[MRIC] Secretary, Equipment List and Problems at MRIC

[Brett Hammond]

Dan,

We will only be electing a Chairman at our next MRIC meeting on Saturday. If 
the new Chairman wants a Secretary, that will be up to him and the group. 
Someone suggested we elect a Secretary at our first meeting, and we elected 
David Prestel. I gave all my meeting notes and vote tallies to Dave so he 
could prepare minutes of our first meeting, and he never did. So now we have 
no minutes or notes of our first meeting. So for subsequent meetings, I 
prepared the minutes myself. This has worked out very well with few, if any, 
corrections to the minutes, and I usually get the minutes out to everyone 
the day after our meeting. During the first election that took place at the 
end of our first year, we discussed electing another Secretary, and I 
thought we were doing just fine without one so the group agreed we didn't 
need one. No one expressed any concern at the time. If the group thinks the 
Chairman should have an Assistant or group of Assistants (executive 
committee), that is fine with me, I would welcome the help to offload all 
that I do for MRIC, but it should be someone chosen by the Chairman so that 
the two are not contentous.

The document was not presented to the Association because, to my knowledge, 
they have not had a meeting since it was approved. I asked several times and 
was told a date was not set for their next meeting. If they had one, I was 
not aware of it. However, they do usually meet in late January in western 
Maryland.

I am not going to speak for other RACES Officers, but many expressed concern 
to me that we no longer have a list of suggested equipment that can be used 
to implement our interoperability recommendations. In fact, some of those 
that voted to remove the list of equipment from the document, were under the 
impression the information would be located in another document. Also, the 
Maryland Hospital Association has requested a list from me. I can either 
provide my own list to them to use statewide, or we can put our heads 
together and come up with a list we can all live with. Also, I spoke to 
several members of our EM Association steering committee and they think 
producing a recommended list of equipment would be useful and something 
worth us spending time on, even if it included equipment only available from 
a single vendor.

I would rather have this debate in person, but since you brought it up, 
there is a bigger issue than the equipment list that concerns me greatly. 
There is a small minority of RACES Officers, usually led by Pat, that use 
debate over procedural rules to try to get their way. We debated the issue 
of whether or not MRIC should recommend specific equipment at least 3 times 
over the past 18 months, and was always agreed we should do it for the 
following reasons:

1. It is of great assistance to those that want to purchase equipment to 
equip their EOC to meet our interoperability recommendations. It saves a lot 
of time researching, especially Winlink equipment.

2. We can incorporate lessons learned to save our fellow RACES Officers a 
lot of heartache finding out that something they purchased will not work in 
its intended application.

3. This equipment list is non-binding, but if a jurisdiction chooses to use 
it, MRIC can create a set of configuration files and training videos that we 
can all use for training and implementation. The task is greatly complicated 
and not worth doing if there is a wide variety of equipment deployed. This 
is especially useful for Winlink saving many, many hours of troubleshooting 
a bad configuration setting. We can basically make it idiotproof to set up 
and operate a Winlink station if we know what equipment be used.

4. If many jurisdictions choose to use the recommended equipment, then when 
volunteers come in from another jurisdiction during an emergency, chances 
are they already familiar with, and know how to operate, your equipment.


So, after having debated this issue many times, and always had unanimous (or 
near unanimous) agreement, Pat tried once again to get the equipment list 
removed from our document at the last meeting. This time, due to low 
turnout, he had enough votes to do it. 6 people voted to undo the work 
approved unanimously at earlier meetings, and at least 2 of those 6 told me 
after the meeting that they were not aware the vote was to delete the list 
of equipment; which means 4 people (or less) imposed their will against the 
wishes over the remaining 17 that normally attend. That is not right, and 
should not stand.

You may recall, prior to the vote, I respectfully requested that we do as we 
have done for all our other interoperability votes, and delay the actual 
vote until the next meeting to give people a chance to think it over and a 
chance for those not in attendance to respond so we would not have to 
revisit this vote. My request was rejected and now we have to reopen the 
issue. I knew this was going to happen and tried my best to convince those 
at the last meeting.

I do not think the solution to this problem is more rules for our committee. 
It just gives those that want to manipulate the rules more ammunition to get 
us sidetracked. I think the solution is for those that disagree, that are 
clearly in the minority, to state their case, vote against it, and then stop 
trying to manipulate the meetings to get their way when it is clearly not 
the wishes of the majority. For those that continue to try to derail 
progress at MRIC, the other members should vote to cut them off and censure 
them, which will be reported in the minutes and to their Directors.

I am a big believer in consensus building. If memory serves me correctly, we 
have never cut off debate on any issue. Everyone gets a chance to say what 
they want, as long as they want. This has worked very well with all our 
interoperability recommendations resulting in unanimous agreement. This is 
remarkable for a statewide committee and something I am very proud of. It 
also means that it is much more likely that our interoperability 
recommendations are implemented, because everyone agreed to them. 
Unfortunately, some are taking advantage of this openness in our meetings by 
trying to force their will on others, and I will no long allow that to 
continue. We have accomplished a lot in 3 years (coordinated frequencies; 
contact info; message forms; statewide HF net; digital mode:Winlink email), 
but if a small minority is allowed to decide interoperability guidelines for 
the majority, I will resign as Chairman and will no longer attend MRIC. In 
order for MRIC to work, everyone needs to show up.

If you feel compelled to reply to this email, feel free; but I will not 
engage in a long email debate. We have been down that road before and it is 
fruitless. I think we should debate this at our meeting on Saturday with 
everyone present.

Brett Hammond
Chairman, MRIC



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Blasberg" <ka8ypy at verizon.net>
To: "Brett Hammond" <brett.hammond at missioncriticalengineering.com>
Cc: "MRIC" <MRIC at mailman.qth.net>; "Reggie A. Parks" <raparks at co.pg.md.us>
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MRIC] January 9, 2010 Meeting Reminder and Minutes


>
> On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Brett Hammond wrote:
> Brett,
>
>
>>
>> All Maryland RACES Officers,
>>
> (SNIP)
>
>> There is also overwhelming interest in revisiting the issue
>> debated at the last meeting regarding whether or not to create a 
>> recommended
>> equipment list. One way or another, we will put that issue to bed
>> permanently at this meeting.
>>
> Overwhelming interest by whom?  The appendix was voted on and approved  at 
> the last meeting, regardless of the number of attendance.  Per  Robert's 
> rules, once an item is voted on and closed it may not be  reopened.  A new 
> item would have to opened on the issue.
>
> I would like to know why the document has not been presented to the 
> Association as voted on and approved at the last meeting?  The 
> Association has had several meetings since our last meeting and they 
> should have had it in their hands for their approval.  Why hasn't this 
> happened?
>
> It would also seem that in addition to electing a Chair, we need to  elect 
> a Secretary (we started with one, why haven't we continued with  one?) as 
> well as perhaps add the position of Assistant Chair.
>
>
>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Interop Document:
>> Motion by Pat that MRIC not recommend specific equipment in guidance
>> materials. However equipment used by jurisdictions will be posted to  the
>> MRIC web site for reference. Seconded by Dave Prestel.
>>
>> Baltimore County - Yes
>> Cecil - No
>> Harford - Yes
>> Howard - Yes
>> Kent - No
>> Montgomery - Yes
>> Prince George's - Yes
>> Talbot -  No
>> Washington - Yes
>>
>> Motion passed 6 to 3.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Motion to "delete Appendix A as re-written without guidance on which
>> equipment meets these requirements" by Brett, seconded by Pat.
>>
>> Motion failed by voice vote.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Motion by Bob to accept the document as amended. Seconded by Dave.
>>
>> Baltimore County - Yes
>> Cecil - Yes
>> Harford - Yes
>> Howard - Yes
>> Kent - Yes
>> Montgomery - Yes
>> Prince George's - Yes
>> Talbot -  No
>> Washington - Yes
>>
>> The motion passed, 8 to 1.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Motion by Pat to submit to the Association for approval. Seconded by 
>> Joe.
>>
>> Baltimore County - Yes
>> Cecil - No
>> Harford - Yes
>> Howard - Yes
>> Kent - No
>> Montgomery - Yes
>> Prince George's - Yes
>> Talbot -  No
>> Washington - Yes
>>
>> Although it appeared this motion failed during the meeting by not 
>> getting a
>> 2/3 vote, while working on the minutes later I found that the vote 
>> actually
>> passed with 6 YES, 3 NO. I believe during the meeting one of the  votes 
>> may
>> have scrolled off the top of the window resulting in an inaccurate 
>> count.
>> Therefore, the interoperability document will be passed to the 
>> Association
>> for approval.
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dan Blasberg
> KA8YPY
> RACES Officer, Prince George's County
> ARES EC Prince George's County
>