"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18 outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote in
a way that represents their constituents.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?

Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment
and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Note, however, that a
properly passed constitutional amendment is, by its own existence,
constitutional.

Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.

And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.

[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.

If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement
on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views
to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.

And, like Carl, I 'personally' filed comments supporting the ARRL
petition except for code testing. I supported NCVEC where it
is the same as ARRL, where it ends all code testing...but I
opposed NCVEC on the other points. Cleraly I differ with the
NCI membership on several points as does Carl...and have made
my own comment filing on both petitions.

There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.

So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

No pass at all. Just agreement to disagree on a point. That
goes on everywhere in government, organizations, clubs, etc.

If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ... and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

And we have never encountered such a need in NCI.

Of course it helped that in each case I was proven right in the end.
But sometimes you just HAVE to do what is right if you are going to be a
real leader. It is one hell of a lot harder than just "well this is what
the majority wanted". But oh man, it feels a lot better.

Again ... please note that NCI's comments report what the membership said
in
the survey (and that these are just initial comments on 4 of 18
outstanding
post-WRC-03 petitions - the "main event" will be when the FCC digests
those
18 petitions and all of the comments on them and comes out with a Notice
of
Proposed Rulemaking. I fully expect that NCI will use the services of the
survey service again to gather member input on the NPRM ...

Also ... I know that at least some of the ARRL Directors want to know what
the majority of their constituents feel on the issues ... and try to vote
in
a way that represents their constituents.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message


So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.


No pass at all. Just agreement to disagree on a point. That
goes on everywhere in government, organizations, clubs, etc.


Quick comment, Bill. In the context of what Carl and I were discussing,
they pretty much did give me a pass. I deliberately defied a board
decision (the background is in another post I just made) for the good of
the league, and our groups very existence. I fully expected to be
removed from my position.
But as I noted in the post, in the end, most were very grateful I did
what I did, as they concluded that thier ruling that I defied was likely
a fatal mistake.

- Mike KB3EIA

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There is a widespread and horrible misconception that it is ALL about
"the majority". I see it all the time. On many issues, a majority will
suffice. But there are some things that speak to something higher.

Can a majority in a democracy vote to dissolve the democracy?


Perhaps ... in the US system it would require a Constitutional amendment and
would probably end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

(shudder)


Many times the majority would vote to enact laws that are illegal or
unconstitutional.


And many times elected officials that "do their own thing" with little
regard for their constituent's views vote to enact laws that would trod on
the rights and/or sensibilities of their constitutents ... that's another
reason we have "checks and balances" like the Supreme Court.

NCI's Board of Directors are like the legislature in a way - elected
representatives - NOT the Supreme Court.


[snip] When I have been in a leadership
position, I have often polled the membership about their wishes. But it
was always with letting them know that their opinion was taken under
advisement.

Often we made our decisions with the desires of the majority as a
guide. However, there were a few occasions that we did not, and for good
reasons.


If it were morally wrong, or illegal, that's one thing ... but NCI's Board
of Directors debated the issues and, while there was not 100% agreeement on
our personal views we agreed that we should represent our members' views to
the FCC and that we could each file our personal comments to voice our
personal views.


There were even a couple times that I defied the board of
directors on a voted issue. Each time I offered my resignation as the
price of that defiance. Not once was it accepted, nor was my act of
defiance overruled.


So your colleagues on that board "gave you a pass" ... how cute.

If you want to know the details, I was darn near lynched by 4 entire
teams parents after a controversial decision by the Board of Directors.
This was just about half the entire league and 100 percent of the
affected teams. They were going to walk, and that would have wrecked the
league. And it was no idle threat. The BOD decision had eliminated half
the games they would play, and no reduction of fees.

Quick! What would you do? Do you wreck your league by sticking to the
BOD decision, or do you defy it and not lose almost half your teams,
which in this case was effectively all the teams, due to league play
regulations. My decision was to reverse the BOD's decision, get the
parents back in the fold, and quite possibly sacrifice myself in the
process.

I can assure you that the situation was neither cute, nor charming. At
the time, I was thankful for my formidable physical presence!

It could even be argued that I was listening to my constituents. Even
though it was less than half the league, it was 100 percent of the
people affected by the decision. But now, who's the majority in that case?


If I violated my obligations/authority I would expect to be removed from
office ...

I did. I was willing to accept that.


and I would move to remove from office any of my colleagues on
the NCI Board of Directors if they violated their obligations/authority.

A soon as the rest of the BOD saw what happened, they realized their
mistake. Most were in fact grateful that I saved their collective kiesters.

So while people can pontificate on constituents and majorities and
"What You Have To Do", my experience shows that it *isn't that simple*.
Hopefully you won't find yourself in a similar situation. You might find
it easier to hide behind the "decision". At least that way you can say
"It wasn't my fault".



But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

But we still digress here. My main point in all this is that it seems
to me that NCI is growing out if it's previous self defined interest.

- Mike KB3EIA -

- Mike KB3EIA -

And you think this is sometthing NEW for NCI? Whats even funnier is that some
NCI Members are starting to cry about things that are happening. NCI MEMBERS
stop your BITCHING AND WHINNING, you got what you wanted, more DUMBING DOWN.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
..

NCI's Board of Directors debated the issues and,
while there was not 100% agreeement on our personal
views we agreed that we should represent our members'
views to the FCC and that we could each file our personal
comments to voice our personal views.


In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
.

NCI's Board of Directors debated the issues and,
while there was not 100% agreeement on our personal
views we agreed that we should represent our members'
views to the FCC and that we could each file our personal
comments to voice our personal views.



In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.

The day after the "one time upgrade" the testing level of the average
General class licensee has gone up or down?

When is *lowering* the average tested levels of Hams a good thing?

Hans, I liked your "average" quote in the "Morse and contests" thread.
Maybe it fits here too.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
.

NCI's Board of Directors debated the issues and,
while there was not 100% agreeement on our personal
views we agreed that we should represent our members'
views to the FCC and that we could each file our personal
comments to voice our personal views.



In the military that is commonly called "go along to get along"
leadership or "let's have a beauty contest and even if the winner
is ugly we can swallow hard and put a bag over her head".


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.

We didn't think it was "actually harmful to the ARS" - there was just not
unanimous agreement amongst the directors on a couple of points ...

Carl - wk3c

NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.



Who determines what is "harmful"?

Robert Casey wrote:


NCI representing it's views is one thing, but I think that when a
membership supports an idea that is actually harmful to the ARS, it is
time to kinda step back from it.




Who determines what is "harmful"?


I wrote a couple sentences/questions to that effect, that you snipped out.


Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

Nothing is improved by lowering the bar. If most General hams have only
taken the Technician test, then the average tested level is brought down
to somewhere between Technician and General.

None of this is subject to spin, it is just how it is. Simple
mathematics is all it is.

If it isn't improving things, or at least neutral, then it is harming
things.

Database administration isn't a good excuse at all. just imagine how
much database administration would be eased if there were only one
class. So why don't we simply "one time adjust" every ham in the country
to Extra? Everyone will have all the same privileges, so no wondering
what ham is supposed to be at what frequency. That would make
administration EASY.


Would one time adjusting *everyone* to the Extra level be harmful to
the ARS?

Adjusting the Technicians to the next level is an incremental
adjustment of the same. At what level is incrementalism not harmful?


Quick note here. I do not oppose one license class. But it would be at
the Extra level at least.

- mike KB3EIA -