[MRIC] Secretary, Equipment List and Problems at MRIC

[Dan Blasberg]

Brett,

The appendix is guidance and as such should not have specific  
equipment in it.

However, I see no reason why and addendum can't be added with a list  
of recommended equipment.

I believe Pat Scolla was going to collect a list of what equipment was  
bring used by various jurisdictions for airmail and other digital  
modes.  Has everyone sent Pat that information?  The list that Pat has  
been trying to compile would a good starting point for and addendum if  
not an actual listing for the addendum.

Just my .02 on the equipment list issue.


Dan Blasberg
KA8YPY
Prince George's County RACES RO
Prince George's County ARES EC

On Jan 5, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Brett Hammond wrote:

> 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
>