ARRL Reform, Election for entire Board in 2009?

[AE6JM]

In order to break the Board #chokehold on the operation, policies, and direction of the ARRL, I propose an election of the entire Board of Directors in 2009. Present Directors can run; if reelected, they would have their validation and approval. #This is the only way to give the general membership an opportunity to reform the League and guarantee its survival. Thereafter, elections would be held every three years. Under current rules, it would take 15 years to replace the Board. Vote here and email or snailmail your Director and the rest of the Board before they meet in January. #Lets make 2008 a year of change!

[ky5u]

Although I agree, it would take a change to their bylaws or charter which may take 15 years too.

[W3MIV]

Oh, God!, how a I love someone with grandiose plans.

Pray outline the schema whereby this revolution may carry, particularly given the fact that none of the incumbent Directors are likely to clamber aboard your cart.

[AE6JM]

Remember, the only way to change the bylaws is through the Board of Directors or,
"Viva la revolucion!", a massive move by the general membership, forcing the issue.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Dec. 31 2007,12:42)]Remember, the only way to change the bylaws is through the Board of Directors or,
"Viva la revolucion!", a massive move by the general membership, forcing the issue.
The recent petitions mandating a removal or retention of Morse testing and that of the withdrawn request for allocation of our bands by bandwidth were two of the most divisive and serious issues to impact amateur radio since the incentive licensing embroglio that still moistens many pyjamas here on QRZ.

Given the number of licensees listed in the ULS, even subtracting a large percentage as being inactive or dead, how many hams bothered to even comment? Of them who did, what would you guestimate the percentage of ARRL members giving voice to either sides of those issues might have been?

Most of you guys who are the hottest detractors fail to see that most members of the ARRL are not so dissatisfied as you are. Many of us have "issues," but look at cries like yours as being a bit more hysterical than is warranted by the facts.

Put down the placard and volunteer to do something real, something more demanding than posting more nonsense on QRZ forums. There are plenty of volunteer positions needed within the ARRL, and every one of them offers an opportunity to make a genuinely positive contribution -- unlike throwing a few acorns to try to get a response from the same old group of suspects on QRZ.

Try it. You might actually make a difference with a change of attitude and a bit of effort.

[K5MC]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Dec. 31 2007,09:11)]Under current rules, it would take 15 years to replace the Board.
I don't understand how 15 years is required. Five of the 15 divisions have elections every year. So in three years we could have a completely new Board of Directors. If a division has a Director who is doing a really poor job, that Director might even be recalled.

73, K5MC

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Dec. 31 2007,11:11)]In order to break the Board #chokehold on the operation, policies, and direction of the ARRL, I propose an election of the entire Board of Directors in 2009. Present Directors can run; if reelected, they would have their validation and approval. #This is the only way to give the general membership an opportunity to reform the League and guarantee its survival. Thereafter, elections would be held every three years. Under current rules, it would take 15 years to replace the Board. Vote here and email or snailmail your Director and the rest of the Board before they meet in January. #Lets make 2008 a year of change!
As someone noted it doesn't take 15 years to recycle all the Directors. It may seem that long since so many of them either are unopposed each election or get reelected. But in reality every Director is up for reelection every three years.

If you want to change the election cycle so that all Directors are reelected at the same time, you need to change the Bylaws. It only takes a 3/4 vote of the Board of Directors.

If you can't wait until the Bylaws are changed or your current Director is voted out, and you think you have sufficient support to recall your Director the procedure for doing so is in Article 24 of the Bylaws. You only need to file a recall petition with at least 10 percent of the members who voted in the previous election (or 10% of all members if there was no election) - so, only a few hundred to maybe 1000 signatures. Shouldnt be a problem for you if think there's such a strong movement for "reform" in your Division.

Of course that kind of ignores the question of who takes the place of recalled Director should you be successful in a recall.

So, no, I think it might be easier to simply find and support a challenging candidate for the next Director election in your Division. If the members in your Division think it's important to have a "reform" candidate, you should have no trouble at all finding someone to run against your incumbent, collect the handful of signatures needed for the nomination, rally overwhelming support, and win the election. Then once in office, your new "reform" Director along with all the other new "reform" Directors that will come to office as a result of this "reform" movement, collectively have the power to fire all of the upper level ARRL management staff and fill those positions with new people of your choosing.

ARRL Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation (http://www.arrl.org/aabl.html)

[K0RGR]

The League is a corporation, and I don't know of any corporations that operate through direct vote of the stockholders. The directors do what they think is in the best interests of the League and Amateur Radio in general.

Don't like WINLINK? ARES, which is part of ARRL, has chosen WINLINK as a primary tool for disaster communications, because it met the stated requirements of the served agencies at the time the recommendation was formulated. It provides a transparent replacement for email services when the 'last mile' connection is lost. Instead of attacking ARRL, take your concerns about WINLINK to the FCC! If you read my comments on RM-11392, you will see that I have.

Don't like no-code licenses? ARRL opposed no-code for decades, but when it became obvious that FCC was going to do something anyway, they at least tried to retain as much as they could. Polls showed that a majority of hams agreed with them. I discussed this with my ARRL Director, too. What the League proposed was remarkably similar to what we discussed.

Didn't like the regulation by bandwidth proposal? This was the League's response to an old FCC proposal. Were you opposed to it because of WINLINK or some other issue? Does your director know how you feel about it, and why?

[w3dub]

Well as these elections start coming up... people with "reform agendas" need to step up to the plate. While some people may criticize coming on QRZ and complaining about it.. a lot of hams do read these boards. So these "grassroots" change campaigns are going to get their footing here on the 'Zed, as well as the Island, Hamsexy, and others. This is where it starts.

It would be a good thing for the ARRL to get some new blood in there.

[K1CJS]

The plain fact of the matter is this--most "members" of the ARRL are members because of just one thing, QST. #Those people look at their membership as a 'magazine subscription' and nothing more. #I used to be the same way--until I took a long hard look at some of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes.

Winlink was my eye-opener. #The code debate and the league proposal got me a little upset. #The thing that got me ticked off and roaring is the current attempts of getting changes to the bandplans by working thru the IARU. #If that group of people who are trying to force band useage by bandwidth are permitted to go unchecked, it may well force the end of a lot of traditional modes of operating. #AM as we now know it will be a thing of the past, like spark gap it will be outlawed simply because of the bandwidth required.

I volunteered and have even gotten a leadership appointment in the section I live in. #I've held a TC appointment for three years now. #I don't intend to stop pushing for the good of the hobby--the entire hobby. #I will help in any way I can to stop ham radio from becoming e-mail radio. #Instead of just flapping my lips like a lot here and on other sites do, I got up and volunteered. #But just one or two is NOT enough. #Many more are needed so we can get people into the directors chair that will do the right thing instead of just following party lines.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Dec. 31 2007,12:11)]In order to break the Board #chokehold on the operation, policies, and direction of the ARRL, I propose an election of the entire Board of Directors in 2009. Present Directors can run; if reelected, they would have their validation and approval. #This is the only way to give the general membership an opportunity to reform the League and guarantee its survival. Thereafter, elections would be held every three years. Under current rules, it would take 15 years to replace the Board. Vote here and email or snailmail your Director and the rest of the Board before they meet in January. #Lets make 2008 a year of change!
It would help your cause if you had your facts straight.

The 15 Division Directors and Vice Directors are elected to three year terms. The terms are staggered so that 1/3 of the Divisions vote each year. Thus it takes 3 years (not 15) to replace the entire board.

Now assuming you could convince a majority of the Board to over-rule the League By-Laws and do a mass re-election of all 15 Directors at once (and figure out how to pay for it, when to schedule it, and how to determine who would get full 3 year terms, who would get less, and so forth)... which I doubt, but never mind that...

Who's going to run against them?

If you don't have candidates lined up, and therefore the Directors are re-elected without opposition... then what's the point?

And just as important... are alternative candidates better than the people doing the job now? If the "cure" is worse than the "disease," we're far worse off.

Let me be clear on one thing:

I agree with your apparant underlying principle, that the Board needs to be more independant of ARRL Hq. management, and that they overall need to do a better job of management and oversight of all aspects of the League.

But a blind, wholesale replacement of the entire board?

Wouldn't your cause be better off identifying which particular Directors need to go, lining up your candidates, and working on getting them elected?

[k3wrv]

Frankly-

If the ham community KNEW that their vote MIGHT make a difference, many of us would spend the $40 to become league members fer at least a year. But they Should try someting radical, like the parent post suggests. The League has Royally "File System CheckeD" (MODS-"fsck" is a valid Linux command and is not a dirty word) me every time I've joined it.

Let's face it, there are problems with the League, and the BOD doesn't recognize them. It IS time to reform, but with the current attitude of the staff (DISQUALIFIED! fer what ever reason) it will never happen. BODS listen to MGT!

Like Micro$oap, the league is all we've got ATTM, so lets fight for it (but $120 is TOOOO much time to wait for my chance to vote comes around, in a "fixed" electron).

Since 1961, when I first joined, they've needed a thorough houscleaning, top to bottom. If they really cared about HR, they'd "Just DO IT!" and allow us to "fix Em UP". LOL

[EDIT] Will never happen - been involved with too many Corporate BOD's over the years.

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]most members of the ARRL are not so dissatisfied as you are.

Who can tell? There are no surveys to measure dissatisfaction.

You would be correct if you concluded that most subscribers are complacent, disinterested or otherwise lackadaisical about the League's harmful political activity and regulatory blunders.

You would also be correct to link the lack of participation by concerned, active licensees to the lack of disclosure by ARRL officials about their back-room dealings that might move subscribers to take a stand.

[N0NB]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Dec. 31 2007,11:39)]The League is a corporation, and I don't know of any corporations that operate through direct vote of the stockholders.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but most corporations do hold an annual shareholders' business meeting. Also, many membership organizations that I'm aware of that have an annual convention also have business meetings.

If someone is serious about making the League's business more open, a good place to start may be to propose something along the lines of the following. ARRL has two levels of club affiliation, Affiliated Clubs and Special Service Clubs. An SSC is simply a more focused form of affiliation and requires a higher percentage of ARRL members within the club (affiliation requires 51% ARRL membership).

I propose this. At the ARRL National Convention a general business meeting would be held. Each Affiliated Club and Special Service Club would name one delegate and one alternate delegate to attend the convention's general business meeting. This would enhance the standing of local clubs within the League and clubs would receive direct feedback from the national convention via their delegates. Each club would then receive one vote on issues that come before the general business meeting. It should even be possible in such a meeting to override some board or HQ action if the bylaws allowing such are written correctly.

This would make the ARRL National Convention more like national conventions of other organizations and not just another hamfest flea market with a banquet and Wouff Hong ceremony. It would also improve the communication between the local and national organizations and give local clubs a greater incentive to commit to and retain ARRL affiliation.

Clearly, this idea needs to be developed further and allowed to gather broad membership support as I think it's more likely to gain membership support than a proposed wholesale sacking of the BOD which, IMO, has zero probability of happening.

[K1CJS]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ Dec. 31 2007,16:50)][quote=K0RGR,Dec. 31 2007,11:39]
.......I propose this. #At the ARRL National Convention a general business meeting would be held. #Each Affiliated Club and Special Service Club would name one delegate and one alternate delegate to attend the convention's general business meeting. #This would enhance the standing of local clubs within the League and clubs would receive direct feedback from the national convention via their delegates. #Each club would then receive one vote on issues that come before the general business meeting. #It should even be possible in such a meeting to override some board or HQ action if the bylaws allowing such are written correctly.

This would make the ARRL National Convention more like national conventions of other organizations and not just another hamfest flea market with a banquet and Wouff Hong ceremony. #It would also improve the communication between the local and national organizations and give local clubs a greater incentive to commit to and retain ARRL affiliation.

Clearly, this idea needs to be developed further and allowed to gather broad membership support as I think it's more likely to gain membership support than a proposed wholesale sacking of the BOD which, IMO, has zero probability of happening.
Your idea has merit, however the local clubs are simply affiliated with the ARRL, not a local chapter of the parent organization. #In the social clubs you are trying to emulate, because of the fact the local chapter IS a local chapter, the necessity of the delegates to attend the national convention is part of the bylaws of the organization. #

Also with local social clubs, there is a way for the local chapter to pay for the delegates to attend the convention. #Local ham clubs have a hard enough time just keeping their basic services and supplies paid for out of their treasury.

Although the idea is a sound one, there is just too many differences between affiliated ham clubs and local chapters of national social clubs for it to work.

Remember, most ham clubs are just groups of people who meet informally, have no building of their own, and no large treasury to draw funds from.

As far as the delegates themselves, while some may not mind paying out of their own pocket, most people have the means to take only one vacation a year. It is not right to expect them to forgo that vacation to represent a ham club, no matter what the issues may be. It could also be said that the people who do do things like that are like the people already in the directors positions and the Newington leadership.

[KC5SAS]

Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ Dec. 31 2007,13:14)]Frankly-

# # If the ham community KNEW that their vote MIGHT make a difference, many of us would spend the $40 to become league members fer at least a year. #
I wouldn't. I've got better ways to spend my dollars.

[AE6JM]

Looking a our division, out of some 13,000 members, only 20% took the time to vote, many expressing dissatisfaction with the disqualification of a significant director candidate because of an error in an email he had nothing to do with. #This resulted in a "3-0" vote, reelecting the sitting director and disenfranchising the voting membership. #Whatever you want to call it, apathy, don't care, whatever, something needs to be done radically to re-energize the ARRL to be in tune with its general membership.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Jan. 01 2008,12:14)]...something needs to be done radically to re-energize the ARRL to be in tune with its general membership.
You have it exactly backwards.

It is the membership that needs to be "re-energized," not the ARRL. If the eighty percent you cite gave a damn they would have raised enough of a ruckus that the issue would have become a matter of interest to the BOD as a whole. They did not, so it did not.

Even so divisive a debate as the "code/no-code" petitions did not draw anywhere near the numbers of comments and interest that one would expect from the numbers of active amateurs, both members and non-members.

Unless and until you can find some means of inciting them to action, the amateur community will continue to "let George do it" on very nearly any issue at all.

Don't blame the League for this. Blame yourselves.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (AE6JM @ Jan. 01 2008,12:14)]Looking a our division, out of some 13,000 members, only 20% took the time to vote, many expressing dissatisfaction with the disqualification of a significant director candidate because of an error in an email he had nothing to do with. #This resulted in a "3-0" vote, reelecting the sitting director and disenfranchising the voting membership. #Whatever you want to call it, apathy, don't care, whatever, something needs to be done radically to re-energize the ARRL to be in tune with its general membership.
Are you saying that the candidate had no knowledge of what his wife did, or after the fact, had no knowledge or nothing to say about what she did and the remedies that were requested (and not followed as requested)?

What a marriage!

Yes, that's what we need... to improve communications within the League membership structure, we want to elect someone who has trouble communicating with his wife!

OK, all gentle sarcasm aside... what you are saying is that because of the problem that your friend had with his re-election campaign...

which is not only old news at this point but has been hashed and rehashed ad infinitum ad nauseum here and on other forums...

you want to dump the entire board of directors in one fell swoop. Or have I missed something here?

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]t is the membership that needs to be "re-energized," not the ARRL.

How arrogant.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Jan. 01 2008,21:37)]Quote[/b] ]t is the membership that needs to be "re-energized," not the ARRL.

How arrogant.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[KC5SAS]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 02 2008,06:36)]Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ Jan. 01 2008,21:37)]Quote[/b] ]t is the membership that needs to be "re-energized," not the ARRL.

How arrogant.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
I was just a member for the magazine. Frankly I didn't care much for it so I decided to let my membership lapse.

[N8UZE]

If you got organized and found hams in the sections for the next set of elections to do the work needed, you could change 1/3 of the board. This is a big enough chunk that you actually could make things happen if even a few of the other board members go along with them. Some of the existing board members might agree right away and others after a good "sales job" by the newcomers.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Jan. 02 2008,11:52)]If you got organized and found hams in the sections for the next set of elections to do the work needed, you could change 1/3 of the board. #This is a big enough chunk that you actually could make things happen if even a few of the other board members go along with them. #Some of the existing board members <s>might</s> WILL agree right away and others after a good "sales job" by the newcomers.
You are correct on all counts.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ Jan. 02 2008,11:52)]If you got organized and found hams in the sections for the next set of elections to do the work needed, you could change 1/3 of the board. #This is a big enough chunk that you actually could make things happen if even a few of the other board members go along with them. #Some of the existing board members might agree right away and others after a good "sales job" by the newcomers.
Precisely.

Now will those who are demanding change (especially those who are NOT members but demanding change anyway) join and get involved... or will they continue to sit back and gripe?