'Ron Haraseth'- APCO FAILS

ALL THE NEWS THAT IS FIT TO PRINT-
===============================================================

From: (removed as per senders request)
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:43 AM
To: 'Ron Haraseth'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Those of us in Public Safety caught in Wave # 1 in Rebanding
Importance: High

1-26-2006

Ron,

I tried to call you this morning & had a conversation with Michelle
Fink. She is a very good person as she listened to what I had to say.
I appreciated that.

Ron, IMHO, I do not feel, as an APCO member, that APCO has really
represented us in a way to bring group power to each individual
Sprint-Nextel / TA negotiations for Public Safety in the Wave #1
Rebanding - from my point of view!

I have talked with East Coast Engineering Consultants who are enduring
- as we have - prolonged negotiations with Sprint-Nextel & the TA. I
have heard of Sprint-Nextel challenges to an Engineering Consultants
projections, that a task will take 350 hours, & Sprint-Nextel coming
back with a statement, that it should only take 20 hours!

Months ago I pointed out to the TA their time event timeline chart did
not include the "Mandatory Negotiation 30 day window for Wave #1 ending
2/8/2006!"

Months ago ( this is in a recorded TA Webinar) I asked the TA, " What
do
we do if delay becomes a negotiating tool?". There was silence for a
time, & the TA replied, "Get on the Web, or Fax us & we will become
involved".

At this time - even though our single point of contact has done
everything to attain a Pre-Planning Funding signed contract - we are in
"Mandatory Mediated Negotiations" with a 2/8/2006 deadline. I have
been
told we are very close to Sprint-Nextel negotiations of a contract? If
we do not arrive at a signed document, you know how serious a situation
my State will face.

Ron, Washington State didn't have the upfront funding to immediately
hire our Consulting Engineer ( IBI Group, Portland, OR.), or Robert
Gurss our Communications Lawyer specialist. So, we had to disclosed all
details up front to arrive at hoped for funding to even begin to
analyze
the now suggested frequency's to vacate in the General 800 MHz band,
that the Mandatory Mediation TA is saying "Can Oregon use these to go
on
& are you off them as yet?" I suggested to our single point of contact
to in writing , to express our "Good Faith" efforts & that Washington
State was willing to abandon TA questioned frequency's if Sprint-Nextel
would give us mid-band frequency's in exchange. I do not know what
frequency's have been, or are being suggested we go to from
Sprint-Nextel. I do not know how Mutual Aid Washington frequency's are
being addressed. I don't even know the proposed terms of a contract
with
Sprint-Nextel & the Mandatory Mediation TA as yet!

I feel Sprint -Nextel is nationally going beyond good faith in such a
way that could well make it impossible to "Make all Parties Whole". I
feel it is important, that Sprint-Nextel is included in being "Made
Whole". Sprint-Nextel must understand a partnership with Public Safety
that MUST succeed!

Why do you say this you might ask? Well, if our National Public Safety
is required to certify that Rebanding is done at minimal cost, & then
to
have a party consider this as a point to negate, or negotiate down, it
can very well be perceived as seeing our National Public Safety as
being
"Liars"!

I have heard, that no one in Wave #1 Oregon has a "Pre-Planning"
funding contract signed as yet! This is VERY SERIOUS as the window ends
2-8-2006 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In addition to all this the "Other hand" of the FCC has activated the
Automated Construction notice deadline of 1/1/2006! Where is APCO when
we are engaged in the Rebanding struggle? We don't need to have this
during Rebanding! It is another resource demand on Public Safety, where
we are already over loaded with Rebanding! APCO should work to buy us
more time!

Please take my remarks anywhere it does good for the order of APCO &
those of us in Public Safety.

Thanks for allowing a release of my personal in the trenches point of
view on actual circumstances here.

Very Sincerely,

(Name removed by senders request)

---

› See More: 'Ron Haraseth'- APCO FAILS

YAWN

[email protected] wrote:
> ALL THE NEWS THAT IS FIT TO PRINT-
> ===============================================================
>
> From: (removed as per senders request)
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:43 AM
> To: 'Ron Haraseth'
> Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Those of us in Public Safety caught in Wave # 1 in Rebanding
> Importance: High
>
> 1-26-2006
>
> Ron,
>
> I tried to call you this morning & had a conversation with Michelle
> Fink. She is a very good person as she listened to what I had to say.
> I appreciated that.
>
> Ron, IMHO, I do not feel, as an APCO member, that APCO has really
> represented us in a way to bring group power to each individual
> Sprint-Nextel / TA negotiations for Public Safety in the Wave #1
> Rebanding - from my point of view!
>
> I have talked with East Coast Engineering Consultants who are enduring
> - as we have - prolonged negotiations with Sprint-Nextel & the TA. I
> have heard of Sprint-Nextel challenges to an Engineering Consultants
> projections, that a task will take 350 hours, & Sprint-Nextel coming
> back with a statement, that it should only take 20 hours!
>
> Months ago I pointed out to the TA their time event timeline chart did
> not include the "Mandatory Negotiation 30 day window for Wave #1 ending
> 2/8/2006!"
>
> Months ago ( this is in a recorded TA Webinar) I asked the TA, " What
> do
> we do if delay becomes a negotiating tool?". There was silence for a
> time, & the TA replied, "Get on the Web, or Fax us & we will become
> involved".
>
> At this time - even though our single point of contact has done
> everything to attain a Pre-Planning Funding signed contract - we are in
> "Mandatory Mediated Negotiations" with a 2/8/2006 deadline. I have
> been
> told we are very close to Sprint-Nextel negotiations of a contract? If
> we do not arrive at a signed document, you know how serious a situation
> my State will face.
>
> Ron, Washington State didn't have the upfront funding to immediately
> hire our Consulting Engineer ( IBI Group, Portland, OR.), or Robert
> Gurss our Communications Lawyer specialist. So, we had to disclosed all
> details up front to arrive at hoped for funding to even begin to
> analyze
> the now suggested frequency's to vacate in the General 800 MHz band,
> that the Mandatory Mediation TA is saying "Can Oregon use these to go
> on
> & are you off them as yet?" I suggested to our single point of contact
> to in writing , to express our "Good Faith" efforts & that Washington
> State was willing to abandon TA questioned frequency's if Sprint-Nextel
> would give us mid-band frequency's in exchange. I do not know what
> frequency's have been, or are being suggested we go to from
> Sprint-Nextel. I do not know how Mutual Aid Washington frequency's are
> being addressed. I don't even know the proposed terms of a contract
> with
> Sprint-Nextel & the Mandatory Mediation TA as yet!
>
> I feel Sprint -Nextel is nationally going beyond good faith in such a
> way that could well make it impossible to "Make all Parties Whole". I
> feel it is important, that Sprint-Nextel is included in being "Made
> Whole". Sprint-Nextel must understand a partnership with Public Safety
> that MUST succeed!
>
> Why do you say this you might ask? Well, if our National Public Safety
> is required to certify that Rebanding is done at minimal cost, & then
> to
> have a party consider this as a point to negate, or negotiate down, it
> can very well be perceived as seeing our National Public Safety as
> being
> "Liars"!
>
> I have heard, that no one in Wave #1 Oregon has a "Pre-Planning"
> funding contract signed as yet! This is VERY SERIOUS as the window ends
> 2-8-2006 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> In addition to all this the "Other hand" of the FCC has activated the
> Automated Construction notice deadline of 1/1/2006! Where is APCO when
> we are engaged in the Rebanding struggle? We don't need to have this
> during Rebanding! It is another resource demand on Public Safety, where
> we are already over loaded with Rebanding! APCO should work to buy us
> more time!
>
> Please take my remarks anywhere it does good for the order of APCO &
> those of us in Public Safety.
>
> Thanks for allowing a release of my personal in the trenches point of
> view on actual circumstances here.
>
> Very Sincerely,
>
> (Name removed by senders request)
>

YAWN

[email protected] wrote:
> ALL THE NEWS THAT IS FIT TO PRINT-
> ===============================================================
>
> From: (removed as per senders request)
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:43 AM
> To: 'Ron Haraseth'
> Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
> '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
> Subject: Those of us in Public Safety caught in Wave # 1 in Rebanding
> Importance: High
>
> 1-26-2006
>
> Ron,
>
> I tried to call you this morning & had a conversation with Michelle
> Fink. She is a very good person as she listened to what I had to say.
> I appreciated that.
>
> Ron, IMHO, I do not feel, as an APCO member, that APCO has really
> represented us in a way to bring group power to each individual
> Sprint-Nextel / TA negotiations for Public Safety in the Wave #1
> Rebanding - from my point of view!
>
> I have talked with East Coast Engineering Consultants who are enduring
> - as we have - prolonged negotiations with Sprint-Nextel & the TA. I
> have heard of Sprint-Nextel challenges to an Engineering Consultants
> projections, that a task will take 350 hours, & Sprint-Nextel coming
> back with a statement, that it should only take 20 hours!
>
> Months ago I pointed out to the TA their time event timeline chart did
> not include the "Mandatory Negotiation 30 day window for Wave #1 ending
> 2/8/2006!"
>
> Months ago ( this is in a recorded TA Webinar) I asked the TA, " What
> do
> we do if delay becomes a negotiating tool?". There was silence for a
> time, & the TA replied, "Get on the Web, or Fax us & we will become
> involved".
>
> At this time - even though our single point of contact has done
> everything to attain a Pre-Planning Funding signed contract - we are in
> "Mandatory Mediated Negotiations" with a 2/8/2006 deadline. I have
> been
> told we are very close to Sprint-Nextel negotiations of a contract? If
> we do not arrive at a signed document, you know how serious a situation
> my State will face.
>
> Ron, Washington State didn't have the upfront funding to immediately
> hire our Consulting Engineer ( IBI Group, Portland, OR.), or Robert
> Gurss our Communications Lawyer specialist. So, we had to disclosed all
> details up front to arrive at hoped for funding to even begin to
> analyze
> the now suggested frequency's to vacate in the General 800 MHz band,
> that the Mandatory Mediation TA is saying "Can Oregon use these to go
> on
> & are you off them as yet?" I suggested to our single point of contact
> to in writing , to express our "Good Faith" efforts & that Washington
> State was willing to abandon TA questioned frequency's if Sprint-Nextel
> would give us mid-band frequency's in exchange. I do not know what
> frequency's have been, or are being suggested we go to from
> Sprint-Nextel. I do not know how Mutual Aid Washington frequency's are
> being addressed. I don't even know the proposed terms of a contract
> with
> Sprint-Nextel & the Mandatory Mediation TA as yet!
>
> I feel Sprint -Nextel is nationally going beyond good faith in such a
> way that could well make it impossible to "Make all Parties Whole". I
> feel it is important, that Sprint-Nextel is included in being "Made
> Whole". Sprint-Nextel must understand a partnership with Public Safety
> that MUST succeed!
>
> Why do you say this you might ask? Well, if our National Public Safety
> is required to certify that Rebanding is done at minimal cost, & then
> to
> have a party consider this as a point to negate, or negotiate down, it
> can very well be perceived as seeing our National Public Safety as
> being
> "Liars"!
>
> I have heard, that no one in Wave #1 Oregon has a "Pre-Planning"
> funding contract signed as yet! This is VERY SERIOUS as the window ends
> 2-8-2006 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> In addition to all this the "Other hand" of the FCC has activated the
> Automated Construction notice deadline of 1/1/2006! Where is APCO when
> we are engaged in the Rebanding struggle? We don't need to have this
> during Rebanding! It is another resource demand on Public Safety, where
> we are already over loaded with Rebanding! APCO should work to buy us
> more time!
>
> Please take my remarks anywhere it does good for the order of APCO &
> those of us in Public Safety.
>
> Thanks for allowing a release of my personal in the trenches point of
> view on actual circumstances here.
>
> Very Sincerely,
>
> (Name removed by senders request)
>