[CQ-Contest] Re: K3NM/LU9AY 40M SSB FCC Fiasco

[Pete Smith]

At 06:33 PM 10/10/01 -0400, Barry N1EU wrote:
>
>Just a quick additional comment:  I think the least that the ARRL owes those 
>named in such reports, is the opportunity to provide a short (paragraph) 
>rebuttal that would be published alongside.  Due process would then be 
>served to some degree, and the league membership would be served.

I agree that the current practice turns an accusation into the equivalent
of a conviction, and needs to be changed.  

However, I think that the ARRL is doing a useful thing by publishing these
"please explain yourself" letters, to the extent that they signal what
kinds of conduct the FCC is focusing on as enforcement targets.  By so
doing, the ARRL may help change behavior before people get their very own
letters from Riley.

For the ARRL to solicit rebuttals from those queried would be pretty
fraught -- inserting itself in the middle of a pending official inquiry,
deciding how much of a 4-page rebuttal to publish, etc.  But by publishing
the inquiries, the ARRL does incur an obligation to follow up and clear
those who are not found to have done anything wrong.

Seems to me the fix would be fairly simple:

1.  Set the inquiry letters apart from those that involve quasi-judicial
decisions ("you are hereby suspended from HF privileges for two years"),
and preface that section with words like "Publication of these letters is
intended to indicate current areas of FCC enforcement activity, and does
not imply that either the FCC or ARRL has concluded that a violation of law
or regulations occurred.  If and when an inquiry is closed, particularly
when an amateur is exonerated, note of that fact will appear on this page."

2.  Be sure to follow up, and clear people's names, or not, as the FCC
determines. 

73, Pete N4ZR






--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com