[CW] ARRL stand on CW testing?

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/7/2003 11:22:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, N7DC@cs.com writes:
 
> 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.

It's on the webpage now. 
> 
> 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.  

When was the poll? What form did it take?

I didn't see anything like that on the webpage. I don't recall a survey since the 1996 Readex survey, which was done in preparation for WRC-97. But discussion of S25.5 was bumped from WRC-97.

The reason I ask for details is that if we're going to challenge ARRL policy we need hard info, like "on page XX of QST for XX, it says..." Even small discrepancies in facts can deflate a good argument.  

>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).   

We were all set to get 150 kHz, multiple modes, full power, at 5 MHz. FCC had unanimously gone for it and it looked like a done deal. 

Then Sept 11 happened, NTIA looked at every "homeland security" asset they had, and wrote a pretty strong letter to FCC. Are YOU gonna argue with NTIA and Homeland Security?
 
> What I want to see, NOW, is each and every directors stand on the issue. 

I know how mine stands. Or, at least, how he stood the last time a vote was taken. Others are not so forthcoming. 

> 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.   

Yup. 

>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.

You have to ask for them, specifically. Just like any election. I did, and voted accordingly. My man won. Maybe his view will be in the majority - maybe not.

Philosophy Question: Should an ARRL Director:

1) Vote his conscience/personal views regardless of what his division's or the overall feedback says?
2) Vote what his division says regardless of anything else?
3) Vote based on overall opinion of the membership (not just his division)?
4) Vote what he said when elected, regardless of anything else?
5) Do something else? (Be specific)

I say 2) is the most ethical and responsible thing to do. Even if it's not what I want or what he promised. What say others?


73 de Jim, N2EY