"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18 outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote in
a way that represents their constituents.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

Hmmmmmm.....Sound's like a former eleceted official's "Silent Majority"
ploy, Hans...

Your suggestion of what "leadership" is is an open invitation to do what
"he" wants as opposed to what THEY want!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/24/2004 11:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I particularly appreciate you comment in light of the fact that I know you
don't agree with me (or NCI) on some of the issues.

If that is how it is, The officials should be hired as employees, and
vetted for compliance and obedience. Why elect anyone. Simply poll the
constituants, and do exactly what the majority asks.

I see your point, Mike, however in 85% of the cases the elected
representitives are supposed to be doing JUST that..."representing".

Yes, I know there are those times when they must act without taking the
time to get the "pulse" of what thier constituents want...Like responding to an
attack. In those cases I EXPECT them to not wait around. Otherwise, there's
very little reason for them to NOT be able to take SOME time to work with the
constituency.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.

But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element 1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

(In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)

You mean like when they opposed setting aside 300 kHz of 2 meters for modes
with bandwidth of less than 3 kHz?

But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.

Considering how ARRL has been criticized for doing just that....

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".

Of course.

Now imagine that someone polled all US hams about whether or not Element 1
would remain for an HF amateur license. And imagine that the answer was a
resounding "YES!".

Would that result be used by NCI?

In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!

Exactly.

And recall that I was admonished here for discussing certain subjects. Now a
variation on those subjects/discussions has become an RM - and NCI *supports*
it!

Surreal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment
and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Note, however, that a
properly passed constitutional amendment is, by its own existence,
constitutional.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement
on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views
to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

And, like Carl, I 'personally' filed comments supporting the ARRL
petition except for code testing. I supported NCVEC where it
is the same as ARRL, where it ends all code testing...but I
opposed NCVEC on the other points. Cleraly I differ with the
NCI membership on several points as does Carl...and have made
my own comment filing on both petitions.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

No pass at all. Just agreement to disagree on a point. That
goes on everywhere in government, organizations, clubs, etc.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

And we have never encountered such a need in NCI.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said
in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18
outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests
those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice
of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote
in
a way that represents their constituents.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?


Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

(shudder)


Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.


And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.


[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.


If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.


There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.


So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If you want to know the details, I was darn near lynched by 4 entire
teams parents after a controversial decision by the Board of Directors.
This was just about half the entire league and 100 percent of the
affected teams. They were going to walk, and that would have wrecked the
league. And it was no idle threat. The BOD decision had eliminated half
the games they would play, and no reduction of fees.

Quick! What would you do? Do you wreck your league by sticking to the
BOD decision, or do you defy it and not lose almost half your teams,
which in this case was effectively all the teams, due to league play
regulations. My decision was to reverse the BOD's decision, get the
parents back in the fold, and quite possibly sacrifice myself in the
process.

I can assure you that the situation was neither cute, nor charming. At
the time, I was thankful for my formidable physical presence!

It could even be argued that I was listening to my constituents. Even
though it was less than half the league, it was 100 percent of the
people affected by the decision. But now, who's the majority in that case?


If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ...

I did. I was willing to accept that.


and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

A soon as the rest of the BOD saw what happened, they realized their
mistake. Most were in fact grateful that I saved their collective kiesters.

So while people can pontificate on constituents and majorities and
"What You Have To Do", my experience shows that it *isn't that simple*.
Hopefully you won't find yourself in a similar situation. You might find
it easier to hide behind the "decision". At least that way you can say
"It wasn't my fault".



But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/24/04 9:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: . net


"Mike Coslo" wrote


| It seems to me that NCI could easily have stuck to their initial
| premise of only wanting to get rid of Element one and go from
| there. But they are not. Must be disappointing for you.

I don't have a problem with the NCI leadership (actually, let me make
that Leadership) taking a stand on any issue they wish. Hey, it's a
free country.


But when an organization that says it exists *only* to eliminate Element 1 gets
involved in areas that have nothing to do with code testing, and uses the
"membership wants it" claim, some of us take exception. Particularly when the
number of US hams who are current NCI members is not public knowledge.

And that has really been my bone with the whole process here, Jim.
We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing. Now it has
branched out to a free upgrade to most hams. We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams" and now they are here supporting a reduction in the written
exams. And sorry folks, that "one time adjustment" is spin-us maximus.


All this makes for a marked lack of credibility.


(In fact, I was confident that Carl (and a few other
Leaders in several organizations including NCI) were forward looking
enough to vigorously OPPOSE actions which tended to dilute the technical
base of our hobby.)


You mean like when they opposed setting aside 300 kHz of 2 meters for modes
with bandwidth of less than 3 kHz?


But I have a real problem when the Leaders run a beauty-contest poll
instead of making responsible decisions based on what's best for the
Amateur Radio Service.


Considering how ARRL has been criticized for doing just that....

Asking the NCI membership, overwhelmingly Technicians, whether upgrading
Technicians to General without testing is a good idea is pretty much
akin to asking the cannibals of ZL whether the Christians should send
more well-fattened missionaries. The answer is a foregone conclusion!
Now they hide behind that "mandate" rather than taking a responsible
stand against the "Great ARRL Giveaway".


Of course.

Now imagine that someone polled all US hams about whether or not Element 1
would remain for an HF amateur license. And imagine that the answer was a
resounding "YES!".

Would that result be used by NCI?



In addition to this ill-conceived notion of free upgrades, we have
looming another proposal for what amounts to an "Applicance Class"
license. NCI has polled it's members on that gem also, and heaven help
us if I'm again a "stark minority" in opposition!


Exactly.

And recall that I was admonished here for discussing certain subjects. Now a
variation on those subjects/discussions has become an RM - and NCI *supports*
it!


That is because you were tipping their hand Jim!


Surreal.

How about this:

Certain people want to get rid of code testing so badly that they are
willing to do whatever necessary to do this.

Their constituency is largely in the group that will be positively
affected in the free upgrade, or "one time adjustment" if you prefer the
spun version.

Say anything do anything in support of your goal. Truth is so
subjective anyhow.


And now it isn't so surreal, is it?

- Mike KB3EIA -

But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

And you think this is sometthing NEW for NCI? Whats even funnier is that some
NCI Members are starting to cry about things that are happening. NCI MEMBERS
stop your BITCHING AND WHINNING, you got what you wanted, more DUMBING DOWN.

We're told that they are only here to eliminate Code testing.

And you actually Believed KARL and the other Knuckle Draggers?

We are toled that on a
personal level, that "I'll" never support a reduction in the written
exams"

I cant believe you guys bought that line of BS.

All this makes for a marked lack of credibility.


There was never any credibility

Their constituency is largely in the group that will be positively
affected in the free upgrade, or "one time adjustment" if you prefer the
spun version.

This has been there main goal all along. Hell most of them cant PASS the
written, let alone CW.
The next move is the good one, if they get there FREE HANDOUTS. Then there is
no reason for a GROUP not to pettion the FCC on behalf of the General
population, and DEMAND that all TESTS be reduced to the LEVEL of the NO-CODE.
If the No-Code Testing is good enough for the present then there is no reason
it shouldnt be good enough for the future. And I will bet you the FCC will go
along with it.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


KØHB wrote:



"Bill Sohl" wrote

|
| You are ONE member. You did take the survey I presume?
|

Indeed I did. And now I'm exercising my perogative to being the

squeaky

wheel. Ain't democracy a damned fine thing!


Just so that you don't mind being a very small minority.

And remember, NCI isn't anywhere close to a Democracy


Mike,

I respectfully disagree with your assertion ... the whole reason NCI
surveyed US members on the issues involved in the ARRL and NCVEC

petitions

was so that we would know their wishes and act in a representative

manner.

And I respectfully thought that NCI was solely against the Element 1
test.


NCI's *primary* goal is the elimination of Morse testing.

However, the NCI Bylaws, as Rick, W7RT, pointed out, contemplate and allow
for NCI to comment from time to time on issues that would have an effect on
at least a significant part of the membership.

Since the ARRL petition would have an effect on the structure of amateur
classes and privileges (both code-related and not) that will likely last for
at least a decade (we don't envision the FCC considering major changes for
about that long after a major restructuring), the Board felt it necessary to
ask the membership for their views.

First we asked, "Should NCI comment on the issues in the ARRL petition other
than the code test issue?"
Then, we asked for comment on the other issues point by point.


But now NCI is coming out in favor of giving most hams priveleges
that they haven't been tested for.


As outlined by the ARRL, a "one time adjustment" seems the only practical
way to clean up the overly complicated license structure that had evolved
over the years.

And, as a number of experienced, yet realistic, hams have pointed out, the
amount and level of material in the 200-ish page "Now you're talking!" study
guide (and on the Tech test) is not all that different from the old General
that I took at the FCC's old Long Beach, CA office over 25 years ago.

The fact is that many people mis-remember the tests they took many years ago
as being harder than they really were ... I guess that's human nature ...
after you get used to something it seems easier (and correspondingly the
beginning stages are remembered as harder).

I took the modern tests, from Technician to Extra.

Technician October 1999
General June 2001
Extra Feb 2002

All were at just about the correct level for the privileges conferred,
IMO. I don't think the Technician test is proper preparation for the
General class license.



And there is still that nasty "day after" thing, when th eetsting
regimin goes up again...... or does it?


The testing regieme doesn't *have* to "go up again" ... NOBODY has proposed
that the testing regieme be changed ... only that, in the interest of
"nobody loses privileges" (which was a DISASTER in the past), that there be
a one-time "adjustment" to make everyone fit the new structure without
losing ...

But there is the problem. You either choose to believe (or simply don't
care) that the person that takes and passes a Technician test one day
before "the adjustment" is not treated differently by the testing
process than the person that takes the general test the day after "the
adjustment".

While people are grousing about how HARD those tests are, I look at it
as giving a royal shaft to the technicians upgraded in this proposal.

It makes for a little awkwardness at the Extra level afterwards, as
they will not have taken a General element test.

I know that it's all about getting maximum benefits for minimum input
these days, but if a prospective ham asked me, I would suggest that they
wait until after "the one time adjustment" to get their license, unless
they wanted to go through the ranks quickly and get at least General
before the "one time adjustment. Learning and testing is not a bad
thing, IMO.

- Mike KB3EIA -