[MRIC] Reasons to exist

Fri Apr 6 01:02:36 EDT 2007

Ray,

My apologies. I see you already sent  your comments a month or so ago. If I 
understand correctly, you prefer Al's  proposed ICS-213 with changes to add 
"receive by", time, date, and "sent by",  time, date.

Brett

In a message dated 4/6/2007 12:17:57 A.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, Brett Ham 
writes:
Ray,

Per our charter, our  interoperability recommendations need a 2/3 vote to 
pass out of committee. The  purpose of this 2/3 rule, is to build consensus. I 
would prefer to see us work  on an issue until everyone's concerns were resolved 
so the vote would be  unanimous, but I know that is not always possible; but 
that is my  goal.

We are not going to vote on a new message form that we do not see  until 
April 21. That would not be fair. Anyone that would like to make a motion  on the 
21st, please be considerate and make everyone aware of anything you would  
like to raise for a vote well in advance so we have time to discuss it in this  
forum, and solicit feedback from our operators and EMs. I believe it would be  
better to try and reach consensus by debating the issue on its merits, as we 
are  doing now, than pass something that we hadn't thoroughly thought out and 
run  past those that are going to be using it.

Ray, we have not heard your  position yet on which form to use. Which form do 
you prefer and  why?

Brett Hammond
Talbot County RO
Chairman, MRIC

In a  message dated 4/5/2007 11:34:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
Arbyone1 at verizon.net  writes:

I would like to suggest that each jurisdiction that wants to,  submit their
version of the form with instructions at the April 21st  meeting.  They need
to include the files on a floppy.  All versions  be presented to the group
for a vote.  The form that receives the most  votes will be accepted by the
MRIC as our ICS-213 and submitted to MEMA for  their meeting in May.

Sincerely,

Ray kb3fww

----- Original  Message ----- 
From: <brettham at aol.com>
To:  <mric at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 18:49
Subject:  Re: [MRIC] Reasons to exist

All:

I am glad to see the  discussion progressing. I think we might have seen
more feedback today than  we have in the past 5 weeks.

Joe and Pat, thank you for stating your  position. Your feedback is much
appreciated. I also appreciate you sharing  your experience and
operational lessons learned. I believe it contributes  significantly to
the discussion.

Ray, I suspect the reason that Al has  not updated the form is that he
either has not received any suggestions that  he agrees with, or there
have been so few jurisdictions commenting before  today, that he did not
know what suggestions were consensus yet. But to be  sure, I will let Al
respond for himself.

I PROMISE you, this is NOT a  "rubber stamp" operation. As chairman, I
will not tolerate anyone using  coersion or political lobbying to get
their way. As I stated in our first  meeting, we are here to decide the
BEST solution as a group. Whatever we  decide as a group, will be
presented to the EMs as our recommendation,  subject to their approval.

Procedurally, Al made a motion at the last  meeting to adopt the ICS-213
form he presented. The motion was tabled. When  it comes off the table
at the next meeting, people can make amendments to his  motion (i.e.
changes). If he really likes the suggestion, he can incorporate  it into
his motion as a "friendly" amendment. Otherwise, anyone can make  a
motion to amend, and it will be voted on. If most of the  jurisdictions
want the change, it will be changed. Period. This is one way  how
Roberts Rules of Order ensures fairness.

If anyone wants to make  an amendment to change Al's form, please let
everyone know so they can run it  by their EM to make sure they have no
objection, so we can be prepared and  know how to vote at the next
meeting. This is why I am going to discuss Bob's  format with my EM. I
suggest holding off talking about amendments for a few  days to let
everyone provide their feedback first.

This brings me to  Bob's comments below. Yes, we are to come up with a
solution as ROs, but keep  in mind that it will have to be approved by
the EMs at the next Association  meeting in May. The purpose for running
it by the EMs, is so they aren't  suprised by what we have approved, and
do not vote it down because it  violates some operational procedure they
have for their EOC. Also, each of us  has a different relationship with
our EMs. Some defer all to us, some want to  be intimately involved in
the decision, and some fall somewhere  in-between.

Where we go from here is:  We continue the discussion  and try to reach
consensus. Explain how you disagree with someone else, and  why your
solution is a better solution. I found Joe's comments about  his
experience helpful. Let's continue exchanging points of view,  keeping
to the subject at hand, and debating. This discussion has not  gotten
personal yet, but it is getting close. Let's put all our comments  out
on the reflector for everyone to see and consider, and let's not  start
down the path of talking about people off-line, or attacking  their
motives online. I think this discussion is good and if it continues,  we
will see a consensus surface before the next meeting.

Thank you all  for your comments and keep them coming.

Brett

-----Original  Message-----
From: rjlong61 at myactv.net
To: mric at mailman.qth.net
Sent:  Thu, 5 Apr 2007 4:58 PM
Subject: [MRIC] Reasons to exist

We were told  the reasons why we exist were included int the following
paragraph. If the  bold portion of this charge is not supported by the
managers, then why are  the meetings being called? It appears that
despite unanimous support this  support is not present anymore. Am I
wrong? Are we still to develop a format  for the messages or are they to
be dictated to us. I am not saying that what  I proposed is what has to
be accepted, but it was the RACES operators that  objected to the format
and felt that it caused difficulty in doing our jobs.  Compromise is a
two way street.
The ICS-213 was developed originally to be  a document transfered by
"runners" not by voice we are told. Some of our  operators seem to feel
that it does not work well for them in a voice mode.  Where do we go
from here?

Bob Long

EC/RO WASH

I am  please to inform you of the creation of the Maryland RACES
Interoperability  Committee (MRIC). Last week, during the Maryland
Emergency Management  Association meeting, Ed Mullikin (Director, Talbot
County Emergency  Management), based on some recommendations from me,
made a motion to the  Association to create a committee to be made up of
Maryland RACES Officers  (ROs) to address technical issues of RACES
interoperability such as  coordinating simplex frequencies used by
RACES, obtaining consensus on  state-wide HF net frequencies,*
standardizing the format of messages between  jurisdictions*, proposing
interoperability exercises, and resolving other  technical
interoperability issues between jurisdictions. The motion  passed
unanimously with Emergency Managers in all Maryland  jurisdictions
approving. The complete text of the motion is included at the  bottom of
this email.

_____________________

I just printed the  form as presented at the first meeting and printed
the
form that I just  received from Al on 4/4/07.

I detect no changes! So, what's the point of  making suggestions?

It's starting to look like a rubber stamp  operation.

Later,

Ray kb3fww

HARCO agrees completely with  the Baltimore County RO on the use of the
ICS-213.

I think that  many of us have become so used to using and seeing the
ARRL Radiogram for so  many years that it might be hard to "break with
tradition" and move onto  something else. Please remember, no one is
doing away with the ARRL  Radiogram. An additional tool is being added
to our bag of communicators  tools that allows those we serve to have a
"more user-friendly" format for a  message form. We do not create the
messages, we simply pass them along  accurately and in a timely manner.
Remember, the ARRL Radiogram was developed  for use in CW traffic
handling and adapted to phone traffic handling by  amateur radio
operators for amateur radio operators. The ICS-213 was  developed for
use by those who create the messages, not by those who handle  them.
Please keep that in mind.

We all must remain flexible in  order to best serve those we serve!

73,

Pat Scolla,  WB0EGR

Harford County RO & EC

Joe  wrote:

> BaCo is okay with the modified form as presented during the  initial
MRIC
> meeting.
>
> We have been using the ICS-213  standard form with minor modifications
(as
> developed with Harford  County in 2005) for a over 18 months. Over the
> last
> ten months  we have used it during two county wide drills and three
> activations with  no issues. We have clocked over 1500 man hours of
proven
> use during  exercises and activations. Our supported agencies (12)
have >  found
> that keeping the outgoing reply on the same form as the  incoming
actually
> improves efficiency, makes it easier for the  responder to compose a
reply
> and for archiving.
>
> We  tried a radiogram/ICS-213 hybrid and found that word count, fixed
>  spaces
> and separate forms for message and reply leads to confusion. We  don't
> send
> messages word by word we send them phrase by phrase.  During one of
our
> county wide exercises supported agencies passed  over 20 formal and 15
> tactical messages using the modified ICS-213  format within a span of
> forty-five minutes. Compare that to how long it  takes and how few >
messages
> are passed on a traffic net during  any given session of the same >
duration.
> Our personnel have used  the form, it is used outside of RACES and it
has
> been used under fire  by federal agencies since 2000. A hybrid >
ARRL/ICS-213
> format is  not workable for BaCo.
>  

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.