HOW MUCH CAN OR SHOULD YOU DO?

Paul Forgrave - K8ES - silent key

Here is a question recently proposed: "I am helping our Stake Presidency develop specific emergency plans for disasters etc. and more specifically on developing a practical, real' guide/plan for the use of Amateur Radio in our stake. I'm looking for ideas or even copies of plans others have used."

My personal response may not be what you expect, but before getting to that, I'd like to suggest two basic rules:

• Rule No. 1. Do what your stake presidents asks you to do.
• Rule No. 2. Try your best not to do someone else's job.

In my opinion, you should NOT be the one to develop a stake emergency response plan. As I see the program, it's up to the Stake (ward/unit) Welfare Committee to develop a plan. It's up to the emergency communications specialist to tell them what can and can not be done regarding emergency communications within the limits of resources available at the time of each annual review of THEIR plan. The ball ought to be placed where it belongs: in the Welfare Committee's court. "Let every man learn his duty ...." Allow them to do it. Don't do it for them.

My stake's job description for the Emergency Communications Specialist follows. You can see that I'm only one component in the scheme of things. If it's your plan, then they will not take any ownership. Now, in some stakes, they won't take ownership anyway, but it's their job, not yours. Look at it another way: if they are forced to review THEIR plan annually, then perhaps some inspiration will descend upon them at that time. So, from my point of view, if they decide to do nothing during their annual review, well, they're the watchmen on the tower. If you jump in too enthusiastically, then they will let you do the whole thing; but that's not what the handbook says they are to do.

Job Description
Columbus Ohio North Stake
Emergency Communications Specialist

1. Meet with Stake Welfare Committee when they conduct their annual review the stake's emergency response plan, as suggested on page 15, Church Welfare Resources.
2. Assist Stake Welfare Committee in the setting up and maintaining of a communications system that includes amateur radio as a part of the stake's plan.
3. Meet with Stake Welfare Committee anytime amateur radio communications concerns are to be addressed.
4. Accept assignments from Stake Welfare Committee regarding amateur radio communications.
5. Be prepared to contact the Indianapolis Bishops' Storehouse via amateur radio whenever the need arises.
6. Provide training to unit emergency communications specialists in techniques used by amateur radio operators during emergencies.
7. Conduct tests of the amateur radio communications system established by the Stake Welfare Committee, including communications tests between -
   1. Stake president and area president or storehouse;
   2. Stake president and bishops; and
   3. Bishops and members.
8. Encourage each unit emergency communications specialist to interface with community amateur radio emergency communications organizations (ARES or RACES).
9. Report to Stake Welfare Committee at least annually on status of amateur radio communications, including
   1. identification of radio amateurs in each unit;
   2. their state of preparedness; and
   3. their involvement in unit and community emergency response plans.
10. Interface with counterparts in adjacent stakes.
11. Provide training for those interested in obtaining amateur radio licenses (optional).

STAKE-WIDE TESTS - GETTING LEADERS INTERESTED

At a recent Stake bishops meeting on a Thursday night, the amateur radio assignments for our second stake-wide test (VHF only) on the following Sunday morning were reviewed in detail. In spite of the reminder (and what I thought was a commitment), four units did not participate when the test was actually run.

After the meeting, I asked two high councilors who were present which unit they were going to attend for the test. Their response was interesting. "We don't have a unit assignment." What does that have to do with anything? The stake president asked that all unit welfare committee members be involved in this communications test, so I can only assume these two brethren didn't feel that they were a part of the stake welfare committee even though they regularly attended the quarterly stake welfare committee meetings.

I wonder why that is? I have a theory: During those stake welfare committee meetings, most high councilors are merely observers; they are not, or rather, they don't consider themselves to be active participants in the committee's business. The Relief Society President, one high councilor who has the Cannery assignment, the Chairman of the Bishops Council along with the Stake Presidency and perhaps a specialist (employment, birth parent, or even emergency communications) are usually the only persons speaking during those meetings, so it's no wonder the other high councilors don't feel like they're involved, except as spectators.

Does anyone out there have similar (or different) observations? Does anyone have any suggestions on how to change this situation?