[CW] numbers ?

[Jay Eimer]

As I understand it, the NCVEC is just the committee that coordinates and
handles standards and such between the various VEC organizations.  The ARRL
doesn't ever vote at these, but does provide input, due to ARRL policies.

The NCVEC is the organization of the VECs only (the organizations that
provide test support, verify and submit tests to the FCC, etc. and certify
the qualifications of the VEs.  It DOES NOT represent the VEs, other than
the fact that some VEs work with one VEC, and some work with another.  (And
many are certified and work with more than one).

And W5YI has several "conflicts".  He's no longer personally in charge of
the W5YI VEC, but he does still have an interest in publishing/selling study
materials.

I don't know if he's personally still on the NCVEC or not.

Jay Eimer
AD5PE
----- Original Message -----
From: <N2EY@aol.com>
To: <scottamcmullen@yahoo.com>
Cc: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] numbers ?


> In a message dated 3/29/04 2:02:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> scottamcmullen@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > --- N2EY@aol.com wrote:
> > > If you think the ARRL proposal is bad, check out the
> > > NCVEC proposal. Has all the bad ideas of the ARRL
> > > proposal plus some that are much, much worse. NCVEC
> > > proposal is so bad it makes the ARRL one look good
> > > by comparison.
> >
> > i agree with this. i didn't like the arrl proposal
> > very much, but the ncvec's is worse.
> >
> > what is somewhat maddening is that the ncvec seems
> > to me to "pretend" to represent more than they in fact
> > represent.
>
> I agree 100%.
>
>
> >
> > they "ostensibly" represent the volunteer examiner
> > coordinators, but i have a friend who is a w5yi ve,
> > and they have *never* solicited his opinion on any
> > of these matters. and the arrl has a policy of not
> > permitting itself to be represented through another
> > organization, so they, as a matter of policy,
> > abstain from voting on items like this at ncvec
> > board meetings. so the ncvec, in effect, represent
> > only non-arrl ve's.
>
> If that! As I understand it, the NCVEC proposal was crafted by a small
> committee (one guess who called tha shots in that committee) and then the
VEC reps
> voted on it. The result was not unanimous or even close to unanimous, with
or
> without ARRL.
>
> The important point is that, to my knolwedge,  those VEC reps are not
elected
> by the VEs they supposedly represent. Nor are the VEs polled.
>
> At least ARRL has elected directors and they asked for member opinion.
NCVEC
> didn't even go that far, and if the majority don;t like the NCVEC
proposal,
> they cannot vote out the people who approved it.
>
>
> my guess is that most ve teams
> >
> > are arrl teams, so the ncvec *really* represents
> > -less- than half of all ve teams, yet they parade
> > about as if the represented all vecs.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
> >
> > i know some people may dislike me for saying this;
> > i think that quitting arrl will likely increase the
> > relative influence of non-representative,
> > unaccountable organizations like the ncvec.
> >
>
> There are actually *four* proposals now open for comment:
>
> ARRL
> NCVEC
> "FAR" - a group of six hams who wrote a proposal
> K4SX - proposes no change except raising the Extra code test to 13 wpm.
>
>
> > at least in the arrl, you can participate in the
> > elections for directors and section managers, and
> > there is the expectation that directors are
> > accountable to you.
> >
>
> You can also run for a post yourself.
>
>
> --
>
> Here's why I think the NCVEC proposal is much worse than ARRL's:
>
> 1) NCVEC proposes replacing rules questions on the entry level test with a
> signed statement that the ham-to-be has a copy of Part 97. They say the
rules
> can't be tested effectively with their proposed 20 question test. I say
that if
> the test is too small to test the regs, make it bigger! If *anyhting*
needs to
> be tested, it's the rules and regs.
>
> 2) NCVEC proposes only manufactured gear or approved kits for entry level,
> and no more than 30 volt finals.
>
> 3) NCVEC proposes even more narrowing of the CW/digital bands
>
> Has anyone else read KL7CC's "Amateur Radio for the 21st Century" paper
that
> outlined what the NCVEC proposal was going to be? If not, look it up and
read
> it, and note carefully the tone of the paper. I wrote a detailed rebuttal
and
> sent it to the NCVEC committee, but all I got was a thank you.
>
> If anyone is interested I can post my commentary on it.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw