To Those Who Are mis-Informed about the role of the CAC:
The ARRL CAC does not make the rules for ARRL Contests. Rules or
changes are proposed by those on the Membership Services Committee to
the ARRL Board of Directors, who approve/disapprove of the proposal.
The members of the CAC ***advise*** their corresponding director in the
making of those decisions.The VUAC had the same type of role.
I am on the CAC so I know whereof I speak. Back in 2011 when the VUAC
was being formed, our Great Lakes Division Director asked me for a
recommendation for our division's rep on the VUAC. I recommended Mark,
K8MD (unfortunately a recent Silent Key) a very active VHF operator and
HF/VHF contester. I don't think anybody could doubt his qualifications.
I find the disparaging remarks about the CAC and VUAC insulting. My
experience has been that the ARRL leadership makes a very genuine effort
to include different points of view in the decision making process.
Dave Pruett/K8CC
Great Lakes Division Contest ***Advisory*** Committee Representative
On 6/17/2013 10:51 PM, Marshall-K5QE wrote:
Jay-W9RM has posted....
ASSISTANCE: I am a supporter of the CQ WW VHF rules and would like to
see them implemented in all ARRL VHF contests.
LEGISLATIVE: I am in favor of a ARRL committee (appointed or elected)
dedicated to VHF operations and contests WITH THE POWER to amend and
enforce rules changes independently of the ARRL CAC.
Jay W9RM
I especially like these two posts. The ASSISTANCE post has been made
by me and others. It is a sound idea and should be pursued.
The LEGISLATIVE post is also a very good idea. The VUAC _could_ have
worked, but in practice it did not. Many of the guys on the VUAC were
not really active VHF operators, never mind active VHF contest
operators.....they did not have any idea of what is really happening
in the VHF world. Some were there to protect a specific constituency
in the NE. Some were just there....
To be sure, there were some VUAC members that tried very hard to
improve the VHF+ contesting rules. However, they were hammered by
those that want no changes. Pure Protectionism, as Les said. The
VUAC was subordinate to the PSC(Programs and Services Committee) not
to the CAC(Contest Advisory Committee). The VUAC could not DO
ANYTHING.....except make recommendations to the PSC. Sometimes the
PSC just ignored those recommendations. GENIUS!!! Set up a Committee
of supposedly top VHF ops and then ignore their recommendations. OF
course, when a really, really BAD recommendation was made, it sailed
right through.
The current VUAC members were appointed, so it would be easy to find
fault with appointments. However, I believe elections would result in
an even worse committee. IF we elected our VUAC members, we would
surely get some good ones.....and some hopeless Bubbas from the local
FM club who were more popular than the serious VHF ops in their
Division. I believe that appointment is still the best way, but, we
need to try to get "real" VHFers appointed.
Whatever we do with the VUAC or some successor committee, it MUST NOT
OPERATE IN SECRET as the current committee has. In the early days,
Jim Aguirre-W7DHC in the Pacific Northwest was pretty open about what
was going on and often asked the opinion of the VHF ops in his area.
I praised him for that. Recently, Steve-N2CEI has also been very
forthright about the issues the VUAC was considering and also sought
out the opinions of those in the SE US.
The Directors and Vice-Directors are the key. That is where we need
to start....after we figure out EXACTLY what we want.
Comments??
73 Marshall K5QE
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|