[ECAC] Missing NTS document, initial proposal analysis

[Dave Colter]

Hi all,

I found references to an Exhibit B in the NTS proposal documents (Apparently
PSCM revision note), but I did not receive a document by that name. Did
anyone else receive it? I've asked its author, Al W3YVQ, if he would provide
it. 

 

This weekend, I've been reading and re-reading and re-reading the three NTS
proposal documents we do have. They ramble around quite a bit and aren't
well separated by topic, making a detailed analysis difficult. I suspect
certain key details were missed in the writing. This is likely due to having
been hastily written on short notice by a single person without the benefit
of a collaborative review process, as seems to have been the case. I'm
trying to sort this out by creating an outline. Here are some of my initial
observations - the outline is going to take a little more time. I've also
attached Exhibit A with underlined bold highlights in the text, and
paragraph summaries in red. Sorry this is long-ish, but the more I re-read,
the more I found to write about.

 

The cover letter (TX_Memo_NTS_Proposal) specifically takes ECAC to task for
not recognizing the need for a "more comprehensive ARES structural
framework" to more fully integrate NTS and ARES. (Our stated opinion was
that this was neither necessary nor desirable, as well as being politically
inexpedient.) It notes NTS' limited representation on ECAC (an issue not
envisioned by P&SC in ECAC's creation, which followed the board's standard
committee creation rules), but doesn't mention that ECAC recognized this
problem and reached out to NTS for input repeatedly. It further suggests
that ECAC simply did not understand how NTS works. I think this assertion
bears further consideration and discussion by ECAC, but I suspect it largely
stems from a difference in semantics and definitions around the term
"top-down" as used in our proposal. I believe our understanding of this
management concept was fundamentally different from NTS'.  

 

The main proposal overview document (Structure and Document Revisions -
Conceptual Proposal ARRL Field Organization - PSCM,) suggests creation of an
integrated national ARES management superstructure with close links between
ARES and NTS, mirroring NTS' existing national management structure. In this
document, its primary stated purpose seems to be requiring ARES at the
Section level to fully implement the "radio email layer." The only other
actual function this document mentions is the creation of a joint committee
to re-write and reorganize the PSCM, but Exhibit A offers more suggestions.

 

Exhibit A defines a new organizational structure that would add 13 new
elected ARES administrative level staff coordinating "managers" at the
Region and Area levels in the US. These include 3 Area ARES Managers, and 10
ARES Region Managers (I'm ignoring the NTS region that's entirely within
Canada because their version of ARES doesn't answer to ARRL HQ). The diagram
says that ARES Area and Region managers would have coordination authority
only. (Why call them managers and not coordinators, as is the convention
throughout ARES?) Overall, the new structure is described as providing 

 

Exhibit A suggests that this new structure would help "coordinate consistent
national messaging layer access" at all levels within the Sections. It
requires that this group implement the radio email layer and "coordinate
operations" (no definition of operations offered - a key question, since
ARES has no regular operations above the Section level at this time),
exercises, ARESMAT coordination, development of training and materials, and
the "establishment of MOUs". It also states, "national operations for ARES
would be coordinated by the elected Region/Area (Division) staff," but it
doesn't define what those operations might be. 

 

The complex organizational diagram in Exhibit A is difficult to understand
and apply. I tried to take some of the goals and responsibilities outlined
in the text and apply them to the organization as illustrated. I couldn't do
it. It's unclear how this structure would function, since some connecting
arrows are labeled "coordination" or "supervision" and others aren't labeled
at all. Some point up, some down or sideways, and some have no arrows at
all. Since arrows in this context indicate flow (or command), they are key
to applying the diagram to reality. For instance, it shows a line and arrow
pointing UP from the STM to the SEC. Does this mean NTS envisions STMs in a
supervisory role over SECs? The line isn't labeled Supervision, Coordination
or Liaison. This may be an error, as with other unlabeled lines. The devil
is always in the details.

 

Page 3, paragraph 3 of Exhibit A states that the Section NTS staff (STM,
affiliated net managers, ORS appointees) would elect a representative to the
NTS Area Staff, and that ARES Section staff (undefined) would do the same. I
can't be sure who this is referring to when I look at the diagram - is it
the Region Managers?

 

Page 4 gets into the weeds about MPG 6 and how target and relay stations
should function. I'm not sure what direct relevance those have to the main
proposal. Perhaps this was intended to support the stated need to further
implement the radio email layer and Section/local NTS affiliated nets.

 

Al proposes that this new management superstructure have direct authority to
"require" Section staff to provide "root networking connections" (I read
that as legacy manual nets and radio email) to ensure interoperability and
mutual support within and between Sections. I'm not sure how that would work
based on the information in the proposal, but I can't imagine the idea of
imposed requirements being well accepted by most ARES leaders, given the
widely varying nature of their missions and resources. In my opinion, the
proposal needs much more detail in the area of management/coordination job
descriptions and relationships before it can be fully evaluated. 

 

In summary, the proposal seems to be mostly an attempt to solve the very
real problem NTS has with uneven Section and Local coverage and performance,
by creating two new management layers above the Section with a complex and
poorly defined series of relationships and responsibilities. Nothing in the
proposal recognizes that 95% of what ARES does is unrelated to out-of-area
formal message traffic - or indeed any formal traffic at all. It does not
really address any of the other issues facing ARES that ECAC identified
beyond interoperability and training. Perhaps Exhibit B will offer more
details. 

 

Regards,

Dave Colter, WA1ZCN

ASEC - Operations, Training

State EOC Team

NH-ARES

www.nh-ares.org

603-763-4976, option 1

 

Vice Chairman

ARRL Emergency Communications Advisory Committee

New England Division Representative

.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Exhibit_A_Integration13D_wdiag - w-WA1ZCN NOTES.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 87552 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/ecac/attachments/20140209/c459fb57/attachment-0001.doc>