[QCWA] Election

[Jim Wilhite]

John it is commendable you take a stand and pursue the goal you have 
outlined.  However, I don't feel you should shoulder the responsibility 
completely.  The External Relations Standing Committee has too much on its 
agenda considering the number of interfaces it has, in my estimation.  Some 
of the duties could be moved either to a sub-committee or another committee 
to provide more diligence, for instance legal matters and operator 
qualification liaison.  I see two maybe three distinct committees, one for 
legal matters and one for public relations, such as ARRL interface, 
Scholarship Program Oversight and the third for correspondents and public 
relations.

I do not travel as much as many of the directors, but at each hamfest I 
promote membership and have been one of the founding members of two 
chapters.  With a bit more broad base of public relations and high profile 
filings by the QCWA, I feel our membership would rise.

Given the funding of the FCC and other issues they face, it might be a good 
time to suggest we adopt a quasi-governmental group to oversee Amateur 
Radio.  The group would be a broad based from all interests of Amateur Radio 
who would, in effect, govern the Service.  Riley Hollinsworth and another 
representative of the FCC plus, maybe, 5 civilian members would determine 
the need for rules or changes of the present regulations then write them for 
action by the FCC and oversee enforcement actions to be referred to the FCC 
for legal action making us a truly self-governing body.

QCWA could play a prominent role in the formation of such a group, and as a 
result, would benefit in a membership rise.  I feel the Vanity Call Sign 
program could use a bit of tweaking to prevent abuse of the system, which 
appears that some individuals are buying preferred calls.  Following the 
initial 10 year period the vanity fee could be dropped and the individual 
moved into the database no longer requiring a fee.  These are issues that 
could be addressed by QCWA that would present a positive light on our 
organization.

We are indeed fortunate to have members from such a diversified background 
who can explain the rules and regulations to others.  However it is a 
burden, that I feel, should be shared.  Thank you for your thoughts.

73  Jim
W5JO


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <johnston.john1 at att.net>
To: "Discussion of QCWA" <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [QCWA] Election


> Thanks, Jim:  The QCWA Committee with the duties of regulatory monitoring; 
> liaison with ARRL, RAC, etc; Scholarship Program Oversite; operator 
> qualification liaison; and correspondents oversite is our External 
> Relations Standing Committee.
>
> As my "From the President" columns in our QCWA JOURNAL have discussed, 
> "Flying our QCWA Banner" at local hamfests is a great way to explain to 
> prospective members just what our QCWA has to offer.  It is also a great 
> way to find out what is on our Members' minds.  I've put in 12 days so far 
> this year doing such in Florida, Virginia and Maryland.  Next weekend, it 
> is the Dayton Hamvention (my 50th annual visit!).  Then it will be 
> practically every weekend through the summer months.
>
> BTW:  On my own, I am urging support for RM-11325, a petition to remove 
> the SS "How-to" rule at Section 97.311(d); "The transmitter power must not 
> exceed 100 W under any circumstances. If more than 1 W is used, automatic 
> transmitter control shall limit output power to that which is required for 
> the communication. This shall be determined by the use of the ratio, 
> measured at the receiver, of the received energy per user data bit (Eb) to 
> the sum of the received power spectral densities of noise (N0) and 
> co-channel interference (I0). Average transmitter power over 1 W shall be 
> automatically adjusted to maintain an Eb/ (N0 + I0) ratio of no more than 
> 23 dB at the intended receiver."
>
> My comment filing held that this rule is unnecessary in light of Section 
> 97.313(a); "An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power 
> necessary to carry out the desired communications."  As I have written, I 
> am a strong advocate of stamping out "How-to-ism" in our rules.
>
> Here's a "Heads up!" that I came across just this week:  The Government 
> Printing Office has a Beta Test Site for its new Electronic Code of 
> Federal Regulations e-CRF.  Unlike the site we have been using, which is 
> updated only one per year, this one is current as of May 10, 2006, and it 
> looks like it will be kept current.  That is great news to me.  It will be 
> a big help in writing my columns "The Rules Say...". BTW, there have been 
> over 90 of these published over the past 6 years.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> 73
> W3BE
>
> 73
> W3BE