[SECC] Proposed New Center for Circle

[John T. Laney III]

Bill Coleman wrote:

>On Jun 8, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Lee Hiers wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Yes it is, but doesn't it require a minimum participation in the form
>>of score submission for SECC in a year?  The point of my original
>>question was if all our AL members are now submitting scores for the
>>ACG, there would be less reason to not move the circle.
>>    
>>
>
>Two points here.
>
>1) The bylaws are clear that to be a member in good standing you must  
>make two submissions crediting the SECC each year. This has been  
>interpreted very broadly. First, it doesn't just include ARRL  
>contests, but also CQ contests, and other competitive events, such as  
>NAQP or Sprint teams also qualify. (Even members far outside the ARRL  
>circle can join an NAQP or Sprint team -- and there are six NAQP and  
>six Sprint events each year (CW, Phone, RTTY) so there should be  
>ample opportunity) Second, although the bylaw exists -- it is  
>difficult to enforce. We've never actually taken any sort of  
>membership action based on non-participation with the SECC. Part of  
>this is because the bylaw is difficult to police. For ARRL contests,  
>grabbing the web results is pretty easy. But what of the other  
>events? It's a lot more work to correlate down to who participated  
>and who didn't.
>
>2) The accusation has been leveled several times that the AL members  
>have abandoned the SECC for the ACG. I don't see how anyone can know  
>this. First, the ACG has only been accredited by the ARRL since  
>January -- so there's only a handful of ARRL contests an AL member  
>could have submitted for the ACG instead of the SECC. Further, most  
>of these ARRL contest events since January have not had their results  
>posted. (For the RTTY roundup, there are no AL scores for the SECC.  
>In fact, the ACG scored higher than the SECC. For the January VHF  
>sweepstakes, the ACG did not participate, and the SECC only had one  
>member (K4BAI) submit scores)
>
>Second, not all contests are ARRL events, so the ARRL circle is  
>somewhat academic.
>
>Third, the year is not yet over. Who knows, our AL members may decide  
>to submit scores for the SECC.
>
>Finally -- if our goal is to increase the SECC participation from our  
>AL contingent -- I would suggest that our first step would be to  
>encourage them, rather than alienate them by making accusations.
>
>--
>
>Frankly, I don't see the issue. The purpose of the SECC is to  
>encourage contest participation. If the AL members have formed a new  
>club and show greater cohesiveness as a group than the SECC (as  
>demonstrated in the RTTY Roundup) then more power to them. Perhaps  
>the SECC can learn a lesson in building a stronger contest club -- it  
>ain't about the "circle", guys, it's about the people.
>
>Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
>Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>_______________________________________________
>SECC mailing list
>SECC at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/secc
>
>
>  
>

Although the ACG was only accepted by ARRL in January, the results for 
the ARRL 10M contest show a club score for ACG not far behind SECC.  So, 
it appears that the accreditation for ACG was retroactive to December 
2006.  73, John, K4BAI.