Resolution #22 - 12 September 2020

Motion by Bob N8ZCC, second by Jim K8JK:

Modify Add to MARC Standards Article I. Part A. section F. #6. as follows:

Sponsors of 5 or more repeaters may report their yearly updates, with a 1 year grace period, using a spread sheet in lieu of the web page TDS update/renewal submission. The spreadsheet containing the current data for the trustee's coordinations will be sent to them upon a request to the database manager. The spread sheet must be checked for accuracy by the trustee. Corrections to the coordinations data must be made on the spread sheet. Please highlight any changes. The Trustee should insert their name and date at the bottom of the sheet and email it to the MARC database manager at mail@miarc.com. This will then be checked by the database manager and if accepted, the MARC database will be updated. This will be valid for 1 to 2 years. Individual updates must be made on the MARC web page by submitting a TDS application if changes are made to a coordination that require re-coordination.

Motion passed.

Resolution #21 – 8 September 2018

Motion made by Bob, N8ZCC seconded by Dan, N8WKM

Modify MARC Standards F 2 and MARC Procedures III B as follows:

Replace the word "certified" with "tracked" mail and remove any mention of "return receipt requested" in the MARC Bylaws and Procedures.   Add “Adding to a letter informs MARC when the letter was delivered to the address of record.”

Motion passed. December 1, 2018

See MARC September 2018 Meeting Minutes for more information on this issue.

Resolution #20 - 3 March 2018

Motion made by Ann, KT8F second By Bob, N8ZCC.

A Trustee that receives a provisional coordination and does not send in an operational TDS within 3 months of issue of the Provisional Coordination, or have not requested a time extension, may receive a notice that their provisional coordination is about to be de-coordinated. This notice, sent by email, phone message and regular mail, (NOT registered or certified mail) will state the de-coordination of their provisional coordination will be effective in 30 days from the date of this notice.

If MARC contact information for the Trustee is not correct or there is no response within the 30-day period, the provisional coordination will be removed from the active repeaters database and recorded as de-coordinated in the records. The frequency would be immediately available to other applicants.  The Trustee could re-apply but there would be no guarantee that the original frequency  or any other frequency pair would be available.

If the Trustee of the coordination holder contacts MARC, within the 30 day period, issues for the delay by the Trustee to finish the repeater and submit the required TDS update can be discussed and a time extension can be granted at the discretion of the coordinator.

Motion passed unanimous.

2nd vote taken March 3, 2018 to include resolution in the Bylaws. Motion passed.

Resolution #19 - 4 March 2017

Motion made by Phil W8IC and seconded by  Jeff KB8SXK.

Reserve 442.125/447.125 as a SNPR pair to align Michigan with several adjoining states.

Motion passed.

March 6, 2021, vote taken to approve this resolution in the MARC Band Plans. Motion Passed.

Resolution #18 - 4 June 2016

Motion by Jim K8KJ second by Dave WD8DJB:

The coordinator may assign an access code (CTCSS or Digital Code) to a new or re-coordinated repeater if the applicant's code is in conflict with an adjacent state's access tone or digital code plan.

Motion passed.

June 4, 2019 vote taken to approve this resolution in the MARC Procedures.  Passed   Procedure Added

Resolution #17 - 4 June 2016

Motion by Dave WD8DJB, second by Jim K8KJ:

Modify Bylaws ARTICLE III Part A #6 as follows:

Coordinator(s) - no more than four. Exception: up to four additional coordinators may be appointed to help the coordinators who are board members. The four additional coordinators are not considered board members, and therefore are not included in the quorum requirements.

Motion passed.

June 4, 2019 vote taken to approve this resolution in the MARC Bylaws.  Passed   Bylaws Added

Resolution #16 - 5 March 2016

Motion by Dave WD8DJB, second by Jim K8JK:

MARC will coordinate digital voice repeaters with less than 9 kHz bandwidth on splinter channels on the 70 cm band, provided there is a minimum 40 mile adjacent channel mileage separation from main channel coordinated repeaters. This modifies  the current 50 mile clearance on 70 cm.

Motion passed.

March 2, 2019 vote taken to approve this resolution for inclusion in the MARC Bylaws.  Passed.

Resolution #15 - 7 December 2013

Second vote taken June 4, 2016 and passed. Resolution #15 is now part of the

Bylaws.

Vote taken and passed for inclusion into the Bylaws March 5, 2016

Motion by Fred, W8FSM, second by Dan, N8WKM:

Add the pair 441.075 repeater input / 446.075 repeater output and 441.150 repeater input / 446.150 repeater output to the available repeater pairs for coordination by MARC.  These pairs would not be coordinated in Grand Rapids because of an existing ATV coordination.

Motion passed.

Change reflected in Band Plan

Resolution #14 - 2 June 2012

Resolution #14 Voted to be adopted into the bylaws on December 5, 2015

Resolution #14 officially adopted into the Bylaws March 5, 2016

Motion by Dan, N8WKM, second by Jim, WB8AZP:

Add 441.500 in, 446.500 out, as a SNPR pair to the existing 440.500 in, 445.500 out pair.

Motion passed.

Change reflected in Band Plan and Coordination Standards B 3 d .

Resolution #13 –   5 December 2009

Allow use of the 441/446 band segments for repeaters in other states provided the following requirements are met:

HAAT <= 70 feet for the repeater

ERP   <= 100 Watts

Cochannel separation >= 80 Miles

Do not use the following reserved frequencies: 441.050, 441.075, 446.000, 446.025, 446.050, 446.075, 446.100, 446.125 and 446.150 which are reserved for packet and simplex operations.

Discussion followed.  Motion made by Phil, seconded by Dan.  Vote per E-poll, motion carried. 

Re-numbered to Resolution 13 from 12 per vote at 03/6/2010 meeting.

Resolution #13 was read and voted on in September 2012.

Resolution #13  was passed into the bylaws in December 2012.

Resolution #12 – 5 December 2009

Adjacent channel spacing mileage requirements for across state line coordinations. (Analog only)

5 kHz  ­- 100 miles

10 kHz - 70 miles

15 kHz - 25 miles

20 kHz ­- 25 miles

Note: Co-channel spacing is 100 Miles.     

Discussion followed.  Motion made by Phil, seconded by Jim.  Vote taken per E poll, motion carried.

Re-numbered to Resolution #12 from 13 per vote at 03/6/2010 meeting

Resolution #12 was read, amended and voted on in September 2012 (made a bylaw).

15 kHz - 25 mile was added to the resolution.

Resolution #12  was originally passed into the bylaws in December 2009 (made a Developmental Operational Guideline).

Resolution #11 – 2 December 2006 as Amended 3 March, 2 June, 8 September, 2007, 6 June 2008 and 2 June 2012.

Resolution #11 Voted to be adopted into the Bylaws on June 2, 2015

Resolution #11 officially adopted September 9, 2015

MARC will provisionally coordinate digital repeaters with a necessary bandwidth of less than 6.25 kHz on splinter channels on the 2 meter and 70 CM bands. MARC will provisionally coordinate digital repeaters with a necessary bandwidth of less than 9 kHz on splinter channels in the 70 CM band. Necessary bandwidth based on FCC emission designator.

Repeater separation standards will be a minimum of 70 miles between co-channel repeaters. Adjacent channel spacing between digital repeaters will be left to coordinators discretion; however spacing to adjacent channel analog repeaters will be no less than 50 miles.

Repeaters that are offered this provisional coordination may have those coordination’s changed as needed.

Each person who is offered this provisional coordination will acknowledge that this provisional coordination does not offer protection under the DOG and that they are responsible to work to alleviate any and all interference complaints proven to be a result of the operation of the digital repeater.

Each person will also acknowledge an understanding of the DOG as outlined by MARC By-Laws.

Discussion followed, the motion passed.

June 2, 2007

Jim, KB8IFE made a motion that the 20 mile separation be increased to 50 miles for adjacent splinter channel digital to analog spacing in Resolution #11.  Seconded by Phil, W8IC.  Discussion followed, the motion passed.

Phil, W8IC made a motion that we change the wording of Resolution #11, as follows.

Delete the words “using the D-Star format” and adding “similar to P-25 and D-Star and using standard offsets.”  In the first sentence.  Supported by Dan, N8WKM.  Discussion followed.  Vote taken, motion carried.

September 8, 2007

Phil, W8IC made a motion proposing a change to the DOG Resolution # 11 as follows:  additional splinter frequencies may be used if approved by the board.  The board can permit the additional frequencies by using email messages.  A majority of the board must approve.  Motion seconded by Dave, WD8DJB, discussion followed.  Vote taken, motion passed.

June 6, 2008

Phil, W8IC made a motion proposing a change to the DOG Resolution # 11 as shown above.

Resolution #10 – 3 June 2006

Allow One Way Links to be coordinated North and East of the “A” line in the 430.525 to 430.975 frequency range.  The links will be limited to the area East of 84 degrees longitude. 

Discussion followed, the motion passed.

Resolution #10 was first read and voted on in December 2008.

Resolution #10 was passed into the bylaws in March 2009.

Resolution #9 – 3 June 2006

MARC shall require not less 100 miles separation between co-channel repeaters that cross state lines.  This does not include Canada or Upper Michigan.  This distance has been used between Michigan and adjoining states successfully for many years per a “Gentleman’s agreement” which was associated with MAC, the Midwest Affiliated Coordination Council.

Discussion followed, the motion passed.

Resolution #9 was first read and voted on December 2009.

Resolution #9  was passed into the bylaws in March 2009.

Resolution #8 – 4 December 2008

Phil Manor, W8IC, Link / Control Coordinator made a motion under the DOG to make changes to the MARC Standards to add additional coordination guidelines for Auxiliary Stations (Links and Control Stations) as follows:

MARC Standards

I. Coordination Standards.

A.

   9.  Auxiliary stations that are used to link two or more individual repeater systems shall comply with the     following:

Transmitter power may exceed 10 watts to accomplish the link but shall not execeed 50 watts. Links using transmitter power levels in excess of 10 watts shall use directional antennas with a minimum of 9 dBi forward gain and the antennas must be aimed so that the major lobe is centered on the receive site.  Higher gain antennas and using the minimum power necessary to complete a link is recommended as it allows the coordinator to more effectively assign the available spectrum.  These links are not intended to extend the coverage of any individual repeater beyond its coordinated area.

Discussion followed, the motion passed.

First read for adoption into the bylaws in September 2008.

The resolution was voted on again in December 2008 and passed into the
bylaws.

Resolution #7 – 4 June 2005

Phil Manor, W8IC, Link / Control Coordinator made a motion under the DOG to make changes to the MARC Standards to add coordination guidelines for Auxiliary Stations (One Way Links and Control Stations) as follows:

MARC Standards

I. Coordination Standards.

A.

   6.  The Coordinator will use the location of transmitter, antenna elevation, beam direction, ERP, polarization, terrain and adjacent channel use to determine the distance between One Way Link transmitters. Repeater type spacing is not required.

   7.  The Coordinator will use the protected radius of the repeater to determine Control cochannel assignments. (minimum 25 Miles) Example: Regional 55 mile protection and District 40 Miles - distance between assignments is 95 Miles. Two SNPR Controls would be 50 Miles. Adjacent channel will not be considered unless interference is encountered. Repeater type spacing is not required. Repeaters with more than one site (transmitter and links) should use one control frequency for their complete system if possible.

Discussion followed, motion passed.

First read December 2005
Passed to bylaws June 2008

Resolution #6 - Modified 7 Dec 2007

440 band plan corrected to read 438.000 - 444.000    ATV repeater input with 439.250 video carrier frequency,

This was to comply with ARRL plan. 

First read December 2007
Passed into bylaws June 2008

Resolution #6 - 4 June 2005

Phil Manor, W8IC, Link / Control Coordinator, made a motion under the DOG to make changes to the MARC 440 Mhz Band Plan as follows:
Please follow the link below to view the 440 Band Plan for

Voice and Control links, ATV, Packet, Simplex and Repeater Frequencies

Discussion followed, motion passed.

Resolution #5 – 4 June 2004

Bruce N8UT then made another motion under the D.O.G.; Move to allow the Coordinator, for the 440 Band, to Coordinate Repeaters at a distance separation of 100 miles. Seconded by Dan Thompson. Discussion followed, motion passed.

First read June 2007
Passed into bylaws December 2007

Resolution #4 – 4 June 2004

Bruce N8UT made a motion for under the D.O.G.; Move to allow the coordinator reasonable variations in distance separations with the use of Documented Waivers from all parties and a corresponding condition statement in the Coordination Documents in case interference is experienced. Seconded by Richard W8IMA. Discussion followed, motion passed.

First read June 2007
Passed to bylaws December 2007

Resolution #3 – 1 September 2003

Dan Thompson N8WKM made a motion, that under the DOG, that MARC use the SERA 900 Mhz Band Plan as a guide for coordinating repeaters. The motion was seconded by Kelly Karpp KB8RWG and when put to a vote the motion passed.

For the details of the Sera 900 Mhz band plan see http://www.sera.org/900.html.

Resolution #2 – 1 June 2003

RESOLUTION PASSED: Developmental Operating Guidelines

Members of the MARC, I wish to make a motion at this time. Before I do so, there is need for a bit of background to establish common understandings. I refer to the MARC By-Laws, Article IX, Section B, Paragraph 2, which I quote:

“ 2. Procedures. There shall be created a document which delineates the rules and procedures to be used by the MARC in performing the tasks and achieving the goals for which it was formed; it shall also delineate the rights and duties of sponsors and trustees, both prospective and current. This document shall be known as “The Procedures” or as “The MARC Procedures” and shall contain all information necessary to the understanding of those rules, procedures, rights, and duties which it describes.”

Here is the part I intend to address in some detail.

“ The Procedures may be amended or changed only by such procedure as may be used to amend or change these Bylaws (ed..This is a process that takes at least 9 months to complete.) except that there shall be one or more provisions in The Procedures for the creation and review of interim rules and procedures when it is necessary to act in a timely manner to a new or changing situation for which the existing rules and procedures are inadequate or inappropriate.”

It is very important to note that these provisions for creating interim rules and procedures have never. . . I repeat . . . Never been added to the Ruling documents, even though they have been legally required, as stipulated in the By-Laws, since at least March 2, 1991, when the MARC Ruling Documents were last amended. What this means is that the writing of the By-Laws, Standards and Procedures was never completed.

I state for the record, that in my fairly educated opinion, and from everything I have seen in my latest tour of duty as MARC Coordinator, the MARC is now in a state of emergency. I believe it is now necessary to act in a timely manner to new and changing situations for which the existing rules and procedures are presently inadequate.

The MARC has a historical record of being very slow to respond to technological and social change. The process of change has always been one of changing the By-Laws, one word or phrase at a time, and only by using the By-Laws mandated nine-month process for any change to be approved or disapproved. If something gets passed and does not work, it takes another nine months or more to get rid of it. The MARC Boards have become very wary of changes over the years because the whole process can be stopped at any time in that nine-month period if an objection or improvement is raised, and the process for the change has to start all over again. The members have always blamed the Board for what appeared to be a resistance to change. This is not entirely true. Every Board I have served under has been concerned with instituting changes. The faulty process and rules that the MARC is forced to use in instituting change is the real problem. For years, the MARC has been choking on its own legislative process, as recommended and approved by the general membership. The blame for the restrictive and slow modes of instituting change, must be shared by the members who approved them in a Democratic process. The accumulated need for changes has now reached critical mass. The future of the MARC and proper coordination in lower Michigan is in serious jeopardy.

My nearly five-year involvement with the MARC has led me to believe that the largest stumbling block to updating of the By-Laws, Standards and Procedures has primarily been the lack of a transitional medium wherein new ideas and adjustments could be temporarily implemented and tested, and where they could go through language refinement before being thrown into the lengthy MARC approval process where it most often gets stopped cold. There is no mechanism in place to test new ideas and procedures. I was always amazed that such a transitional provision had not been made in the Ruling Documents. Careful study of those documents has revealed what I am passing on to you now. There was a provision made. It was never fulfilled.

Therefore, I am going to propose that the legal requirements in the By-Laws for the use of secondary ruling documents, used for the formulation of interim rules and procedures, be instituted immediately. I propose that the first of these required documents be called “Developmental Operating Guidelines. (D.O.G.)” The sole purpose of this document will be to provide a “proving ground” for testing new or different technologies, procedures, rules, descriptions, and language for eventual presentation and transition as permanent changes to the By-Laws, Standards, and Procedures.

As part of this proposal, I propose that the formation of this document be undertaken and maintained only by people with an intimate technical knowledge of repeater engineering, construction, maintenance, and interference. I propose that this group be constituted as an appointed and permanent standing committee of no less than three members or more than seven, made up of MARC full members in good standing, who are repeater owners and/or trustees of active repeaters which are properly coordinated by the MARC. This group will be moderated, pushed and administered by either a MARC Director or the MARC Vice-President. Part of the underlying duties of this group should be to safeguard the property rights of owners of existing and future repeaters from proposed rule changes that could endanger or attempt to usurp those property rights, or the private and free use of personal property, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

I believe that a three-year moratorium should be placed on any single item entered into this document. At the end of that period, an item has to either be dropped or moved into the MARC legislative process as a proposed permanent change to the By-Laws, Standards or Procedures. This assures forward motion and further assures that there can be no attempt to replace or circumvent the By-Laws, Standards and Procedures by relying strictly on the DOG for day-to-day operations on a permanent basis..

We need this document NOW. One of the most pressing issues facing the MARC at this time is the formulation of band plans and rules for 900mhz and up. We don’t have them. Repeaters are going up fast in these bands, and we cannot coordinate them because we have no band plan or rules for them. There is a very active and nationally recognized spread spectrum repeater program at 2.4ghz in our Southeast quadrant. We can’t coordinate them either. We have no band plan or rules for those repeaters or for the developing trend toward spread spectrum repeater systems. We can use this document to quickly develop an interim band plan to allow coordination of these systems. We cannot afford to take a year to formulate these new band plans and rules. We could easily have repeater anarchy on those bands in a year.

The use of the DOG will in no way negate the power of any member’s vote. The final say for any change that will come from the DOG as a proposed permanent change to the By-Laws, Standards and Procedures, will still lie with the general membership in a Democratic vote.

This whole proposal has but one major goal. That goal is to put some speed and efficiency into affecting changes in how the MARC can conduct business. The use of the DOG will in no way become an exclusionary block or hindrance to recommendations and motions for change made by any Member in good standing, at any time.

The formation of this committee, according to Article IV of the By-Laws, could be done without a vote of the membership. However, I believe that formation of a document of this importance, to be formulated by a standing committee, deserves to have at least some beginning structural guidelines for the formation of both the document and the committee. I have attempted to do that here. This is too important a move to be left solely to the decisions of the Board. I believe that it should be presented to the Membership at a General Meeting in the form of a motion for their approval or disapproval.

I will now state the motion: I hereby move that the MARC immediately begin to form a new working rule document called the “Developmental Operating Guidelines” in accordance with the unfulfilled legal requirements of Article IX, Section B, Paragraph 2 of the MARC By-Laws, with the purpose of this document being to provide an active transitional medium for the introduction of new ideas, new rules and rule changes, application of new technologies, testing of proposed rule changes and technology usages, various descriptions, and the refinement of language for eventual inclusion as changes in the MARC By-Laws, Standards and Procedures. It is inclusive in this motion that the structure and administration of this document be accomplished by a permanent, standing committee of Board appointed volunteers, three to seven in number, appointed by agreement of the Board, and led by either a MARC Director or the MARC Vice-President, and that those appointees must be technical representatives or owners of operational repeaters coordinated by the MARC, this requirement being necessary to insure that a solid technological base of knowledge and understandings, specific to repeaters, is reflected in the endeavors and products of the committee for inclusion in the Developmental Operating Guidelines; and for the good of all Amateur Radio Service License holders. There will be a three (3) year maximum and total time limit imposed on any and all temporary products of the D.O.G.; at the end of which any product must either be enacted as a change, or part of a change, to the By-Laws, Standards, or Procedures, or dropped completely any from further use.

I thank you for the time allowed. I yield the floor to the President and stand ready for discussion of this motion, should the Members deem it necessary.

R. Bruce Winchell, N8UT
MARC Vice President

Resolution #1 – 12 September 1992

The MARC recommends 145.550 MHz and 145.695 MHz respectively be set aside for space communications and emergency communications. All Amateur Radio Stations should refrain from operating within 15 KHz of these frequencies except when participating in the recommended communications.