, and within a very few months, reversed themselves, telling the FCC they agreed that CW should no longer be a requirment for ham licesnes and would support the FCC voting that way at the ITU meeting.  Since then they have not really come out and said one way or the other, and when I and others complained about them not following the memberships directions, they brag about the 5 MHZ band assignement (If anyone could call it a band).  

What I want to see, NOW, is each and every directors stand on the issue.  That will give each member the ability to look at that, and determine if they want that director to remain in place.   If my representative doesnt support my views, it is my right to change directors, just like in any other political election.  Trouble is, we hear about how our ARRL leaders, and those running for office, have been a life member for umpteen years, has been president of his local ham club, blah blah blah, but we neer hear exactly what his views are on the different questions before the membership.  Thus, we are expected to elect leaders on how well they look I guess.  Its past time for that stuff.  Give me the facts.