NEWINGTON, CT, Sep 2, 2005--The Corporation for National and Community
Service (CNCS) will provide a $100,000 grant supplement to ARRL to
support Amateur Radio's emergency communication operators in states
affected by Hurricane Katrina. The grant will help to fund "Ham Aid," a
new League program to support Amateur Radio volunteers deployed in the
field in disaster-stricken areas. ARRL Chief Development Officer Mary
Hobart, K1MMH, expressed gratitude to CNCS for its generous response.
Ham Aid, she said, offers a unique opportunity to support individual
radio amateurs helping to bridge the communication gap Hurricane
Katrina has caused.

"For the first time in ARRL history, we will be able to reimburse some
of the expenses that hams incur in response to a disaster," she said.
"We only wish that we could justify an expense reimbursement program
like this every time Amateur Radio Emergency Service volunteers are
called upon to help in a disaster or emergency, sometimes placing
themselves in harm's way."

In addition to providing emergency communication within and outside the
affected areas, Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) members and
individual radio amateurs are supplementing the communication needs of
emergency management and relief agencies, including the American Red
Cross and The Salvation Army. Hobart said it's only due to the scope of
the unprecedented and tragic Katrina disaster that CNCS agreed to help
support dedicated Amateur Radio volunteers.

"But," she added, "we'd like to think of this grant as a token of
appreciation and a recognition of Amateur Radio's value in past
emergencies and disasters, such as 9/11."

Hobart says ARRL's Ham Aid program already has received some
substantial private donations. Those and the CNCS grant, she said,
provide a way for the League to "support our Field Organization as
never before."

The CNCS Ham Aid grant is effective for operations established and
documented as of September 1, 2005, and the aid is earmarked for
Hurricane Katrina deployments only at this point. Guidelines are being
established that will permit volunteers who have been involved in bona
fide field support operations on or after September 1 to provide
communication support to apply for a reimbursement voucher on a per
diem basis.

Trained Amateur Radio operators will be on site for the duration of
this disaster response, which could run into several weeks or months.
"Many will leave their jobs and families and travel on their own
expense, using their own equipment," Hobart points out.

Corporation funds may also sustain the Ham Aid program and help to
rebuild the emergency communications capabilities in Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama to ensure that the Gulf Coast is prepared,
should disaster strike again.

The CNCS grant is an extension of ARRL's three year Homeland Security
training grant, which has provided certification in emergency
communication protocols to nearly 5500 Amateur Radio volunteer over the
past three years.

"CNCS grants helped make it possible for the ARRL to train America's
hams and make them the best all-volunteer emergency radio service ever
seen," Hobart said. "Now they are making it possible for the hams to
use that training."

"N9OGL" wrote


"For the first time in ARRL history, we will be able to reimburse some
of the expenses that hams incur in response to a disaster," she said.
"We only wish that we could justify an expense reimbursement program
like this every time Amateur Radio Emergency Service volunteers are
called upon to help in a disaster or emergency, sometimes placing
themselves in harm's way."


I think the $100,000 grant should be redirected to victim needs. I'm sure it's
strictly legal, but I'd personally not be comfortable accepting reimbursement
for volunteer activities of this nature, even if the funds came from private
donations or ARRL reserves and not from tax dollars.

K0CKB and I have assembled a capable portable station, and we can provide our
own living facilities and power (RV & generator) in case our help is needed. We
might add additional diesel fuel capacity to increase our range, but certainly
would not expect the government/ARRL to cover that expense.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter

"an_old_friend" wrote

I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams.

That's true. But in this case there is no compensation for operation; rather
expense reimbursement(food?/transportation?/lodging?). This would be similar to
being given a plane ticket, food and lodging vouchers, and sent to provide your
volunteer services, without any compensation for those services.

That distinction covers the legalities which I'm sure both CNCS and ARRL lawyers
have examined. All that said, at a more basic personal level I'd be
uncomfortable taking this reimbursement, preferring to just let the expenses be
part of my (tax deductible) contribution to the recovery effort.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote

I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams.

That's true. But in this case there is no compensation for operation; ra=
ther
expense reimbursement(food?/transportation?/lodging?). This would be sim=
ilar to
being given a plane ticket, food and lodging vouchers, and sent to provid=
e your
volunteer services, without any compensation for those services.

That distinction covers the legalities which I'm sure both CNCS and ARRL =
lawyers
have examined. All that said, at a more basic personal level I'd be
uncomfortable taking this reimbursement, preferring to just let the expen=
ses be
part of my (tax deductible) contribution to the recovery effort.

I am sure the Lawyers have looked at it. I also know that you can
normaly find support for about anything in the body of legal precedent.


But like Todd I find it troubleing when laid next to K1MAN
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

- Mike KB3EIA -

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that way.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that way.

Those notes are from the ARRL who have boasted they take a more liberal
view than the FCC

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

AOF:

Did I understand Dee's question correctly? Isn't what she asked, and I
paraphrase here, "Where are your rose colored glasses?"

John

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:02:11 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

- Mike KB3EIA -