[VHFcontesting] The VHF rules....what do we want??

[David Pruett]

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 at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>