Yesterday, the ARRL published a news item on the Virtual Monitor (VM) program, which is slated to replace the Official Observer program as soon as the ARRL can get it up and running. It contains a little more information than the email that was recently sent to all Official Observers, Official Observer Coordinators, and Section Managers.
One of the main features of this new program is that program administration is going handled in Newington by ARRL personnel. In my previous blog post, I wrote:
We keep hearing that the ARRL doesn’t have enough staff. How are they going to manage this program on top of the current programs and a more centralized ARES program?
Well, the news story answers that question. It reads:
The study committee report spelled out the additional steps necessary to launch the Volunteer Monitoring program. Among them would be the appointment of a dedicated Headquarters staff member or an independent contractor working under the direction of ARRL Headquarters to administer the new program and interface with its participants.
The story also notes:
Volunteer Monitor accreditation would be limited to a 3-year term, renewable by satisfying requirements necessary to ensure competency. A new Volunteer Monitoring Training Manual is in the final stages of development.
Centralization of functions that used to be the responsibility of the sections seems to be the latest thing at the ARRL. The ARES program is also undergoing some of this restructuring. I’m interested in how you feel about this. If you’re currently an OO, please comment below or email me directly.
Roy Woods says
If the board approves the proposed changes to the ARES program, most teams will quit. ARRL needs to talk to the current teams for advice
Dan KB6NU says
Will they quit or decide to organize outside the ARRL framework? I wonder what’s really the motivation to centralize ARES?
Walter Underwood says
The VM/OO program is fundamentally national and centralized. The FCC is a federal agency.
ARES is fundamentally local. I doubt I will ever need a direct working relationship with FEMA. My primary relationship is with the Palo Alto OES. Even the county OES is a distant second, and we do participate in county drills.
There is certainly some centralized training and certification that can be done, but there are a zillion state and county requirements that make that hard.
Our county has an extensive Mutual Aid Communicator (MAC) program with training and certification, but that is optional. City agencies are still primary.
https://www.scc-ares-races.org/mac/index.html
Dan KB6NU says
I don’t know that I’d say that the VM/OO program is fundamentally national. I think most complaints that the VM/OO program handles are repeater interference problems. I’d love to hear from current OOs to see what they think.
I certainly agree with you about ARES, though. Every locale is different in what they need. I wonder what the motivation is to centralize this function?
Walter Underwood says
VMs and OOs work with the FCC, which is one agency. Even with local offices, the FCC has a single system for complaints and enforcement. Problems are local, but the organization the VM/OO works with is centralized. It doesn’t help the FCC to have the program split up by ARRL divisions.
Local VM/OO volunteers need to work together, of course. It takes two to DF.
Steve W8SFC says
Having worked my entire career under one government umbrella or another from city to county to state and federal levels, I have to say that when the federal government wants to centralize control over an organized entity, it is always accompanied by a lot of resistance to that control effort. There is bound to be dissention in the ranks when this happens, so I am not surprised at what I am seeing here. That current VM/OO’s are not happy with this idea comes as no surprise to me.
Most of the time the federal government has a better logistics chain than any local or state government, however when you take the decision and priority making process away from those local and state entities, it usually means lesser allocations of funding and less priority in resolving issues, which is what these smaller agencies have a legitimate complaint with.
I’m not sure what benefit ARRL control or coordination can bestow on the local ARES chapters, but I tend to be skeptical of anyone telling me they are “from the government and they are here to help”, especially if that agency is overtaxed with their responsibilities to begin with. While ARRL isn’t federal government per se, they are a national level organization. Like you, I question the motivation behind this and would like to know their rationale.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the earlier board’s code of conduct episode which was attributed to compliance with the law and their lawyer’s guidance. I hope we are not revisiting that again.