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 -

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

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

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses

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

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

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

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

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

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

and I at least have never said there was intent. but wrong can be done
without intent but still the ARRL is flip floping on LONG held
postition without much explaination

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities and
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interest"?

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities and
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interest"?

Yes in the sense written in the rules. Now those rules ought to be
rewritten and so one but in real terms yes you according the
publications of the ARRL.

such a rule is stuppid will never be enforced but it a violation never
the less, just as if I drive 60 in 55 zone I'll likely not be stoped
and ticketed but I would still be breaking the law.

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:

Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities and
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interest"?


"an old friend" replied:

Yes

OK, folks, every one of you who accepted food or lodging in the course of
participating in an emergency communications incident is guilty of violating FCC
rules.

If the Red Cross or Salvation Army (btw, why is there no Salvation Navy)
provided you with some identification garment like a hat or t-shirt, you must
return the garment to the issuing agency. If you have lost or damaged the
garment you must reimburse the RC/SA for the fair market value of the garment.

You should file amended state and federal tax returns accounting for the value
of the freebie meals/lodging/refreshments/transportation which was provided to
you in the course of your volunteer assignment, with copies to all FCC
Commissioners who will review your fitness to continue to hold your Amateur
Radio license.

Or not.

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:

Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities a=
nd
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interes=
t"?


"an old friend" replied:

Yes

OK, folks, every one of you who accepted food or lodging in the course of
participating in an emergency communications incident is guilty of violat=
ing FCC
rules.

cut

glad to see you agree (at last I mention where I make my cuts Hans
quote
Yes in the sense written in the rules. Now those rules ought to be
rewritten and so one but in real terms yes you according the
publications of the ARRL.

such a rule is stuppid will never be enforced but it a violation never
the less, just as if I drive 60 in 55 zone I'll likely not be stoped
and ticketed but I would still be breaking the law.

unquote

It is still a violation even if no one will ever do anything about it

your efforts at bad jokes not withstanding



=20
Or not.
=20
73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" ) writes:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:

Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities and
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interest"?


"an old friend" replied:

Yes

OK, folks, every one of you who accepted food or lodging in the course of
participating in an emergency communications incident is guilty of violating FCC
rules.

If the Red Cross or Salvation Army (btw, why is there no Salvation Navy)
provided you with some identification garment like a hat or t-shirt, you must
return the garment to the issuing agency. If you have lost or damaged the
garment you must reimburse the RC/SA for the fair market value of the garment.

You should file amended state and federal tax returns accounting for the value
of the freebie meals/lodging/refreshments/transportation which was provided to
you in the course of your volunteer assignment, with copies to all FCC
Commissioners who will review your fitness to continue to hold your Amateur
Radio license.

Or not.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Of course, if you reverse the wording, it makes the thing all make more
sense.

You volunteer for something, but they insist you wear a tshirt and hat,
and you MUST pay for it.

They won't provide food, so you've got to pay for it, even though you will
be in a situation where you can't easily bring lunch from home, and don't
have a wide selection of choices.

Then they will bill you for lodging.

Michael VE2BVW

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to
agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses,
food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a
buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Years ago I participated in ham radio communications after a tornado
cleaned out about half of the southern part of Witchta Fall, Tx. The
kind folks of WF housed us in a church, provided sleeping facilities and
fed us. Anyone think that was violating the rule of "pecuniary interest"?
.................

Of course not. Besides, who but the most idiotic of Hams would accuse you of
same?
You were performing a public service.
I am assuming, of course, that your question was posted with a
tongue-in-cheek smile and with hopes to "bait" someone.

And by the way. Hotel/motel rooms, meals etc. aside, I wonder if some
nit-picker may not come along and posit that you should not have accepted
the free electricity to run your radios, either.