[MRIC] I am done.
wb0egr
wb0egr at comcast.net
Mon May 5 19:57:58 EDT 2008
Brett,
Rather than cutting and pasting your words, I have tried to identify the
paragraphs as you wrote them, and then commented. Please do not think
of what I write as a challenge to you or to anyone else, but merely a
clearing of the air with respect to a great number of topics. I do not
claim to be an expert in all areas including amateur radio public
service communications, only that I am very passionate about amateur
radio public service communications and in not over-promising and under
delivering on what can or cannot be done in a particular situation. I
have personally seen these mistakes made in various parts of the United
States and as a result RACES and ARES comes away with a less than
stellar reputation and they do not get invited back to assist the next
time there is an opportunity to provide amateur radio public service
communications and fill a legitimate need.
I personally have nothing against you Brett because I do not know you in
any venue apart from MRIC. With respect to the MRIC venue, I will admit
that there are topics that not only do I agree with you on, but I do so
strongly! And yes, there are also some topics I do not agree with you
on, just as I strongly disagree with the Baltimore RO on various topics
of interest too. However, we do not take our differences personally.
Instead we respect each other's position and we try to work at them in
such a manner that the end result is a better "deliverable" to those we
serve. The same hold true for with you, but you do appear to be
unwilling to work with those who disagree with you, rather than trying
to find a more common ground and building up that for the benefit of all.
If MRIC and the Emergency Managers Association decides after a thorough
discussion of the various digital technologies available to us as
amateur radio public service communications providers that Winlink2000
is the way to go, then great. I will support the decision. However,
there are those of us who do not believe that there has been adequate
discussion on the matter and as a result, it would be premature to pass
along a recommendation to the Emergency Managers Association.
As I carefully reread over and over what I wrote, nowhere do I see where
I make any condescending remarks, nor do I see where I imply any
regarding your public service communications experience – commercial or
amateur radio, or to your ego. I was simply stating my experience and
experience base so all knew where I was coming from. Please remember
that I did say that I was not trying to challenge you or your intent.
In fact I said that I believed your intent in all of this is correct!
With regard to the “boys with toys” comment I made, I specifically said
that I did not want MRIC to come across in this manner to the Emergency
Managers Association. I did not say that you are, nor did I say that
you could be viewed as being in the “boys with toys” category.
My sincerest congratulations on the technical skills which you used in
the public safety communications arena and which also brought you to the
amateur radio fraternity! Also, GE made many excellent radios back then!
Again congratulations on your career choices and values. I too have
been involved in the service to first responders and the jobs they
perform since the last half of the 1990s. I have been working in the
arena of analyzing supertoxic materials that first responders might come
across during an incident, in the development of more effective personal
protective equipment, decontamination methods, and detection equipment,
as well as in providing first responders with extremely accurate
information in minimal time regarding the physical and health-related
properties as well as medical treatment information for various types of
supertoxic compounds. I too have received accolades in my professional
life for the work I have done from various federal agencies.
With regard to your reestablishment of RACES in Talbot county, my
congratulations to you again. It appears that your involvement and mine
go hand in hand along the same timelines, and with similar results.
Kudos to you! However, I have faced one difficulty that I am not sure
you faced. I faced the rebuilding of both the RACES and ARES
organizations in the wake of many, many years of RACES having been a
group of “good old boys” and the only way into RACES was by invitation
only. Also, ARES was frowned upon by the RACES “old guard”. I was,
however, shown a great deal of support from the Harford County Emergency
Management in my efforts, to which I am very grateful. I believe we
have been successful here in Harford County because I did not come into
the arena with any baggage.
Also, congratulations on your setting up the first Winlink2000 PMBO in
Maryland! With respect to Winlink2000, I say this: I have not used
Winlink2000, nor do I care too at this time in my amateur radio career.
I do not use SSTV, PACKET, nor a whole host of other digital methods
available to amateur radio operators. I do however use PSK-31, RTTY,
and several other digital modes. That does not mean I do not understand
them, nor are they a mystery to me. I do understand the Winlink2000
technology and believe that it does have the potential to do much good
for served agencies in the future when it matures and its delivery
efficiency matches that of current commercial e-mail methods our RACES
clients deserve.
On the Talbot County RACES group being well integrated into the Talbot
County emergency operation plans, the same holds true in Harford County
because of the efforts of myself and others in the rebuilding amateur
radio public service communications in Harford County. For the last
several years now, RACES and ARES are invited to sit in on various
planning meetings for exercises and routine matters at the Harford
County EOC.
I agree with virtually everything you state in the paragraph where you
discuss the November 2007 MRIC meeting and D-Star with one important
exception – the experiences and technical backgrounds of the various
RACES Officers. Yes, you did propose a method of assigning VHF
frequencies at one of the first MRIC meetings. It was assumed by many
that you went ahead and did so because of your inexperience in amateur
radio. Had you taken the time up front to find out what frequencies the
various jurisdictions were using, you would have save yourself, and the
rest of us, a great deal of time and frustration.
I am glad to hear that more than one digital method/technology was
discussed at the November 2007 MRIC meeting. However, something as
important as a standard digital method to be recommended to the
Emergency Managers Association, should, in my opinion, be given much
more than one gathering’s worth of discussion in order to ensure that
our due diligence has been performed.
Yes MRIC has accomplished much, and yes it has stumbled too. Every
organization makes progress and also stumbles. If there was no
stumbling, then how do they/we learn?
With respect to the ICS-213 that MRIC finally agreed upon, if you will
recall, the final version accepted as the “standard” ICS-213 form, is
essentially the same form that the Baltimore and Harford County RACES
groups have been using successfully since 2005. What I find interesting
is that when Harford and Baltimore Counties presented the ICS-213 form
that was being used, it was deemed unacceptable by some, yet those same
people found it to be acceptable when it was finally presented by
another RACES Officer who did not give credit to those who actually gave
it to him several months previously.
I agree that we, the ROs of Maryland have accomplished much in the past
15 months. However, I do strongly disagree with your opinion that I
cannot accept MRICs decisions and that I am trying to get my own way by
manipulating procedures - I have accepted many MRIC decisions. Brett,
it could also be said that you are also trying to get your own way by
also manipulating and using your interpretations of what you call the
MRIC charter. Just because I do not always agree with you on certain
matters does not mean that I cannot accept MRIC decisions. I can and I
have! You, however, appear to have a problem with people who do not
agree completely with you!
With regard to the problem or problems, perceived or real, at MRIC that
you refer to are, exactly, what? You mention what we have accomplished,
what has or has not been discussed or debated, and that at the November
2007 meeting there was no debate over procedural issues because everyone
acted like adults in the reaching of a unanimous consensus. So it
sounds like that if there is no debate, then everything is “hunky-dory”
with you. Well Brett, debate and discussion are not necessarily a bad
thing. What is a bad thing is apathy. I am not accusing anyone of
apathy. I am not asking anyone to accept what I say just because I say
it. I try to present objective information – good and bad – so that the
individual ROs can decide for themselves. That is called full
disclosure. I do not have a hidden agenda. I do not claim to know
everything about everything. However, I do know when people are not
given all the information nor are they allowed adequate time to
deliberate and study all the information that is needed – not just
presented, in order to make an informed decision.
Brett, with respect to your statements that Joe Krysztoforski and I are
being disruptive of the MRIC meetings, you obviously appear to believe
that if someone disagrees with you and does not immediately yield to
your perceived position of authority, then that person or person are
immediately disruptive. That is a shame. Some things are better
discussed in person than via e-mails, as pointed out by Bob Long at the
April 26, 2008 MRIC meeting, hence the reason why I did not contact you
nor did I send any e-mails to the MRIC reflector about my concerns with
Winlink2000. Nor did I ever imagine that you would permanently shut the
door on me or anyone else for that matter in bringing in new information
or in bringing back a previously discussed and decided upon topic for
re-discussion. It is interesting that you allowed a reopening on the
discussion of which HF frequencies to use for the MRIC RACES HF Net, but
you would not allow a revisiting of the Winlink2000 issue. What gives?
What is acceptable for one subject should be acceptable for another.
I believe that we, MRIC, should not be in such a big hurry to recommend
new, expensive, and buggy technologies to our emergency managers when
they are looking to us to recommend a failsafe method of communications
to take over when their normal methods of communications have failed.
Sometimes the simplest and least technical methods are the best when the
more complicated systems have failed.
Brett, please do not blame me on the topic of the HF, VHF/UHF, and
Winlink2000 equipment list issue and that there is no guidance
available. There were several people who expressed reservations with
the list you presented at the April 26, 2008 meeting.
I am glad that you know where there is money available from for
hospitals to install amateur radio equipment. Why don’t you just share
that with the rest of MRIC, or is it contingent upon agreeing to use
your chosen equipment?
So what if various jurisdictions use different radios or computers for
Winlink2000 in their installations? Amateur radio is all about
interoperability. Remember, those of us who use Kenwood or Yaesu brand
radios are still able to talk to those using Ten Tec, ICOM or Alinco
brand equipment. Hams using software defined radios such as the
Flex-5000A can still talk to hams using 30 – 40 year old Drake, Swan, or
Hallicrafters tube-type radios. We demonstrated this back in March when
you were installing your NVIS antenna! Also, those of us who might
still be using a tube-type or hybrid tube and solid state HF radio are
able to communicate with those amateurs using 100% solid state radios.
Why, because we are all communicating using the same modes and/or
protocols.
>From what I have learned about Winlink2000, the single most important
aspect is in using the correct hardware TNC and digital protocol, which
is provided by an SCS Pactor Modem. Not the radio, not the computer,
not the power supply, not the mouse and not ever the monitor. As far as
a lack of guidance, I say horse-hockey to that! There is plenty of
information available from many, many amateur radio related internet
sites that contain this information, as well as there being several
extremely knowledgeable hams in Maryland! If someone wanted to submit a
grant proposal, the most important things they need to know is who is
offering the grant, where to get the paperwork from, and by what date
does the grant application need to be submitted?
Welcome to amateur radio and some of the challenges we all face with
modern equipment – both HF and VHF/UHF. OK, so someone wants to use a
different HF radio than the one you like or I like, or a different
VHF/UHF dual band mobile? Big deal. We look at the manual, ask for
assistance and figure things out. That’s what we as amateur radio
operators do. There’s a wealth of information out there for people to
tap into and plenty of other hams with answers willing to help out!
Please don’t DROP that load of poop and expect it to fly!
To say that Joe Kryzstorforski and I have severely limited the ability
of MRIC to move forward is an extremely reckless statement for you to
make with little or no foundation. OK, so you received some negative
feedback on Joe Krysztorforski and myself. All that proves is that
people were listening and that they do not agree with our individual
points of view. Fine. I could flip the coin and say that both Joe and
I have received a similar number of comments about you and another RO
trying to control MRIC. So we disagree and we do not make a
recommendation to the Emergency Managers Association in time for their
next meeting. We won’t and if we do not, MRIC will not lose anything in
terms of respect or status from them. You appear to be the only one who
believes that we absolutely, positively have to do so! Also, you are
the only one who appears to be in a hurry to do anything, and when we do
something, you appear to make it appear that it has to be something new,
rather than using the technologies and resources we already have at hand!
I would rather we beat the “standard” digital method to death and agree
on something even if the final motion passes by only one vote rather
than just spending four or eight hours discussing the pros and cons of
one, two or three methods! Heck, if we are really serious about
discussing a bullet-proof digital technology, we should include CW in
the discussion! With CW and a good CW operator, a lot of information
can be passed in a short period of time with minimal cost and equipment!
Your statements about Joe and I seem to arise more from a personal
disagreement and dislike regarding what we have to bring and say to MRIC
than a “professional disagreement”. For that I can only say that I am
very sorry that you appear to be unable to remain objective as the MRIC
Chairman.
Yes Brett, we do need to change some of our procedures and get the
Emergency Managers Association involved in the better defining of our
charter. Do we take our “charter” literally? If so then it is a very
limited document. I know I am not the only one who has been asking for
a member of the Emergency Managers Association to be at the MRIC
meetings for us to ask questions of, but you seem to be the only one
against this. Why?
Unfortunately for you Brett, neither Joe nor I are going to disappear
from RACES anytime soon, so get used to it! What you call destructive
behavior others describe as constructive criticism and debate. As far
as not getting the Emergency Managers Involved in the MRIC Charter
issue, you let that genie out of the bottle already. Just because you
interpret our “charter” one way, does not mean you are correct. There
are other RACES Officers in Maryland who have already contacted their
Emergency Managers about the Quorum issue. Just because MRIC will not
be asking as a group does not preclude you or Joe, or Dan or me from
contacting our Emergency Managers and expressing our concerns and then
letting them present it to the Emergency Managers Association.
The only thing your silence will show is that you are unwilling to work
with people who disagree with you on one or more matters.
73 and MRIC, please keep up the good work!!
Pat Scolla, wb0egr
Harford County EC/RO
brettham at aol.com wrote:
> Pat,
>
> Since I make my livelihood in radio communications, I am compelled to
> defend my reputation against your condescending remarks regarding my
> Public Service communications experience, “boys with toys” comment,
> and my ego.
>
> Almost 20 years ago I developed the prototype for the very first
> PC-based dispatch console for M/A-COM (then GE). For 20 years I was
> responsible for the design and/or development for a variety of data
> communications and telecommunications equipment include fiber optic,
> encryption, satellite routers, and radio communications systems for
> military test flight mission control centers, among others. I am an
> expert in several dozen ISO and Internet data communications protocols
> having either developed software implementations, or conformance test
> procedures for them.
>
> After 9-11-2001 I choose to give up my engineering career and take a
> drastic cut in pay to change my career to Public Safety radio system
> maintenance to do my part to serve first responders and the public at
> large. For several years I was responsible for all maintenance on a
> 9-site 800 MHZ tri-county Motorola trunking system. For the past 2
> years I have been responsible for a state-of-the-art voice over IP
> M/A-COM interoperability radio system that ties together 12 different
> jurisdictions’ 911 dispatch centers for regional interoperability, and
> provides 800 MHz coverage over 9 counties. I possess the highest level
> FCC commercial radio license (GROL) and the highest level FCC Amateur
> Radio license (Extra) and am well respected throughout much of the
> state by many Public Safety communications officials for my
> capabilities, integrity and work ethic.
>
> Six years ago I re-established a RACES organization in Talbot County
> and shortly thereafter was activated to set up communication from 3
> Red Cross shelters to the EOC during hurricane Isabel. The next year,
> via my director, I applied for, and received, a grant for new RACES
> equipment. Under my direction, we installed 4 hardline feeds from our
> RACES radio room at the EOC, to new antenna we installed on the tower
> out back. The installation met professional grounding and lightening
> protection standards and we completed the work all by ourselves
> (except the use of a lift). We also implemented the first Emergency
> Communications Winlink2000 PMBO (email server) in Maryland, which
> operated at the highest speed of any Winlink2000 connection in
> Maryland. In fact, I can send email from my own personal truck, using
> my own laptop and HF radio, to Internet connections around the world.
> Can you do that? Have you ever implemented a Winlink system, anywhere?
> According to the Winlink administrator, your call sign has never been
> used on Winlink.
>
> Our RACES organization in Talbot County is well integrated into the
> county emergency operation plans. I attend the emergency planning
> meetings with other county agencies, and our RACES is deployed for
> most of the day during the state-wide Pandemic Exercise every year,
> and other regional drills such as the Eastern Shore Evacuation
> exercise to provide communications to the health department, hospital,
> community center and other sites around the county. Through the
> planning committee meetings and exercises, our RACES group has a good
> working relationship with the health department, hospital, law
> enforcement and many county agencies.
>
> The other RACES Officers (ROs) that attend the MRIC meetings do not
> know about all my experience, because it does not matter at MRIC. If I
> had such an ego I would have shared this information a long time ago.
> What is important, is that we debate the technical pros and cons of
> different technical interoperability solutions, and that the best
> solution is selected, regardless of how much experience the RO has
> that originated the proposal. It is also important that we build
> consensus so that the committee’s recommendations are voluntarily
> adopted and implemented by all jurisdictions so that we can all
> communicate during an emergency. In the very first MRIC meeting, I
> proposed a method of fairly dividing VHF frequencies among the
> jurisdictions, that was voted down in favor of coordinating existing
> frequencies using a list. In the November2007 meeting, my first choice
> for a data network was D-STAR but that was quickly discounted for good
> reasons given by others. It is not important that my ideas get adopted
> at MRIC, or your ideas, or someone else’s ideas, but that we build
> consensus on what the group thinks is the best solution. And that
> everyone buy in to the recommendation. Otherwise, we cannot
> communicate. Consensus is built by sitting across the table from each
> other and engaging in discussion and debate in an organic fashion to
> address all technical objections until the outcome is unanimous. This
> usually can’t be done via email, or by giving your vote to another
> jurisdiction prior to the meeting. If I asked someone a year ago
> whether or not they thought it was possible for a committee of RACES
> Officers to agree on:
> 1) Coordinating frequencies state-wide;
> 2) Agreeing to use ICS-213 message forms instead of Radiograms;
> 3) Establishing an HF Voice Net;
> 4) Establish a state-wide data net and agree on one mode;
>
> I do not think anyone would have thought all that would be
> accomplished in a single year after meeting for just 16 hours. And yet
> we did accomplish all that. It is a credit to the spirit of
> cooperation that exists in the ROs that attend MRIC. It is unfortunate
> that you cannot accept MRICs decisions, and try to get your way by
> manipulating procedures.
>
> The problem we now have at MRIC, is not related to quorum, attendance,
> proxy voting, or any other procedural issue. This is proven by the
> tremendous amount of work we accomplished at the two preceding MRIC
> meetings where the Maryland RACES HF Voice Net was unanimously
> approved, and the Maryland RACES Data Net (MRDN) using Winlink was
> unanimously approved. In fact, one of the best meetings I have ever
> attended in my life, was the November 2007 MRIC meeting where we
> debated all the different data modes, NVIS, etc, which is saying a lot
> considering I have attended many national and international
> telecommunications standards meetings. We didn’t have a single debate
> on procedural issues, because we all acted like adults trying to reach
> unanimous consensus, so it wasn’t necessary.
>
> In my view, the problem we have at MRIC is with you and Joe
> Krysztoforski disrupting our meetings. This time last year, the MRIC
> members agreed to discuss data modes at the November 2007 meeting, and
> we listed all the modes (protocols) that should be discussed. You and
> Joe did not attend the November meeting, but the minutes of the
> meeting indicated Winlink2000 was going to be the most likely choice,
> and that it would be voted on at the January 2008 meeting. Everyone
> was encouraged to go back to their organizations, discuss it with
> their local RACES operators and Emergency Managers, and raise any
> concerns via the email reflector so they could be dealt with prior to
> the January meeting vote. You had 2 months to voice your opposition to
> Winlink before the vote, and you and Joe said nothing to me, or to the
> group. Also, neither of you attended the January meeting or send
> representatives from your organizations. Then, when Winlink was
> approved in January (as everyone expected), still we heard no
> opposition from you or Joe. The first opposition we heard from you
> since the debate began in November, was 6 months and 3 MRIC meetings
> later, just this past Saturday. At the MRIC meeting Saturday you
> raised several procedural issues you wanted to vote on, all of which
> were defeated. Why can’t you accept that? During the debate that
> lasted well over an hour, neither you nor Joe gave us one single
> technical reason why we should not have adopted Winlink. You also did
> not propose a single technical alternative. The only thing you
> accomplished was in disrupting the meeting, and preventing us from
> getting our work done.
>
> Now we have no guidance material for those ROs that were interested in
> seeking funding for Winlink this year. Having had to specify Winlink
> equipment for my grant application, I can tell you that it would have
> saved me dozens of hours of research if I had such guidance material
> available to me. Also, I know there is money available for hospitals
> to install Amateur Radio equipment, but now we have no guidance, so
> they may each end up with different equipment, or not the optimal
> equipment we would have wanted, or an incomplete list missing some
> interconnection cables, as often happens. Had we completed our work,
> we could have referred them to the EOC equipment list.
>
> Also, this summer we could have created training videos and
> configuration settings for those implementing Winlink, to walk the
> user through configuring the dozen or so radio settings including
> filter and options settings, to make it idiot proof. Now, if anyone
> does move forward this year, they will likely have different
> equipment, making support much more difficult, and remote
> troubleshooting the RF side impossible. During my installation, I
> encountered half a dozen RF problems, mostly wrong radio settings,
> that took me a long time to figure out. We could have eliminated this
> learning curve for others. And we eliminated the possibility of
> standardizing on a single configuration so that if we need to pull in
> volunteers from other jurisdictions, they would be able to operate the
> equipment.
>
> You and Joe Krysztoforski have severely affected our ability to move
> forward in a cohesive fashion with the MRDN Winlink deployment this
> year, and judging by comments to me from half-a-dozen attendees, you
> may have come close to killing MRIC altogether. I can’t believe anyone
> would want to attend another meeting like we had this past Saturday. I
> left my house at 7 AM and didn't get home until 8 PM, and there are
> others that have to drive further than I. It was 180 degrees opposite
> of the two preceding meetings where you and Joe where not there.
>
> We don’t need to change our procedures or get the Emergency Management
> Agency involved in changing our charter. What we need is to put an end
> to the destructive behavior from you and Joe Krysztoforski. I am done
> trying to accommodate you and Joe. I will not be responding to your
> email in the future. Please do not assume by my silence that I agree
> with you.
>
> Brett Hammond
> Chairman, MRIC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wb0egr <wb0egr at comcast.net>
> To: MRIC at mailman.qth.net
> Sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:33 pm
> Subject: Re: [MRIC] Minutes for 4-26-08
>
>
> Brett,
>
> The point is, just because you did not think it made sense to add
> information about other digital modes, does not mean you are correct.
> What some others consider to be important and relevant information
> about Winlink2000 that has not yet been voiced, was left out because
> you, not MRIC, chose to discount what I and the Baltimore County RO
> had to say about the matter. Just because a motion was passed at a
> previous meeting to accept this or that, does not automatically shut
> the door to additional discussion on it or alternatives at future
> meetings.
>
> Yes, you might disagree with me on this, and you might even say that I
> am trying to be argumentative or trying to derail the process (which I
> am not), but in reality all I, and for that matter the Baltimore
> County RO are trying to do is bring a reality check into play, be
> reasonable about what is and what is not affordable when it comes to
> spending money especially on high ticket items in these tight
> budgetary times, and keep MRIC from appearing to be just another group
> of "boys with toys" - especially expensive toys like Winlink2000, and
> to maintain our credibility.
>
> I personally have nothing against Winlink2000. However, my thirty-five
> plus years of experience in amateur radio public service
> communications in various parts of the United States has taught me to
> be fairly conservative and to only ask for well established
> technologies to be embraced by those we serve. Winlink2000 is, in my
> opinion, still in it's "toddler stage" of development, and until it
> reaches its maturity and becomes an affordable and bulletproof
> technology it should not become a recommended technology to the
> Emergency Managers Association for full deployment when there are
> other digital methods of demonstrated reliability that can be deployed
> with a significantly less expenditure of tight monies.
>
> You appear to believe that we should only present the good about a
> single technology to the Emergency Managers Association. I and others
> believe that we should present the good, and the not-so good and the
> bad information to the Emergency Managers Association by using full
> disclosure. Hence my insistence on Saturday that you capture not only
> my thoughts about the "in an ideal world" as you described it
> deployment of Winlink2000, but also others who expressed an opinion
> that did not agree with yours. Yes, we could have given you a pie in
> the sky ideal concept for deployment of Winlink2000 in our
> jurisdictions, but to us that would have been unrealistic and
> demonstrated not only to the Emergency Managers Association, but to
> our Emergency Mangers as well, our irresponsibility on the matter
> because we know what is and is not realistic for RACES to ask for in
> terms of funding and that the return on the monies allocated for RACES
> capital purchases in our jurisdictions will be real from the get go.
>
> Yes, Winlink2000 can support the exchange of e-mail in the event of an
> internet outage in Maryland. However, Winlink2000 is still plagued by
> many bugs and e-mail is not always delivered in a timely manner
> according to the postings I have seen and continue to see in various
> Yahoo Groups for users and supporters of Winlink2000. Winlink2000 has
> the potential, I repeat, the potential to be of major benefit to our
> served clients and Emergency Management Jurisdictions WHEN it has
> matured and become as reliable as other methods of data exchange. Yes,
> I know that boaters have been using a commercial version of
> Winlink2000 for several years now, but that is really their only
> affordable option at the moment to stay connected via e-mail. It is
> NOT our only option for ensuring inter-jurisdictional communications
> and data exchange in times of communication crisis. Hence, we should
> not put "all of our apples into one basket" by solely recommending
> Winlink2000 and ignoring all other digital methods.
>
> As a final thought in this, please do not think that I am trying to
> challenge you or your intent. I do believe that your intent is
> correct. However, as the old saying goes, "there is more than one way
> to skin a cat" applies to MRIC also. Just because you are the Chairman
> does not mean that you are the head of MRIC nor does it mean that you
> get to decide which way MRIC will go while you are Chairman. If you do
> believe that, then you will be quite disappointed and perhaps even
> disillusioned with amateur radio public service communications. As I
> have said many, many times before, when someone comes into this arena,
> they need to check their ego at the door otherwise there will be an
> awful lot of hurt feelings because they will wind up taking comments
> and challenges to issues personally, when the ones making the comments
> and challenges are not doing so personally.
>
> 73,
> Pat Scolla, wb0egr
> Harford County EC & RO
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> This email list is for the use of RACES Officers and Emergency
> Managers. Only email related to the Maryland RACES Interoperability
> Committee (MRIC) of the Maryland Emergency Management Association
> should be sent to this email reflector list. All emails must be in
> plain text format (no HTML).
> MRIC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmmain.htm
> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>
>
More information about the MRIC
mailing list