[MRIC] Fwd: ICS 213 For Use at April 21 MRIC Meeting

[BrettHam at aol.com]

All:
 
If you already received Al's email 2 days ago containing a link to the  
ICS-213 form to be voted on Saturday, then please disregard this email. I am  
forwarding his email to the MRIC reflector in case he missed anyone.
 
Brett Hammond
Chairman, MRIC

In a message dated 4/17/2007 7:13:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
al.fitzsimons at att.net writes:

(OP Note:  tried to send via MRIC at 12:42 PM today but was  rejected.  
Especially disappointing since I developed a Web site  specifically to accommodate 
the message within MRIC.) 

The ICS 213 at  
http://home.att.net/~al.fitzsimons/w3yrs/ICS_213_4-16-07.doc
has been  developed based on inputs from eleven of 24 jurisdictions in 
Maryland.  

First I want to thank those eleven jurisdictions who chose to get  involved 
in coming up with the most useful General Message format for the State  of 
Maryland.  I can assure you that I have carefully read each input/s and  have 
given full consideration to each.  Accommodation of diverging views is  difficult 
if not impossible.  This resulting ICS 213 attempts to reach  consensus from 
among the inputs received.  It is hoped that at this  Saturday’s MRIC meeting 
the group can reach consensus on such a form even though  it may not 
incorporate every feature suggested.   
I would  encourage you to use the MRIC QTH reflector to air your thoughts to 
the group  particularly those 13 jurisdictions not yet heard from.   

Features of this ICS 213:

.1. Numbered Boxes
The  attached ICS 213 focuses on the fundamental essential elements of the 
message  such as “To” “From” which are universal rather than an artificial “
Box 3” or  “Box 4” which when slightly different formats have been introduced 
has resulted  in confusion.  

2. “Word/Group” count 
The clearest input  from the responders was to do away with the “Word/Group” 
count.  Again this  can result in wasting valuable time and is meaningless to 
untrained users which  this form must accommodate.  In a Morse code world 
they have proven  effective but only when used by highly trained operators.

3.  Exercise Check Box
The check box for “Exercise” has been removed because it  too has caused 
confusion.  For example is it Exercise Priority if both  boxes are checked?  It 
is critical that all exercise messages begin and end  with a succinct but clear 
statement explaining that the information in the  message is not to be acted 
upon except for exercise purposes.   

4. Reply Procedures
The “Reply” procedures were commented on by  several jurisdictions.  The 
approach taken here is back to basics.  It  is likely that the Reply will be the 
same precedence as the original message so  these Boxes were not needed.  In 
the unusual circumstance that a precedence  change is necessary it could be 
added to the reply message text.  Since the  reply is going back to the 
originator, it should make sense to them without any  additional message numbering 
protocol.  However if there are several  similar messages from the same originator 
at the same time the Reply sender may  want to say “Reply to your Number 56” 
in the body of the Reply  message.

5. Larger Message Lines
The nine message lines have  been made taller to make writing on them easier.

Hope to see you all at  the ANAR EOC for the April 21 MRIC meeting!
73
Al, W3YRS
 



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