[CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001

Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:22:28 -0400

Who attended the NVEC meeting for the ARRL?

Does anyone know?

If it was an Officer of ARRL, they should be removed for malfeasance.

73

DR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pedro J. Santa" <[email protected]>
To: "W2AGN" <[email protected]>; "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001

> Then, if that's the case, the ARRL should NOT have abstained from the vote
> at the NCVEC meeting, but should have voted against the approved
resolution
> and should have taken a more aggressive role against its approval at this
> time.  This is, I think, the beginning of the end of the ARRL as the
leading
> institution for amateur radio affairs in the U.S.
>
> Pedro KP3X..
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W2AGN" <[email protected]>
> To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [CW] ARRL BOD Jan. 19-20, 2001
>
>
> > On 13 Aug 2003 at 12:30, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > Lovers of CW:
> > >
> > > Your attention is directed to this web page of the ARRL where the
Board
> of
> > > Directors (BOD) directs the following actions:
> > >
> > > http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0101/
> > >
> > > NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the ARRL Board of Directors
> recognizes
> > > and accepts that suppression of the Morse code requirement in Article
> S25 is
> > > likely to occur at WRC 2003; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, that deletion of the requirement from Article S25
> should
> > > not automatically or immediately mean a similar removal of the Morse
> code
> > > from Part 97 of the FCC rules; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, that each administration should determine if Morse
> code is
> > > retained as a testing element; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, it is the opinion of this Board at this time that
> Morse
> > > code should be retained as a testing element in the U.S.; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Morse code is deserving of continued
support
> as
> > > an important operating mode including providing for the protection and
> > > maintenance of sufficient spectrum in band planning; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, that staff develop a program designed to promote the
> use
> > > of Morse code; and be it
> > > FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution supersedes all previous
> statements of
> > > policy related to suppression of the Morse code requirement in Article
> S25.
> > >
> > > No subsequent action by the BOD or the Executive Committee of the ARRL
> has
> > > been made on this subject according to a complete reading and a manual
> > > search of the minutes of all later BOD and Executive meetings for the
> word
> > > "morse".
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > David Ring, N1EA
> >
> >
> > Which make the claim that the ARRL Rep at trhe NCVEC conference had "no
> > policy" to go by a big lie! Even the ARRL President claimed that there
> > was no policy in place, or that it had changed after WRC2003. Since the
> > above was done expecting the results of WRC2003 to be as they were, once
> > again, the ARRL speaks with very forked tongue.
> > ---
> > +-++-++-++-++-+   John L. Sielke
> > |W||2||A||G||N|        http://www.w2agn.net [UPDATED]
> > +-++-++-++-++-+    Ex-K3HLU,TF2WKT,W7JEF,W4MPC,N4JS
> > _______________________________________________
> > CW mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>