Is W1AW going broke?

[n0iu]

I sent this letter to my Division Director --

TO: Mr. Wade Walstrom - Midwest Division Director

RE: W1AW Endowment Campaign

Dear Mr. Walstrom,

I recently received a letter of solicitation from the ARRL asking me to make a pledge to the W1AW Endowment Campaign. A similar solicitation appears on the ARRL web site. According to David Sumner K1ZZ, the League is, "working to build a permanent fund to cover W1AW operations and capital needs." The letter is vague and non-specific and simply asks for my support to "help keep W1AW at the cutting edge of technology." Before making a pledge, I would like to see a specific plan for how the League plans to use my money. I would also like to see how much money is earmarked for W1AW expenses in the budget and why W1AW Station Manager Joe Carcia NJ1Q (and other Executive Committee members) do not believe this is adequate.

The letter goes on to state that, "W1AW is also active in investigating new technology in the science of radio. It is involved in testing the new D-Star system and has added Winlink to its capabilities." While it is certainly laudable that the League wants to keep in step with the latest in amateur radio technology, it seems that various manufacturers and dealers have already donated most of the equipment. In June 2004, SCS and Farallon Electronics donated a new SCS PACTOR PTC-IIpro to W1AW for Winlink capabilities. Just this past December, Icom donated a D-Star voice repeater (model ID-RP2V), data repeater (model ID-RP2D) and controller (model ID-RP2C) to W1AW. MFJ donated an MFJ-1532N Pulsar, which is serving as the transmitting antenna, while NCG contributed a pair of Comet GP21 antennas for receiving digital data and voice for the 1.2 GHz (23 cm) multipurpose D-Star system. In addition to these generous donations, in November 2004, AOR donated two ARD9800 digital voice modems to W1AW.

These are not isolated examples of donations of equipment. W1AW is quite often on the receiving end of the generosity of other manufacturers and benefactors. In addition to the SCS multimode controller, June 2004 also saw the donation of a complete vintage station from Bob Heil K9EID and Joe Walsh WB6ACU. Bob Heil has also donated several Goldline microphones, headsets and related accessories to W1AW. In May 2002, Kenwood donated a TS-2000 transceiver to W1AW and a TS-480 transceiver just this past December. On a smaller scale, the Clark County Amateur Radio Club in Vancouver, Washington donated a Vibroplex key in March 2005.

I could go on with more examples, but it seems to me that W1AW is not hurting for equipment due to the generosity of manufacturers and other benefactors. In the Report of the Administration and Finance Committee of the 2006 First Meeting, "…we are suffering to some extent in our development department due to donor fatigue." "Contributions haven’t been as strong as anticipated. Timing of campaigns and donor fatigue are contributing factors." Twice in the same document, the term donor fatigue is used, but yet Mr. Sumner, who was present at the Administration and Finance Committee meeting, is asking ARRL members to donate anywhere from $50 to $30,000 for unspecified use at the Maxim Memorial Station. Please enlighten me with the details of the plans for W1AW. If those plans are so ambitious that the operating budget of the League and the donations from manufacturers and dealers are not adequate to meet those needs, perhaps those plans should be scaled down.

Sincerely,

Scott Schultz NØIU

cc: David Sumner K1ZZ, Joel Harrison W5ZN, Bruce Frahm K0BJ (Midwest Division Vice Director), Dale Bagley K0KY (Missouri Section Manager)

[kl7aj]

They've had their hands in my pockets for 35 years. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KA4DPO]

I wholeheartedly agree that ARRL should be more explicit as to their plan. #Building a fund, I assume a trust fund is a great idea as long as it is used for the stated purpose. #I donated to this fund last year but like you, I'm not so sure I want to do it again unless they provide some details.

The amout of money they are asking for sounds more like a retirement fund than an operating fund.

[KC7UP]

I have received so many solicitations from them and many others that I automatically shred without looking.
Curt

[kj5t]

Like any organization they need money, and they are not forcing anyone to donate. If they ask for money it doesn't hurt anyone to not respond. If I had to money to share I would certainly do so.

However, I wouldn't mind seeing a plan of where my money would be going, however, I believe if they were to realease this report, we would see that indeed this money is going to keep W1AW state of the art.

[KA3RFE]

The ARRL mailings to me go right into the trash. I joined only to get QST and get that only to keep informed on FCC rules changes and the ads.

They have way too many paid staff in my opinion.

73

[WA2ZDY]

Kinda reminds me of a current "situation" with the local Boy Scout council. Seems they've run up a million dollars in debt and want the scouting families (of which we are one) to pony up a "donation" of $52 per scout to help offset this debt.

The basic story is they've bought stuff, built camps and buildings and the anticipated donations didn't appear. To make matters worse, these new pieces of real estate aren't being used by as many paying scouts as expected. And who knows where else the money has gone. I've read the "explanation letter" from the council and it's a bunch of hogwash.

The newspaper quoted some scoutmaster just the other day as saying "this was not the result of mismanagement." No? I call spending money you don't have mismanagement. If you're in a million dollar hole, someone has mismanaged something.

The solution as explained in the letter we all got? "We are going to be loyal scouts and straighten this out." Yep, that's the whole solution as presented.

Yes it does indeed sound like ARRL. Admittedly though, we know Carcia is entitled to a paycheck. W1AW, a rarity among ARRL programs IS a useful expenditure. So many hams have gotten their start listening to the code practice sent by W1AW. The bulletins I have found useful too. And I suppose the electric bill for all those 1kw Harris rigs must be substantial.

So I'm sure W1AW could use some cash. I'm sure it would be a worthwhile donation. I'd just like to see an explanation. When involving money, a lack of explanation leaves too many questions in one's mind.

[w4hwd]

I don't receive solicitations from the league, because I'm not a member!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I let my membership lapse in 2002 (after 12 years) and I have *zero* intention of renewing. They offer nothing of value to me.

If you don't want to be solicited, quit the league!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ETA: I don't know exactly how many new hams are licensed as a direct result of the league, but I would suspect the numbers are small. Many hams get their start through friends, relatives, acquaintences, local (not national) club exposure, or just plain happenstance. I got started into ham radio because CQ magazine (as well as 73 magazine) was available on the rack at my local grocery store back 20 years ago! The point is, many hams don't learn of the ARRL until after they're licensed; once they find out what a bunch of condescending holier-than-thou elitist types inhabit the joint, they usually bail! Being a member of the league, to me, is about the same thing as being a member of a union where you work; you pay in all that money over time and all you get in return is a magazine/newsletter of dubious worth (and, yes, I am a dues paying union#member).

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Feb. 10 2006,14:48)]I don't receive solicitations from the league, because I'm not a member!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I let my membership lapse in 2002 (after 12 years) and I have *zero* intention of renewing. They offer nothing of value to me.

If you don't want to be solicited, quit the league!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If you don't want to be solicited, why not just toss out the solicitation? Nothing in a solicitation, whether from ARRL, Red Cross, AMVETS, DAV, Goodwill, Republication National Committee, Democratic Party, the "Wounded Puppies Fund," etc. etc. forces you to reply or donate.
While I have many issues with the ARRL (none complimentary, BTW) and often disagree (more so of late) they really ARE the "only game in town." The FCC only recognizes the ARRL as spokespersons for Amateur Radio, whether we like it or not. At least at this time.
But the only way to change the course of the ARRL, if you disagree, is to join and voice your strong protest, and by voting for people that will preserve the Service. The ARRL (understandably) gives little credence to comments made by non-menmbers; that is true of ANY organization. The ARRL can only be changed from within, not outside their membership.

Remember, if you want to change an organization, INFILTRATE! Join and vote for like minded individuals. If you are then in the majority, your wishes will be met. But standing on the wayside and grumbling (or throwing stones) won't accomplish anything.

[N5PVL]

The ARRL is not the kind of organization that can be improved via "infiltration". The fix is pretty well in, and the token level of "democracy" associated with ARRL is just that - a token and a sham.

After the crooked machinations associated with the bandwidth segmentation proposal, I investigated and discovered that corruption in the highest levels of the ARRL is both pervasive and deeply embedded.

After looking into the organization and what its alleged 'leadership' has been up to, I tossed a solicitation in the round-file allright... The one wanting me to renew my membership.

[ai4ep]

mebbe they could join forces with k1man ?? !!

ya know...the dynamic duo !!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[w4hwd]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 10 2006,18:55)]# #While I have many issues with the ARRL (none complimentary, BTW) and often disagree (more so of late) they really ARE the "only game in town." #The FCC only recognizes the ARRL as spokespersons for Amateur Radio, whether we like it or not. #At least at this time.
# #But the only way to change the course of the ARRL, if you disagree, is to join and voice your strong protest, and by voting for people that will preserve the Service. #The ARRL (understandably) gives little credence to comments made by non-menmbers; that is true of ANY organization. #The ARRL can only be changed from within, not outside their membership.

# #Remember, if you want to change an organization, INFILTRATE! #Join and vote for like minded individuals. #If you are then in the majority, your wishes will be met. #But standing on the wayside and grumbling (or throwing stones) won't accomplish anything.
Very good, sound points. Two counter points:

1) The fact that the ARRL is the only game in town is one reason they frequently run counter to the ham community, among other disagreeable things they do. They know they're the only game in town, and they use it that knowledge for good or bad, depending on your perspective.

2) You're right - change through infiltration! One lonely peon renewing his membership will, however, cause *zero* change. There is strength in numbers, but here's the other problem: you can't get hams to agree whether it's day or night, and you sure as hell can't get hams to agree on anything else! The vast majority of licensed individuals who make up the amateur ranks nowadays will not put their personal biases and interests aside for any common cause! You can't even get them to agree to disagree!

So, with that being said, I'll remain content to sit on the sidelines and grumble...

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Feb. 10 2006,21:47)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Feb. 10 2006,18:55)]# #While I have many issues with the ARRL (none complimentary, BTW) and often disagree (more so of late) they really ARE the "only game in town." #The FCC only recognizes the ARRL as spokespersons for Amateur Radio, whether we like it or not. #At least at this time.
# #But the only way to change the course of the ARRL, if you disagree, is to join and voice your strong protest, and by voting for people that will preserve the Service. #The ARRL (understandably) gives little credence to comments made by non-menmbers; that is true of ANY organization. #The ARRL can only be changed from within, not outside their membership.

# #Remember, if you want to change an organization, INFILTRATE! #Join and vote for like minded individuals. #If you are then in the majority, your wishes will be met. #But standing on the wayside and grumbling (or throwing stones) won't accomplish anything.
Very good, sound points. Two counter points:

1) The fact that the ARRL is the only game in town is one reason they frequently run counter to the ham community, among other disagreeable things they do. They know they're the only game in town, and they use it that knowledge for good or bad, depending on your perspective.

2) You're right - change through infiltration! One lonely peon renewing his membership will, however, cause *zero* change. There is strength in numbers, but here's the other problem: you can't get hams to agree whether it's day or night, and you sure as hell can't get hams to agree on anything else! The vast majority of licensed individuals who make up the amateur ranks nowadays will not put their personal biases and interests aside for any common cause! You can't even get them to agree to disagree!

So, with that being said, I'll remain content to sit on the sidelines and grumble...
Well said, can't think of anything else.....

[ae4fa]

Okay, folks, here's the deal. This year we have the opportunity to replace up to one-third of the BoD. Directorships in the Central, Hudson, New England, Northwestern, and Roanoke divisions are up for voting.

How 'bout taking a bit of time to see how your guy voted on the controversial issues of the last couple of years? Maybe e-mail or call him and talk things over. See where the Vice-Director stands on things. They are completely independent of the director in terms of election and, often, thinking. Maybe you got a whiz-bang stand-up guy as your section manager. If you don't like what your director has been doing, devote a little leg-work to making sure an alternative is available.

If you come up with a candidate and have the means, help make sure he gets to every remaining hamfest in the division. Get a website going and make sure people know about it. You can get mailing labels from the ARRL for every member in your division - get a couple of mailings out.

You can do most of this as a non-member ("former member thinking about coming back," "not currently a member, but would join to effect change," or some similar approach).

If you don't like what's been going on, make sure you can vote for change. Replacing one-third of the board whould send a powerful message.

Not in one of those divisions?

Well, those of you in the Pacific, Rocky Mountain, Southeastern, Southwestern, and West Gulf can get theball rolling early for 2007.

And those of you in the Atlantic, Dakota, Delta, Great Lakes and Midwest have the luxury of two full years to plan and work toward the 2008 election.

Or, you can just sit back and bitch about it on QRZ.

[n0ov]

Way I look at it is my annual dues to the ARRL is nothing more than a subscription for QRZ. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n8yx]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Feb. 10 2006,19:33)]mebbe they could join forces with k1man ?? !!

ya know...the dynamic duo !!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I think that the position of "K1MAN sidekick" has already been filled. By more than a few. Tune around the upper end of 20M for further details... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 12 2006,07:21)]Or, you can just sit back and bitch about it on QRZ.
which is all that they are going to do

sometimes get the feeling that
bitching about the league
are some ops life work

know of some ops
that have been bitching about the league
for over 45 years

if the league did exactly what they wanted
they would change their opinion 180 degrees
so they could still bitch about the league

its intresting how most of the time
those that complain the most
do the least work

those that do the most work
get the most complaints

mac dit dit

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 10 2006,18:21)]After the crooked machinations associated with the bandwidth segmentation proposal, I investigated and discovered that corruption in the highest levels of the ARRL is both pervasive and deeply embedded.
OK, Charles...put up or shut up. Let us see the results of "your invesitgation" and the corruption as you put it.

You can do it here, or to the Elections and Ethics Committee along with a copy to the ARRL legal counsel.

I await your evidence....

[ai4ep]

:0

Yep

A hole lot easier to WHINE & GRIPE here on the internet....than to actually get away from that key board and actually DO something. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[N5PVL]

W5JBP #says:
Quote[/b] ]
OK, Charles...put up or shut up. Let us see the results of "your invesitgation" and the corruption as you put it.


Jim, you should be ashamed of yourself for your part in the corrupt shenannigans which led to the ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal ( RM-11306 at FCC ), which are well documented here and elsewhere on the web.

How did it feel Jim, conspiring with a small group of WinLinkers to craft a proposal to the FCC that benefited WinLink at the expense of 98% of the U.S. amateur radio community?

Real proud of yourself, are you? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N5PVL]

From what I understand, the latest ARRL assault on amateur radio is a new proposal to introduce encrypted communications on the ham bands.

Kind of makes one wonder whose side the ARRL is on, these days.

They don't work in the best interest of the hobby, or in accordance with the desires of the majority of US amateurs.... #So just whose agenda ARE they pushing?

Who have they sold out to, and how cheap?

Charles, you say well documented here.....which means nothing. You said "you did an investigation".

Let me put this in simple words that you can understand.

Let us see your evidence of corruption.

[N5PVL]

Well documented here means that it has been published here on QRZ before, in more than one topic. It has also been published at eHam and at SPAR.

But since you aparrently have been hiding under your desk and are unaware of this, I will quote here from eHam, where the information is easier to dig up.

Mind your manners when speaking to me or any other decent amateur in the future, Jim. - I'm not the one who tried to put one over on the US amateur radio community, you are:

-----------------------------------------------------

About the bandwidth segmentation proposal and WinLink:

From what I understand, Jim Haynie, W5JPB, appointed Winlink architect, Vic Poor, W5SMM as chairman of the committee, and further appointed the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX to the committee, stacking two votes for Winlink from the get-go.

Jim Haynie took no action to intervene when Peter Martinez and Skip Teller told him that Vic Poor, W5SMM, was employing draconian techniques to the committee's running, shutting off discussion prematurely and forcing a vote which was always won by the Winlink majority.

Peter Martinez withdrew from the committee rather than participate in a farce, and Skip was threatened with legal action ( by WA1LOU of "Surfin" fame and director of TAPR ) if he published his dissenting opinion.

Can you imagine the kind of personallity that would threaten ANYONE for voicing thier opinion, minority or otherwise?

Jim Haynie then went on to show up at QRZ.Com during the earliest discussions about the bandwidth segmentation proposal, repeatedly making comments apparently designed to obfuscate rather than clarify, parroting WinLink propaganda points verbatim as if reading from a script, and going so far as to disparage amateurs for utilizing amateur radio in preference over the Internet in order to communicate.

Quoting Skip Teller KH6TY:
Quote
---------------------------------------
Given the percentage of ARRL petitions rejected over the years, the FCC rejection of ARRL's position on BPL, and their rejection of ARRL's attempt to give the force of law to ARRL bandplans, I would not be overly concerned that the FCC has already condoned what the ARRL is trying to get away with. Most of it is just an ARRL excuse to pander to Winlink, and they are relying only on Hatfield's comments to justify what they are trying to do. We have to remember how the "segmentation by bandwidth" proposed petition came about:

1. My request to my Director for the ARRL to petition to repeal 97.221© to solve the Pactor QRM problem was twice buried by my Director.

2. The second time, he seconded a motion by K1KI to establish the Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee. I suspect he and K1KI cooked that up in advance in order to bury my request for the second time.

3. Haynie then stacked the committee with Winlink operatives and supporters, appointed the Winlink architect as chairman, and K1KI as Committee/Board liason, which obviously let K1KI keep an eye on things.

4. Paul Rinaldo appeared to be giving secret instructions to the Committee chairman, the Winlink architect, without letting anyone else on the Committee know what they were.

5. Winlink then hijacked the Committee and produced a bandplan, tailored to Winlink's wishes, which was never even included in the charter of the Committee.

6. Finally, Sumner issued a news release declaring the Committee bandplan to be ARRL's own.

All this is officially documented in case it ever becomes necessary to use it to refute any ARRL claims.

---------------------------------------

This behavior on the part of Sumner, Haynie, Frenaye, Poor, Horzepa, Rinaldo, and Waterman is not what any ham of good character would want to see in the ARRL.

If we really care about the ARRL, we should be doing what we can to see that none of these persons' association with the organization continues - for the obvious reason.

The fact that the new ARRL president openly supports this travesty does not speak well of him either... Not at all.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 13 2006,03:54)]From what I understand, the latest ARRL assault on amateur radio is a new proposal to introduce encrypted communications on the ham bands.

Kind of makes one wonder whose side the ARRL is on, these days.

They don't work in the best interest of the hobby, or in accordance with the desires of the majority of US amateurs.... #So just whose agenda ARE they pushing?

Who have they sold out to, and how cheap?
Charles,

The ARRL takes a lot of hits for plotting things they don't actually plot.

In my experience it's mostly because they are out of touch with the things they are dealing with and when they trust someone they take that person's word without question.

The ARRL, like any agency funded by the public, eventually becomes a small scale clone of our political system. They don't intentionally do the wrong thing by hatching plots in a smokey room. It just appears that way because decisions are sometimes so illogical we can't understand how they are reached.

For example, I think regulation by bandwidth is a very good idea but for some very odd idea they omitted 160. It's illogical both technically and socially, so someone must have pushed the wrong agenda and the rest of the board been so ill informed they let it slide.

They also gave far too much lattitude to automated transmissions, and did not sort modes as well as they should have. If they want a bandplan, it has to have the clear foce of the law.

BPL is another odd thing. Many people knew going in the FCC would not side with a few amateurs in regard to turning off Internet connections. It's just common sense. Some of the money fighting BPL should have been spent painting BPL as a poor investment and the wrong way to do things, and a better method offered. BPL is a POLITCAL fight, and the ARRL handles public interface like any large self-feeding agency. It wound up making us look like whiners by asking another agency (the FCC) to "do the right thing" and turn off BPL systems so a few Hams could operate.

Political agencies are always going to have the appearance of intentional corruption because a few people are going to have almost all of the influence. There will be decesions that fly in the face of common sense and logic so badly people will think it can't be anything but sinister crooked dealings, when in actual fact it is because one or two people inside have too much influence on the other uninformed or less-informed members.

I don't think any of them are bad guys actually intending to take money for their actions. It just works out that way in appearance because what they do appears so stupid and illogical at times.

What we should do is keep pressure on them to get rid of permanent unelected CEO's, and we should watch our directors. We should boot them out when the fall into the system and lose track of what most members want.

Their goal should be to serve us, and that requires they not think they know more about us than we do.

I think your consipiricy theory is wrong. My opinion is Winlink is just like 160, poor bandplans, and everything else they do. It is because they don't study problems before making a decision and take some trusted people's word for what to do.

They need a management shake up. Sumner needs to get the boot, and the board has to start listening to members and not just the people they eat lunch with.

73 Tom

Charles, there is an old Texas expression that fits you to a "T".

"He is all hat, and no cattle."

[w8znx]

W5JBP #says:
[QUOTE=Quote ]
OK, Charles...put up or shut up. Let us see the results of "your invesitgation" and the corruption as you put it.
Charles is a true believer
sees this all in black and white

his pet mode vs another mode
via sky is falling postings

his mode good
winlink is the anti christ

the league may be wrong

acusing people who volunteer their time
to amateur radio of corruption and conspiracy

mark of a true believer


mac dit dit

[ki0lv]

I've never posted a comment, but this is it.

I've been a ham for over 10 years and the ARRL has never helped me in any way shape or form. I've noticed that once again this is simply a type of political group who has not advanced the reputation of ham radio at all. The way this should have worked from the start is a national commission under the FCC which advises and consents to management of the ham radio specrum and rules based on no membership fees or limitations - where any licensed ham radio operator can vote for changes and representatives from each state. This would balance the system out a little more since it is unfair.

Let me give you an example. The only thing I got from any ham group is a solicitation to renew my license for over 400% of the fee if I had done it myself online. There is no fee for using the online system. The letter was not upfront but suggested I needed to pay this group a fee so they could do it "easy" for me...

Since I've got my license I've studied all the way to Advanced, and yes with code. I even did my 20wpm. I was told code was really important, and now look? They even reduced classes since it was too hard or we couldn't "keep interest."

Yes it's a hobby, but it shouldn't be considered anything close to FRS radio or CB which is basically what it's becomming. It should be a technical hobby with some real focus. And let's not start the "emergency communications" ARES talk. That is just as big a joke since its part of guess who? The ARRL...

I would actually like to see the "amateur" part removed from ham radio and this become more of a technical organization which has multiple purposes including personal use (for those who like to dx), semi-commercial use for those who like to volunteer, and part hobby for those who like to expirement. Otherwise I don't see the difference now except the frequency, short technician license study time, and price of equipment aside from CB's or FRS radios.

[N5PVL]

Whenever Jim falls back on one of his twerpy 'witticisms' and ingages in a personal attack, that's his corn-ball way of admitting that you're right and he's wrong - and he knows it.

Well, you asked for it, Jim - twice. Since you were a snot about it, I took the time and trouble to give you what you asked for.

[KC2GOG]

when i get these letters, i usually rip them up and throw them out. I read all these solicitations for "W1AW", "Spectrum Presentation", etc as my League membership not being enough. I may just let my membership lapse and go to the newstand instead for QST. (read on site, if noteworthy, purchase it) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KE5FRP]

Hey, how 'bout y'all donate to the KE5FRP Fund?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I'll tell ya where your money's going: a new Icom, a SteppIR, an amp, possibly a new computer for the shack...

Monetary or equipment donations are acceptable!

[N4QX]

Quote[/b] (KC2GOG @ Feb. 13 2006,15:13)]when i get these letters, i usually rip them up and throw them out. I read all these solicitations for #"W1AW", "Spectrum Presentation", etc #as my League membership not being enough.
Steve,

Your membership is very much appreciated by this fellow member. I wish folks wouldn't read the solicitations otherwise.

A cold, hard fact of nonprofit management is that fundraising and development efforts are as critical to an organization's financial health as membership is. In fact, ARRL's success in fundraising and development over recent years has probably contributed to adult dues remaining constant for five years running.

If the solicitations don't speak to you, that's fine. I appreciate your membership, and I know the organization does. Even though I'm in a position and have the inclination to pay more per year through the Diamond Club, I haven't always been, and I understand that your mileage may vary.

73 de Brennan N4QX

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 13 2006,04:17)]Well documented here means that it has been published here on QRZ before, in more than one topic. It has also been published at eHam and at SPAR.
So Charles, according to your logic, if it is published here or on SPAR or E-ham, it is gospel.

So, if I understand your thought process, if the "Flat Earth Society" puts their idea that the earth is flat, on these three venues, it MUST be the truth.

Can we say, "meds"?

[N5PVL]

W5JBP says:
Quote[/b] ]
So Charles, according to your logic, if it is published here or on SPAR or E-ham, it is gospel.


Oh, you mean like when you show up here on QRZ and infer, against all evidence, that you are not up to your ears in WinLink corruption?

You sure quack like one OM, and I believe I'll take Skip Teller's word over yours in this matter, any time.

Skip says he can back up what he claims... All you have to offer are twerpy witticisms and retarded-sounding character attacks. - Your own behavior marks you as corrupt, just as much or more than anything Skip Teller or anyone else has said about you and your activities.

How does it feel, conspiring with a small group of WinLinkers against the best interests and wishes of 98% of the amateur radio community? Did you get a buzz out of that, Jim?

Still enjoying that buzz, OM, or has it started to lose a little bit of its edge? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Talk about 'meds'! # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Looks like you were still running the show when the decision to propose encryption on the ham bands (http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0601/) was made.

Yeah, you're dirty as sin. Attacking the folks who point it out will do nothing to change that.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 13 2006,14:21)]Whenever Jim falls back on one of his twerpy 'witticisms' and ingages in a personal attack, that's his corn-ball way of admitting that you're right and he's wrong - and he knows it.

Well, you asked for it, Jim - twice. Since you were a snot about it, I took the time and trouble to give you what you asked for.
Those comments are out of line. Jim isn't being even 10% as uncivil and nasty as you are Charles!

The ARRL does perform a valuable service to all of us and they certainly don't overpay most staff members!

I remember going to the ARRL for a technical job interview at the request of the late Doug Demaw. That was sometime in the 70's, and I would have had to virtually live in section-8 assisted housing if I would have taken the job. I think many people must work for the league because they want to contribute.

All that aside, I think the ARRL has done a poor job of public relations. They give most people the impression they don't listen to members. I know I certainly have that impression.

I don't think it is as sinister as intentionally looking to Winlink for money. In my opinion the real problem is they don't interface with and listen to the amateur population very well, they listen to insiders who have their lips to their ears, and because of that they make some bad decisions.

Let's not go hog wild on them. It's a pretty good basic structure. It has done a lot of good in the past, and can do amateur radio a great deal of good in the future.

Rather then tear them all down, we should work to fix the system. Most of the behind the scenes working people up there are pretty dedicated people who are in it because they love the hobby. We need the ARRL, and the ARRL needs a management shake up.

The organization really isn't that bad, they just need to start using common sense and listening to members. The rest will fix itself when that happens.

73 Tom

[N5PVL]

I am working to fix the system, OM. There is a problem with corruption at the upper levels of ARRL and it was you, not I who mentioned money.

Allowing these corrupt individuals a free pass is not in the ARRL's best interests by a long shot, and no, I don't have much respect for those persons or what they have done.

They do not deserve my respect - or yours because of the damage they are doing to the hobby and the ARRL.

What they do deserve is a boot in the kiester on the way out. Nothing more - and nothing less.

If you think I am "bashing the ARRL" by doing what I can to clean up its act, then you are way off base.

[n7wr]

There appear to be many on this forum, and other forums, who are quite frustrated by what they believe to be the ARRL's shortcomings. #For those who are serious about one aspect of amateur radio---emergency communications--there is now an alternative. #While that alternative is NOT in competition with the ARRL it does provide an exclusive focus on emergency communications (EMCOMM). #That alternative is the World Radio Relay League (WRRL ®). #While only a few months old, WRRL provides training, a National Emergency Traffic System, and coordination of a systematic response by TEAMS of trained, equipped, and certified Emcomm personnel. #If interested, check www.wrrl.org

[ae4fa]

I must note that while Jim responded to something simple, he didn't respond to this from Charles:

Quote[/b] ]Jim Haynie, W5JPB, appointed Winlink architect, Vic Poor, W5SMM as chairman of the committee, and further appointed the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX to the committee, stacking two votes for Winlink from the get-go.

Jim Haynie took no action to intervene when Peter Martinez and Skip Teller told him that Vic Poor, W5SMM, was employing draconian techniques to the committee's running, shutting off discussion prematurely and forcing a vote which was always won by the Winlink majority.

Peter Martinez withdrew from the committee rather than participate in a farce, and Skip was threatened with legal action ( by WA1LOU of "Surfin" fame and director of TAPR ) if he published his dissenting opinion.
There are several indisputable facts he didn't respond to:

It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 13 2006,20:21)]I must note that while Jim responded to something simple, he didn't respond to this from Charles:

Quote[/b] ]Jim Haynie, W5JPB, appointed Winlink architect, Vic Poor, W5SMM as chairman of the committee, and further appointed the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX to the committee, stacking two votes for Winlink from the get-go.

Jim Haynie took no action to intervene when Peter Martinez and Skip Teller told him that Vic Poor, W5SMM, was employing draconian techniques to the committee's running, shutting off discussion prematurely and forcing a vote which was always won by the Winlink majority.

Peter Martinez withdrew from the committee rather than participate in a farce, and Skip was threatened with legal action ( by WA1LOU of "Surfin" fame and director of TAPR ) if he published his dissenting opinion.
There are several indisputable facts he didn't respond to:

It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?
....but this is typical ARRL poor management when involved in decision making processes that affect us all.

They did a similar thing with the 160 meter bandplan committee.

This is why the ARRL needs a whack up along side the head before they "pee away" the remaining small percentage of membership they have. They need a management shake up.

73 Tom

[N5PVL]

W8JI says:
Quote[/b] ]
Those comments are out of line. Jim isn't being even 10% as uncivil and nasty as you are Charles! #


Give me a break.

I don't know where you are coming from, but here on planet Earth the documented fact is that Jim Haynie took a large part in scamming the U.S. amateur radio community, stacking an ARRL committee so as to benefit the WinLink group and to screw the other 98% of ham radio operators here in the U.S..

Then before he left ARRL HQ, he set things up for a proposal to introduce encryption on the ham bands.

Ignoring his underhanded tactics, the agenda he has been furthering is detrimental to the hobby in itself, and is obviously contrary to the wishes of the great majority of U.S. hams.

I think that it is pretty safe to assume that U.S. hams do not want chaotic conditions on the HF bands, with quasi-commercial QRM-bots popping up here and there at random while encrypted commercial traffic takes over the VHF/UHF end of things. - I think we can safely assume that most U.S. hams do not want to give up the concept of self-enforcement, and turn over the ham bands to commercial activity, porno, or what have you.

It wasn't me who was actively pushing for these destructive and deservedly unpopular agendas, it was Jim Haynie and his corrupt little clique at ARRL HQ.

I'm not being rude pointing these activities out - Jim Haynie and his corrupt buddies are the rude ones, trying to perpetrate these underhanded scams on the U.S. ham radio community.

Jim and his cronies are performing no better stewardship of the ARRL and no better service to the community than police brass who get caught dealing narcotics are.

[ae4fa]

Quote[/b] ]this is typical ARRL poor management when involved in decision making processes that affect us all.

They did a similar thing with the 160 meter bandplan committee.

This is why the ARRL needs a whack up along side the head before they "pee away" the remaining small percentage of membership they have. They need a management shake up.
I agree with you, Tom. #Malice or malingering, the result is the same.

And, due to recent gains in the stock market, ARRL's financial situation is getting better as it loses membership. #How you gonna fight the management when the bottom line just keeps getting better?

As some sage once observed, "As a membership organization, ARRL is a pretty good publishing house."



And, as predicted, JBP ain't been back. #Sad.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 14 2006,03:07)]W8JI says:
Quote[/b] ]
Those comments are out of line. Jim isn't being even 10% as uncivil and nasty as you are Charles! #


Give me a break.

I don't know where you are coming from, but here on planet Earth the documented fact is that Jim Haynie took a large part in scamming the U.S. amateur radio community, stacking an ARRL committee so as to benefit the WinLink group and to screw the other 98% of ham radio operators here in the U.S..

Then before he left ARRL HQ, he set things up for a proposal to introduce encryption on the ham bands.
Please point me to the factual documentation you refer to Charles.

Understand I don't think the ARRL is "in touch" with or does a good job communicating with most Hams, but I always like to be fair.

I'd like to learn more, but I don't take anyone's word for anything.....

73 Tom

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 13 2006,20:21)]It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?
Yes, I set up the committee, also employed staff and Chief Technical Officer to review the data.

The committee report was just that, a report. The board recieved the report for consideration. For over two years it was reviewed and revised.

Yes, Peter did quit, but not for the reasons you think. I had a number of communications with him before and after. The Brits are more civil than some on the committee.

Yes, Skip did submit a disenting report. We did not agree with it however.

Any committee can submit what ever they feel is related to the subject. The board may or may not take action however. I would also point out at that point in time, there were a number of sitting directors who not only held PHds, were also employed in the military arena with extensive experience in the transfer of digital communications.

To the subject at hand. Back in 2001 we set up a method wherein one could support a specific program at the League. W1AW was one of those programs. Roughly it is $150,000 per year for the total overhead.

Back in 2000 I had the gutters, windows and some outside trim replaced. The bill was in the area of $8,000. So, the idea was establish an endowment that if large enough, the interest would support W1AW.

We have a number of programs like this. Another is the Education and Technology program. If you feel that our efforts in the schools (186 at last count) is worthy, contribute to it. If not, don't. I am happy to say that the amateur community does feel it is worthy and has fully supported the program. W1AW is part of amateur radio history and deserves to be supported.

I have given many tours at headquarters, and W1AW is always the highlight of the tour.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Feb. 15 2006,04:48)]Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 13 2006,20:21)]It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?
Yes, I set up the committee, also employed staff and Chief Technical Officer to review the data.

The committee report was just that, a report. The board recieved the report for consideration. For over two years it was reviewed and revised.

Yes, Peter did quit, but not for the reasons you think. I had a number of communications with him before and after. The Brits are more civil than some on the committee.

Yes, Skip did submit a disenting report. We did not agree with it however.

Any committee can submit what ever they feel is related to the subject. The board may or may not take action however. I would also point out at that point in time, there were a number of sitting directors who not only held PHds, were also employed in the military arena with extensive experience in the transfer of digital communications.
Jim,

Do you think the ARRL needs to work on improving public image? Do you think the management is concerned about how they appear to many others?

I understand what you are saying about the digital (Winlink) committee, but let's stand back and look at how the ARRL handles things. Consider this closely, and you will see a parallel.

Dave Sumner and I strongly disagree in how to handle bands like 160. Here's why....

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, LORAN use on 160 was fading fast. The FCC was restoring the band in small chunks. We started having problems in the mid 70's with people just picking random frequencies for wide modes (AM and SSB) or worse yet intentionally causing QRM.

Along with W1BB and W2EQS, I was in direct communication with Prose Walker, W4BW, when he was head of the FCC. Prose wrote letters telling W2EQS and myself that 160 could be fully restored and have mode segments if the ARRL would simply ask. We could never get the ARRL to do anything, they had no interest. At that point I decided the ARRL wasn't an organization I ever wanted to support.

When an INDEPENDENT proposal was submitted to regulate 160 by mode like other bands, the overwhelming majority of 500 responses asked the FCC to grant that request!!! Clearly people who operate 160 WANT segments.

Turn the clock forward through years of intentional and accidental QRM caused by mixing of modes.

Now the ARRL submits a bandplan by bandwidth and somehow someone decided to leave 160 off once again. The claim is a bandplan is "good enough", yet the ARRL felt it necessary to ask the FCC to regulate all other bands by bandwidth.

When you read all the comments against the ARRL's RM-11306, the majority oppose it because the ARRL wants to regulate some things by "bandplan". The ARRL wants to turn automatic modes loose on HF bands (like wide modes are free to go anywhere they like on 160) and simply depend on good human nature to prevent problems.

Look at responses to the Think Tank RM-11305, which basically takes the 160 method of anything anywhere and applies it to all bands. Out of a few hundred comments, fewer than 8% support that idea!!!

It's very clear people want clear regulations with teeth.

If you read comments here on QRZ, you'll see many people only marginally support bandplans by the ARRL and RAC. Look at them objectively without your K1ZZ-tinted glasses and you will see what I say is perfectly correct. PEOPLE FOLLOW LAWS, not agreements by agencies that only represent 1/6th of our population.

When the ARRL decides to do what most people consider a very bad idea for our hobby, the ARRL sets itself up for attacks like those from Charles. People say "gee, why would they do something so illogical?", and the only answer is the ARRL is either out-of-touch with the majority, think the majority of people are stupid, or the ARRL is serving some hidden agenda.

Those really are the only three answers anyone looking at this objectively could have.

Why does the ARRL do this???

Is the ARRL totally out of touch with the community?

Does the ARRL think most hams are stupid and incapable of knowing what is good for the hobby?

Is there a hidden agenda?

It has to be one of the three. It can't be anything else.

Which one is it, or is a there a fourth reason I missed?

73 Tom

[KI4NGN]

I am not a member of ARRL.

I am considering it. I wrote a letter to the ARRL asking about all of the concerns I have read about here, and promptly received a courteous and (I believe) honest reply.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to all posters in this thread about "facts".

However I do have a question for Charles, and don't want to get put down or have my head chewed off for asking it.

You (and others) keep stating that the ARRL is following a path, making proposals, etc, etc, that are contradictory to the desires of 98% of ham operators.

Where does this figure of 98% come from?

Mike, Raleigh, NC

Tom, I hear what you are saying and while I am not a 160 expert, I know quite a few amateurs who regularly frequent 160.

From what I understand the propogation on 160 is such that segmentation is not a real requirement. The number of operators that use 160 is only about 2% of those who are on 20 meters. So we are talking about apples and oranges.

Speaking only for myself, splitting up the spectrum into segments for SIGs is not the answer. Many countries around the world use the KISS method. "Here is the top, here is the botton stay inside." They have not had any problems that I know of, so it does work.

Yes, also all organizations can use image polishing.
The League is no different.

[KI4NGN]

Same question to you Jim that I asked of Charles: where does your figure of 2% come from?

I have no position in this debate, I'm just interested and observing with an open mind. However everyone keeps specifying percentages, which are meaningless numbers without a source.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

The ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal was written by WinLinkers, for WinLinkers with no consideration for anybody else. A generous accounting of the percentage of US amateurs who are associated with WinLink comes out around 2%.

Digital operators in a general sense are around 10% of the total US HF amateur radio population.

The number of amateurs who are interested in ultra-wide digital modes on HF comes out at some fraction of 1%.

You can find a lot of this kind of information, along with discussions about which numbers are most accurate at SPAR (http://www.spar-hams.org/index.php).

The single most accurate and error-free source of polling data associated with amateur radio is HamPoll (http://www.hampoll.com). - Most Internet polls on ham radio issues have little or no security set up to avoid poll-stuffing or poll-flooding, and so tend to return questionable results.

The recent poll at AR NewsLine on the bandwidth segmentation proposal, for example, could be re-voted upon by the same individual every 24 hours, unless they wanted to erase their ARNewsline "cookie", in which case they could put in as many votes as they cared to. -- And some quite obviuously did, as the AR Newsline poll results were radically skewed in WinLink/ARRL's favor, as compared to more professionally operated polls here at QRZ, at eHam, and at HamPoll.

I guess you've heard about how minimal security only keeps the honest people honest... # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #In this light, it is instructive to see which direction an easily manipulated poll ends up being skewed.

[KI4NGN]

Charles, thank you for you courteous reply.

All of the numbers seem to be internet based, and unless there is a poll is conducted so as to minimize or eliminate voting fraud, I will never trust any resultant numbers. #I have other reasons for not trusting the results.

There is also always the problem with how numbers are interpretted. Whether you know it or not, you biased your opinion about the numbers in favor of your position.

"The recent poll at AR NewsLine on the bandwidth segmentation proposal, for example, could be re-voted upon by the same individual every 24 hours, unless they wanted to erase their ARNewsline "cookie", in which case they could put in as many votes as they cared to. -- And some quite obviuously did, as the AR Newsline poll results were radically skewed in WinLink/ARRL's favor, as compared to more professionally operated polls here at QRZ, at eHam, and at HamPoll."

Your assumption is that cheaters skewed the results in WinLink's favor. It could just have easily been cheaters who in fact reduced WinLink numbers from higher than they actually were.

I understand that you base that opinion on other polls, but as I said I also question those.

Also:

"The ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal was written by WinLinkers, for WinLinkers with no consideration for anybody else. A generous accounting of the percentage of US amateurs who are associated with WinLink comes out around 2%."

There seems to be another assumption that the other 98% are against. Maybe they just don't care? I don't know.

There is some presumption about the number of amateurs who actually use the internet, and of those, how many access ham oriented websites.

When I came into this forum to look for replies to my post, I noted that there have been 1173 views of this thread. That number is certainly larger than the actual number of hams who have viewed this thread, but even if every visit was unique, this is still very far from a significant percentage of licensed operators in the U.S.

Add up all of the 'visits' to the threads in this particular ham forum for the last day. Assume (invalidly) that they are all unique visits, and you still end up with a small percentage of the total number of hams.

Is this indicative of the number of hams who use the internet? Is this indicative of the number of hams who visit ham oriented websites? Is this indicative of the number of hams who actually care about this topic?

I don't know, but the answers are important, and certainly relevant when conducting polls.

Again, I have no position here, I am just trying to evaluate everyone else's before I form my own, and it seems that some members on both sides are taking some numbers as if they are gospel and running with them.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

I invite you ( or anyone else ) to attempt to cheat at HamPoll, Mike. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Let us know how it goes!

Most polls on this issue reflect the comments on RM-11306 at FCC.Gov... About 80-85% are against it.

Only the AR Newsline poll, easily cheated upon shows results skewed in favor of WinLink.

Gosh, I wonder who was cheating there, and why? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KI4NGN]

Charles, I will take your word for it that HamPoll is a secure voting site.

That still does not answer my questions, which I think are very relevant for any polls taken via the internet.

If 10K hams participate in a very secure poll, that could represent 10% of hams who even use the internet, 50% of those who use the internet, 100% who use the internet, pick any numbers you want. It may represent 100% of all hams who care about the poll topic, which represents 2% of all hams. Etc, etc. Pick any numbers that you want.

I realize that I may be wrong, but I would be very surprised if anywhere near 10K hams participated in the polls that you cite, and 10K would represent less than 5% of the ham population.

If it is taken over the internet, it is meaningless. If a ham does not use the internet, or he does but does not visit ham orient sites, or he does but does not read forums or does not take polls, or he does but he has no opinion about the topic, or he has an opinion but does not use the internet, etc, etc, then this ham is not being accounted for in the results. The poll is skewed by the medium in which it is being conducted. All the results can possibly represent is those who have an opinion about the topic. And if 98% of those who participated in the poll were against the topic, then that only represents 98% of those who cared one way or another. You can't interpret that as that 98% of all hams are against so and so.

[N5PVL]

Taking that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, no means of measuring opinion is valid, so we might as well just throw up our hands and let the boys at ARRL HQ tell us what we think - and what to think.

That's great if you are an "ARRL, right or wrong" supporter, but the rest of us folks try to get by with what common sense and the available technology can tell us about these matters.

Personally, it seems to me that the most compelling arguements against voting or taking polls have always seemed to come from the ones who don't like the way the vote or the poll is going.

You are putting yourself forward as one who is out "looking for the truth", but in my case at least, you have stretched that story line out a bit too far. My experience has been that people who are out looking for the truth are also out looking for ways to determine what that truth may be. You appear to be more interested in avoiding coming to any conclusion, and discouraging anyone else from doing so while you are at it.

For my part, I'm going to assume that you just don't like the way the poll results have tended to add up in this matter, and want to convince other people to ignore those polls.

Nice try. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

No banana.

[KI4NGN]

Charles, you assume way too much. I have absolutely no concern for WinLink. I don't care about it either way. I don't care if it passes, gets dropped, folded, spindled, or mutilated. I don't care. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to have an opinion, which is why I have been following this thread and asking questions!

But I am obviously asking some questions that you find uncomfortable because they challenge the premises of your argument against WinLink being more than just your opinion. And in doing so you get personal and assume that I have some agenda.

I was not asking anything to support for or against, but was simply and quite honestly questioning the data that you are supplying as proof of your position.

If you look back, you'll see that I also asked Jim Haynie where his numbers came from.

I never said I was looking for the truth, and I have not stretched a story out a bit far because I have not told any story.

I asked for the basis for numbers which are being offered up as proof of a position, and I asked it of both sides.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to ignore polls, but if I do happen to get some people to wonder about their validity, I'll consider that a good thing. I stated quite reasonably why I, emphasize "I", do not trust certain polls which by their very nature must return either biased or unrepresentative results, which in either case are, TO ME, meaningless.

You have your convictions, and I respect that, but when you present evidence to support your convictions, which is an obvious attempt to gain support for your position, then you should be prepared for any reasonable person to ask about the basis for that evidence.

You further personalized this by suggesting that because I questioned your supporting polls, that I was attempting to invalidate all polls. Who's doing some stretching with that response?

I am not trying to debate you. I am not searching for the truth, and I am not getting personal. I asked some valid questions, and if you can't answer them, then just say so. If you espouse the horrible antics of those you oppose, that is fine and your right. But please, please don't get offended if someone questions your assertion that your position represents that of the overwhelming majority. I'm not saying it is or it isn't.....I'm saying that the numbers you presented to me are not a proof, and I explained why.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

Mike, You are starting to sound more and more like a troll. I say this because you have done nothing to bring the discussion forward, have taken up a lot of space in order to blow smoke, and you cry 'personal attack' for no particular reason.

You started off asking where I got my numbers and I gave you enough information so that you could investigate those sources and see for yourself. Instead, you have pretended that I never answered you.

Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I will continue to assume that you simply do not like the information you have read and so are trying to obfuscate in a long-winded fashion, perhaps with an eye to boring readers into moving on to another topic.

In other words, until and unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I am going to have to conclude that you are a troll, here to blow smoke on behalf of the hapless Jim Haynie, who has been caught red-handed in his corrupt behavior associated with the ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal, and in his associated parting gift to the hobby, the upcoming proposal to allow encryption on the ham bands.

You can of course question anything you like, just as I can question your motives in taking up so much space while doing nothing to bring the discussion forward.

[KI4NGN]

Laughing my butt off! I asked questions, the SAME questions, of BOTH sides, yet you still assert that I must be trolling for one side or another. (Sorry, but I do take that personally since it implies that I must be lying when I say I have no position.) I am not even an ARRL member!

I am wasting space by not moving the discussion forward? What is you definition of forward...agreeing with you and accepting your premises as the gospel and beyond reproach?

Question my motives? Do you mean you question why I am asking you questions that you apparently can't answer?

You miss my point entirely Charles. Maybe.

First off, presenting poll result percentages means absolutely nothing if you don't include important numbers like how many responded to the poll? How many hams are there? If 100K hams responded and 98K of them (98%) were against Winlink, that is a very significant finding. But if only 100 hams responded and 98 were against, that is still 98% respondents against, but it is now a meaningless number. Do you get that Charles?? When you spit out percentages you have to include numbers otherwise the percentages are meaningless.

Maybe the point is that there were only a few hundred, if that many, respondents and you don't want to show how meaningless your percentages are? You just want to be able to specify 98%, not have anyone ask 98% of how many?

Accurate polling requires certain numbers and procedures in order to accurately present the results as representative of a population.

First, the poll has to be explicitly and directly presented to a certain minimum of the target population. The minimum is derived from the number of members of that population who will respond to a poll, and that number has to be one that can statistically respresent the target population. So taking into account the percentage of the target population who will respond to a poll, you directly target a number that will yield the statistically required minimum of respondents. The results will represent the target population within + or - X percent.

While I am sure that HamPoll is a very secure site in terms of polls, it cannot ever be representative of the ham population because it is only taken by those who somehow, through invitation or browsing, find it. This undermines any possibility of being representative of the ham population.

This is not an insult directed at your website, just an education. And this is why I said that I question many internet polls because they are presented and conducted in a manner that cannot possibly be repesentative of anyone other than those who chose to participate.

My original question was to understand your assertion that X percent of hams (implying all hams) were in agreement with your position.

I would have accepted your position with no problem if you had just said "It is my gut feeling and those with whom I have communicated that most amateur radio operators are opposed to WinLink.". I would have accepted that on it's face value and it would have given your position validity. But when you start spitting out numbers, and someone questions those numbers or the source of those numbers, and your response is that I must have some agenda, all that does is move me further from accepting your position.

I repeat for the reading impaired or those caught off-guard by questions they find difficult to answer: I have no position on the issue. I stumbled into a forum where an issue was being discussed about which I have insufficient knowledge to form an opinion. Both sides posted some explicit numbers, and I asked BOTH sides where their numbers came from. One side responded, the other didn't.

Of the one who responded, I responded that the source of numbers is one for which I question the validity, and I stated the reasons why I felt that way. This is normally labelled as discussion.

But when that respondent can do nothing more than insult me and insist that I must have an agenda....

Tell you what Charles, you're right and I am wrong. I must be a dummy for having questioned your sources of supporting data. You found some numbers that support your position, are sure they must be correct, and therefore when you present those numbers to others it is ignorant of those others not to just have your certitude.

I won't waste anymore valuable forum space. Everyone else, if Charles says it, it must be true. If he says the source of his numbers must be accurate and that the conclusions drawn from those numbers must be correct, don't bother to question that because it must be a fact.

73's, have a nice life.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Feb. 15 2006,07:18)]
Thanks for putting up with this Jim!!

It's illogical statements like those below that create doubt the ARRL is in touch with facts. Most people who use the band regularly are in favor of segmentation. They are the ones experienced, yet we come up with "I heard xxxx so we can ignore the people with experience that are affected and do what we want".

This is the ARRL face no one likes. It's a haughty "we know better than you what you need" attitude.

W5JBP writes:
"Tom, I hear what you are saying and while I am not a 160 expert, I know quite a few amateurs who regularly frequent 160. From what I understand the propogation on 160 is such that segmentation is not a real requirement."

Propagation has little to do with the technical and engineering problems caused by mixing wide and narrow modes Jim. 160 easily covers east coast to west coast, north coast to south coast. It does that virtually all year, except for summer when static is terrible.

160 is much more like 75 and 80 meters than any other band. Even if was like the VHF bands that are often not open for any distance, the VHF bands have narrow mode restricted segments! Why is 160 an orphan?

W5JBP writes:
"The number of operators that use 160 is only about 2% of those who are on 20 meters. So we are talking about apples and oranges."

Density of use certainly has something to do with it, and so does skip zone distances and signal levels. On 160 you hear everything from the guy next door to the fellow 3000 miles and further away, and you hear it in any direction that is largely free of daytime D layer absorption.

Not so for 20. It has skip zones that restrict hearing many stateside staions, and it also allows directional antennas to be commonly used. For the same active population you'll hear many many times more stateside stations on a lower band.

The band is also narrower than 20. If what you say is true and it has 2%, that 2% impacts other users more than it does on 20.

"Speaking only for myself, splitting up the spectrum into segments for SIGs is not the answer. Many countries around the world use the KISS method. "Here is the top, here is the botton stay inside." They have not had any problems that I know of, so it does work."

Respectfully Jim, you don't seem to have a grasp on technical problems caused by this deregulation or lack of regulation. You also are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, which is something that causes the image problem the ARRL has.

On one hand the ARRL proposed bend division by bandwidth, on the next breath when dealing with a specific band that DAVE SUMMNER openly does not want segmented you present all sorts of lame arguments.

This makes me think Dave Summner is running the show, and you are just another person influenced by him.

Your JOB as president was to do what members want, not what K1ZZ wants.

The important point of 160 and how you responed is the fact you parroted excuses that are technical nonsense. This is exactly the same thing that came up with Winlink and automated transmissions.

The response to this topic makes it look like the ARRL is driven by the opinions of a few people at HQ rather than good solid engineering or technical solutions or simply doing what users want.

It's this distancing from the people served by the ARRL that makes it look like a few special people with their lips to the ears of the board are running the show. This is why ARRL membership is so poor.

It isn't the fact you did nothing with 160 and ignore it, it's the fact that the ARRL does what it wants with very little reason or logic behind decisions.

Fix that and you will fix the image problem.

73 Tom

[ae4fa]

Quote[/b] ]all organizations can use image polishing.
The League is no different
Again, Tom, there is image and there is the bottom line on the P/L statement.

The bottom line has been improving while the image is causing membership declines every year.

So far, neither Jim nor any other member of ARRL leadership is much concerned. And I think that's because they're driven by the bottom line, not membership.

The short version is that we're barking up the wrong tree.

[n0iu]

Jim,

Thank you for your reply regarding the operating expenses for the Maxim Memorial Station. Actually, I did get a response from K1ZZ who said that the operating budget for W1AW “…is in the neighborhood of $90,000, exclusive of capital expenses…” and you say that W1AW costs, “Roughly…$150,000 per year for the total overhead.”

The italicized words indicate the first problem. The League is asking us to dig deep into our pockets, up to $30,000 over three years, and donate to their cause. According to the 2004 Annual Report, the goal for W1AW is $2,000,000. One of my concerns was that the letter was vague and non-specific and words like this don’t help, especially when the two of you are $60,000 apart! Granted, Sumner’s figure is exclusive of capital expenses and yours is total overhead, but this wide disparity from two of the people who should know is not yet causing me to open up my checkbook.

Other posters here have mentioned the fact that the League may have some PR issues and the word “unresponsive” is often used when referring to the organization. (Although I suppose that having the past president respond directly on qrz.com sort of wipes out that theory.) My point is that it is our League. It belongs to all of the dues paying members. The letter simply asks for money and takes the tone of, “Just give it to us and we will spend it as we see fit.” Well, it’s my money and my League. Coming to me with your hand out won’t cut it with me.

In reviewing the audit of the 2004 Financial Statement (the most recent one publicly available as far as I know), there are several Temporarily Restricted Funds that are used primarily for awards and research. I can fully understand where expenses such as these falls outside of the realm of everyday operating costs, but the League is asking for money for building and equipment maintenance and upkeep. It sounds to me like the normal sources of income are not adequate to meet expenses, hence the title of my article. I know that the full time staff now stands at 90, which is down from 115 a few years ago. I think that much of the PR problems stem from the fact that with declining membership and corresponding drop in revenue, it seems like more effort is being put into soliciting the existing membership into giving far more than their annual dues than coming up with ways of cutting more expenses from the budget.

Of course another obvious solution is to increase the membership. Late last year the League hired Sarah Dorsey as the Membership Director. Something must have happened because the job has been posted again and her name has been stricken from the internal search engine except for the digest of 2005 QST articles. I wonder what happened to her?

Another PR issue is the only reason that I know about the $2,000,000 goal for W1AW is because I took the time and effort to do some research. As it turns out, if the League can raise that much money, the interest should be enough to fund the operation of W1AW. This is a very important bit of information but it was not mentioned anywhere in the letter. I can’t help but believe the League would have more success in raising money if they were completely up front with the plans for the endowment when they ask for the money instead of making people dig for the information.

The 1998 Annual Report showed a drop in membership since the peak in 1997. The 1999 Annual Report showed a .25% drop in membership. The 2000 Annual Report showed a .5% increase in membership and that was the year that the Novice and Advanced Class tests were dropped along with the 13 and 20 WPM code tests. One would think the ham community would have been a little more grateful to the League since this was their idea, but this was not the case. Since then, then news has not been good. The 2001 Annual Report showed a 1.9% drop in membership. The 2002 Annual Report showed a 2.54% drop in membership. The 2003 Annual Report showed a 1.5% drop in membership. The 2004 Annual Report showed a 1.8% drop in membership. The Report of the Administration and Finance Committee 2006 First Meeting showed a 2% drop in membership in 2005.

So what does it take to send up a red flag in Newington?

YOU GUYS ARE IN TROUBLE!

Scott NØIU

[N5PVL]

Well, they've gotten rid of Haynie, but they still have Sumner, Frenaye, Poor, Horzepa, Rinaldo, and Waterman, all of which are up to thier ears in corruption associated with the bandwidth segmentation proposal.

Until all of these fellows are gone I will not be contributing a nickel to ARRL, and I won't be encouraging anybody else to do so, either.

The ARRL needs to clean up it's act, starting off with an organizational enema.

Thank you for your reply regarding the operating expenses for the Maxim Memorial Station. Actually, I did get a response from K1ZZ who said that the operating budget for W1AW “…is in the neighborhood of $90,000, exclusive of capital expenses…” and you say that W1AW costs, “Roughly…$150,000 per year for the total overhead.”


Well, Dave and I come from different schools. Any time I do a budget, (and I am doing a lot of them as of late in a new business venture) I always take into account not only the salaries, but benefits and capital up keep.

The building (in this case) will require paint at some point. I does need electricity and heat. So you can be sure that your projections are in line, I try to take into consideration of all possibilities. When I chaired the Administration and Finance Committee in 1999, that was how I looked at it.

You mentioned the restricted funds. Yes, we have a number and that has been around for quite some time. I am proud of the fact that if you want to set up a fund by a donation for "striping the parking lot" that can be done and is honored. That fund can only be used for paint and the labor.

Setting up a fund so the interest supports W1AW is reasonable. 2 million in the bank at 5% would go a long way in doing so.

[ae4fa]

Quote[/b] ]Dave and I come from different schools. Any time I do a budget, (and I am doing a lot of them as of late in a new business venture) I always take into account not only the salaries, but benefits and capital up keep.
1. #And your way, Jim, is the correct way. #Now the question becomes WHY the President and Board of Directors cannot seem to REQUIRE from K1ZZ and other staff such a correct way of budgeting, as is done throughout government, business, and non-profit ventures everywhere.

2. #That, of course, leads to the question of why such detail is not presented in the solicitations. Surely postage is not the issue - if it were a URL would be presented for the details.

3. #Finally, all of this leads to the central question: #JUST WHO is in charge of ARRL, K1ZZ or the President, Vice-President, and Board of Directors?

And, all of that, leads to the answers you inadvertantly posted. #

And those are:

1. #K1ZZ does what he damn well wants and the BoD be damned;

2. #K1ZZ does what he damn well wants and the membership be damned; and

3. #K1ZZ.

[K2WH]

I got the letter like many others. Sent them $ 100.00. End of story. You guys are unbelievable. Ham radio is not a business. It is a hobby. You don't like what ARRL is doing, go somewhere else and spend your money but stop all the whining.

K2WH

[N5PVL]

" Ham radio is not a business. #It is a hobby."

Try breaking that bit of news to the ARRL.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 18 2006,09:35)]" Ham radio is not a business. #It is a hobby."

Try breaking that bit of news to the ARRL.
Why? #I don't have to bitch about ARRL and how they manage it, the ARRL runs nothing but the building in Newington. #Just think of it as a club with lots of members. #They have as much influence in your life as Ecars or the Maritime Mobile Net. #However, their presence in Washington DC is the big difference, and the place you want them to represent all of us. #I don't care if their center of operation was out of a basement or a 50 story glass and steel building. Makes no difference. I give regularly because they represent all of us.

But, they do not make the rules and they are not responsible for spectrum policy and they certainly do not enforce anything. #They provide guidance and put foward suggestions, but in the long run they mean nothing to you and me in day to day living. #

You give them too much credit. #Your ham activity is your hobby not ARRL's. #ARRL did not give you your license, you did. #So, just go about your business and be happy. #Break it up, go on home, nothing to see here.

K2WH

"is in the neighborhood of $90,000, exclusive of capital expenses…” and you say that W1AW costs, “Roughly…$150,000 per year for the total overhead.”


Note the difference. It is a matter of acounting. The electric bill is there every month. A paint job or carpet is capital expense. In my company I always allow an amout each year for capital expense.

The Board of Directors make policy. Dave runs the day to day operations.

We are both correct.

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Feb. 18 2006,14:12)]Just think of it as a club with lots of members.
If this was September 1999, I might be willing to buy into that. Through that month, the upper right hand corner of QST used to say, "Official Journal of The American Radio Relay League". Sounds like a magazine published by "a club with lots of members". Something happened that month. I don't know who's idea it was, but I suspect it came from the office of the Secretary and Executive Vice President. (The position of Chief Executive Officer had not yet been created) Starting in October 1999, the upper right hand corner of QST now reads, "Official Journal of ARRL The national association for AMATEUR RADIO". Now that sounds like they are (or want to be) a lot more than just "a club with lots of members".

The ARRL is several things. They are the oldest national association for amateur radio. They are the largest national association for amateur radio.

Membership has been dropping almost every year since 1998 (there was a very small .5% increase in 2000).

I see the term "arrogant" when describing the ARRL and this notion of being THE national association for amateur radio only confirms that. The assumption is that if you are THE national association, there are no other associations that matter. With membership dropping even faster than the shrinkage rate of amateur licenses in general, fewer and fewer amateurs see the value in belonging to this "club with lots of members".

Scott NØIU

[k5xit]

My godness so many bashing the ARRL. #If you do not support the league Ok. #You do not have to. #The league may not be perfect but it is the only one we have. #There is a wealth of information in QST each month and there are many programs administred by the league such as dxcc was wac and others. #If you have the means and desire to help the league fine, if not that is Ok. #You only get as much from any organization as you put into it. #73 folks.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (k5xit @ Feb. 21 2006,18:53)]You only get as much from any organization as you put into it.
So true. That about says it all.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

K5XIT says:
Quote[/b] ]
You only get as much from any organization as you put into it.

I resent that remark, sir.

No, I have NOT been putting wholesale corruption and dirt-pounding stupidity into the ARRL!

I suggest you come up with a new theory!

[KI4NGN]

Sorry Charles, you are being too sensitive. The normal intent of that statement is to say that if you don't put any effort/resources into an organization, then you have no standing to complain about it. That's like people griping about politicians and the government, then you find out that they never vote.

Are you a dues paying member of the ARRL? If so, then I back your right 100% to complain, gripe, or criticize them.

If not, you have no standing to be critical of them since by definition they are not representing you.

I'll be surprised if you don't disagree with me, but given that I have read in several different sites that there are an estimated 250K ACTIVE ham operators, and given that there are 100K plus members of the ARRL, it is fair for them to say that by respresenting their membership that they are respresenting a significant percentage of operators.

Again, if you ARE a dues paying member, then I will give you 100% support.

If not, then who is it you are representing? Yourself for sure, and I certainly support your right to do so. But if you are so vitriolic about an organization that you don't even belong to...

You can't change an organization from the outside. If you think they are so bad, so sure that they need change, then do what is necessary to change them from within. All the postings to QRZ are not going to change the organization, are nothing more than a vent to a small audience.

And by the way, I AM NOT A MEMBER and I am not biased towards them. I am just in total agreement with the previous statement that you resented.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 22 2006,04:17)]K5XIT says:
Quote[/b] ]
You only get as much from any organization as you put into it.

I resent that remark, sir.

No, I have NOT been putting wholesale corruption and dirt-pounding stupidity into the ARRL!

I suggest you come up with a new theory!
Charles,

It would be better of you slowed down and stuck with facts instead of just calling everyone corrupt.

I don't think there is any "corruption" at the ARRL. There are a few major bad decisions or things that make it look like the members aren't running the show on major issues, thers a bit that makes it look like the ARRL listens to buddies instead of using common sense, but those are all leadership problems.

I seriously doubt it is anything else except a few people at HQ who have been in their basic jobs for so long that they no longer are in touch with the real world.

It is exactly the same thing that happens at Ford, GM, and in politics. The ARRL has a very poor structure in that the dues-paying members are isolated from truly having control.

If you want to make the ARRL better, you better focus on the problem and not waste time ranting and raving about things you can't prove and that probably don't exist.

Focus on the known problems and people will listen and consider what you say. Right now you sound like Wayne Green, and we all know where he wound up at. He never could build a base that supported him.

73 Tom

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]If not, you have no standing to be critical of them since by definition they are not representing you.

This is ridiculous.

If the ARRL doesn't represent all Amateur Radio operators in this country then they have no business speaking for all amateur radio operators in this country.
Do you think RM-11306 will only affect ARRL members, or only US Hams for that matter?

The fact of the matter is that the ARRL wants the FCC to think they represent all US amateurs when in reality they aren't even close. The hubris and "Father knows best" attitude of this organization is staggering.

I am a former member as of 01/2006 and will stay that way till there's a top down, stem to stern house cleaning. I will also continue to point out the arrogance and bone headed mistakes (RM-11306) this organization makes as long as what they do can affect any Hams other than their lemmings....er....membership.

[KI4NGN]

No, the ARRL does not represent all Amateur Radio operators in this country, but they do respresent a significant percentage. What other organization can make that claim? You obviously seem to think they SHOULD represent all members, yet you withdraw your support? This is akin to people saying that they are so disgusted with government that they are going to stop voting. That will improve the government??? You think that withdrawing your support for the ARRL is going to improve it?

Perhaps the members are lemmings. That means that a significant percentage of hams are lemmings. Is bad goverment the fault and responsibility of the goverment, or does the responsibility ultimately rest with voters? The ARRL is no different....if it has problems, major or minor, it is ultimately the responsibility of the membership. The membership is to blame for not being more active, and the membership are the only ones who can force change by being active. Of course there is also the possibility that the ARRL is following its course with the approval of those 'lemmings'. I'm not saying that it is, but a handful of people posting their disapproval on QRZ is not a proof that they are not.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]No, the ARRL does not represent all Amateur Radio operators in this country, but they do respresent a significant percentage. What other organization can make that claim? You obviously seem to think they SHOULD represent all members, yet you withdraw your support?
25% is not a significant percentage. If they don't want to be seen as representing all US Hams then they should quit making proposals to the FCC that affect all US Hams. Who the hell do they think they are?

They have no problem putting proposals forward to the FCC that affect all US Hams, and others, but don't have to listen to "non-members" who are affected by those proposals?

The ARRL hierarchy is a joke.
The "directors" do exactly as they're told to do then turn around and preach the party line when questioned by members. How many non-unanimous BoD votes have there been...........ever? Either the ARRL cabal is right 100% of the time (not even close) or the directors do as their told.

You say you want to run for director and really shake things up? Good luck. They'll scour their charter to find a reason to invalidate your candidacy. The whole system is designed to keep right minded incumbants on the BoD. The only way to get through to these people is nailing them in the wallet and it seems to be working as their membership keeps declining every year.

[KI4NGN]

Well, I sure consider 25% to be a very significant percentage. First, what other ham organization can claim to represent even half of that number? Second, I think that their membership is far more than 25% of ACTIVE hams. As I said earlier, I have seen on this site and others where there the estimated number of ACTIVE hams is somewhere around 250K. Given an ARRL membership of 100K+, that respresents 40% or more of ACTIVE hams, which is a very significant number.

Do government representatives listen to other than their constituents when making decisions? Why do you think that the ARRL should listen to non-members? They go to the FCC just like any other lobbyists, representing the interests of those who support them.

"The only way to get through to these people is nailing them in the wallet and it seems to be working as their membership keeps declining every year."

You consider their declining membership #"to be working"? Towards what? A declining membership means that the only major organization representing any significant number of ham operators is representing fewer and fewer members. You think this is good? You're already complaining that they don't represent your interests, and being the only lobbying organization to go to the FCC, you think them having fewer members is a good thing? #You also forget that there is not just a decline in ARRL members, but a decline in licensed amateur operators overall. Don't think there could be SOME correlation there??

What if more and more people, very vocal, active, participative hams, those who don't agree with the direction of the ARRL, starting joining, swelling the ARRL ranks, and demanded change??

Which do you think would be more effective? Certainly a subjective opinion, but I believe the latter would have far more success than the former.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]What if more and more people, very vocal, active, participative hams, those who don't agree with the direction of the ARRL, starting joining, swelling the ARRL ranks, and demanded change??

They'd get ignored or marginalized, told to get inline or get out.

Quote[/b] ]A declining membership means that the only major organization representing any significant number of ham operators is representing fewer and fewer members. You think this is good?
I didn't say it was "good" but it certainly will get their attention. You'd think they'd want to know why their membership is declining. I think they do but ignore the cause because it doesn't fit with their goals. If anybody needs a more on point example of what happens when an organization like the ARRL starts ignoring membership, arogantly, you wouldn't have to look farther than newington.

[WA2CWA]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Feb. 22 2006,07:51)]
The ARRL hierarchy is a joke.
The "directors" do exactly as they're told to do then turn around and preach the party line when questioned by members. How many non-unanimous BoD votes have there been...........ever? Either the ARRL cabal is right 100% of the time (not even close) or the directors do as their told.
In the case of the bandwidth proposal, RM-11306, this is from the Board minutes:

"On motion of Mr. Frenaye, seconded by Mr. Vallio, it was VOTED to use a roll call vote to answer the question, after which the motion was ADOPTED, 12 in favor to 3 opposed, with the following Directors voting AYE: Mr. Fuller; Mr. Isely; Mr. Bellows; Mr. Roderick; Mr. Mondro; Mr. Fallon; Mr. Walstrom; Mr. Frenaye; Mr. Milnes; Mr. Vallio; Mr. Morton; and Mr. Butler; and the following Directors voting NAY: Mr. Bodson; Mr. Norton; and Mr. Day."

Pete, wa2cwa

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 22 2006,09:05)]What if more and more people, very vocal, active, participative hams, those who don't agree with the direction of the ARRL, starting joining, swelling the ARRL ranks, and demanded change??
Mike,

By your own admission, you are not a member of the ARRL. Why not? Since you are not a member and have no personal experience with dealing with their officials, your only source of information are the message boards like this one.

In what kind of activity do you recommend people engage in order to affect change at the League? Here's how things work -- There are 15 Division Directors (and Vice Directors). As printed in QST, "As an ARRL member, you elect the directors and vice directors who represent your division on ARRL policy matters." In addition to the directors, the president, first vice president and chief executive officer make up the executive committee. Vice directors only serve in the absense of the director at a board meeting. Other than that, they have no authority or power. They are not even allowed to speak at a board meeting unless they are there in an official capacity or an invited guest.

The entire board never comes up for re-election at the same time... on purpose. A lone voice on the board does no good (other than knowing that you voted your conscience). You need to get a majority of board members to vote with you in order to affect change.

As a non-member of the ARRL, how can you consider yourself to be qualified to tell us how to make changes in the organization? The first thing you need to do is join the League and get to know Dennis Bodson W4PWF who is the Roanoke Division Director, your voice at the League.

The next thing you need to do is quote the sources for your information. You use a lot of numbers and percentages in making your point. You say things like, "I have read in several different sites that there are an estimated 250K ACTIVE ham operators..." Unless someone can back up their numbers with survey results, using the information on qrz is the last place I would turn for accurate information. You also say things like, "given that there are 100K plus members of the ARRL". If you want to know how many hams are members of the League, go to their website and find out exactly how many members they have.

If you are such a strong supporter of the League, then join!

Scott NØIU

[KI4NGN]

I am not for or against the ARRL, though I likely will join.

What I was responding to, if you read my posts, are other comments about the ARRL apparently either not representing all hams, not representing its members, etc, etc.

My response was generic....refusing to support an organization, any organization, is not a way to change that organization.

I have read SO many posts on here about not joining the ARRL, or letting membership lapse, because of disappointment with the League. I have no problem with that. What disturbs me is people thinking that this is a way to CHANGE that organization. As I noted, I find this akin to a person saying that he is so disgusted with government that he is just going to stop voting. Does that make sense to you?

And some of the comments I read here are so negative that I always wondered if THESE people are members? I think that is a legitimate question. I find that these people remind me of other people that I have encountered throughout my life who I've heard bitch and moan about the government, then come to find out that they never vote!

As far as percentages, I agree with you, using this web site as a source is not exactly reliable information. However I am using the number that many of the naysayers use to justify their disdain. However, you are correct.

I can say that the 250K estimate of active hams is a number that I have seen here and was also provided to me in response to a letter that I sent to the ARRL with some questions that I wanted answered before I joined that organization. Both those for and against the ARRL seem to agree on that approximation, so that is the number I used. Correct or not, both sides seem to agree on that number.

I never said I was qualified to tell anyone how to make changes to the ARRL. I am qualified as an adult with some life experience to know the best and worst methods of changing ANY organization, and so, presumably, are you.

No one is going to change the ARRL by not joining or by quitting. but that can certainly bring about its demise. You don't have to be a member to see that.

And you don't have to be a member to know that they are the only lobbyist going to the FCC speaking for their constituents. If the ARRL goes away then who will replace them?

By the way, I believe that I DID get that 100K+ membership number from the ARRL.

And no where in my discussion was I attempting to justify any numbers other than to say that the ARRL certainly represents a very significant percentage of active amateur radio operators. I don't really care what the actual numbers are beyond the fact that they are by far the largest organization representing any hams. Is anyone disputing that?

As I noted, I did write a letter to the ARRL. I received a prompt, detailed, and courteous reply. I had questions about the response and again received a good reply. My point is that all of my information is NOT based on this or other websites. However I am specifically addressing posts in this website.

My qualifications to make my comments are:

I am an active, licensed amateur radio operator.
I am 52 years old and have been around the block more than a few times.
I vote in elections.
I have at least a modicum of common sense.
I don't complain about things that I can't change, and if I do complain about something, I try to put forth some effort to bring about a change.
I can read and I can write, and I am entitled to my opinion just as everyone else is.
I try to be tolerant of other people, and not be caustic or derisive if I disagree with them.
I have a firm belief that people are responsible for and should take care of themselves.

If this is not enough of a qualification for you that I respond with my opinion that those who bitch about an organization yet are not members are out of line, or of the futility of people quiting or not joining an organization as a means of invoking some change in that organization, then that is your opinion. Skip my posts.

I don't know how many times I have said that I am not for or against the ARRL, that I am about nothing more than the words I am posting, summarized in my last paragraph.

That all said, I am not a member and I don't how how that organization functions. You outlined how it operates, and I will take you at your word for that. So with that I will suggest that if a majority of the membership disagrees with a course chosen or decision made by that organization, there actions that may be taken. If that majority took a positive, direct action, say each writes a letter, and said organization receives (just for argument) 50,000 letters expressing disapproval, I posit the opinion that the organization will take note of this and decide that it may be in their best interest to pay attention.

Quiting, not joining, posting to QRZ, are not going to bring about change. No more than you could change Washington DC by not voting or posting to some other web forum. But people do write to the congressmen and senators all the time, even to the President, and you can bet that when they receive a large volume of correspondence from their constituents, they most certainly pay attention.

I don't have to be a member to surmise that if the ARRL is pursuing a course or making decision that the majority of hams disagree with, then the majority is not communicating this to that organization. Either that or those posters here so against the course and decisions of that organization are a minority.

I don't have to be a member to surmise this, it is common sense derivation when considering any organization.


Mike, Raleigh, NC

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Feb. 22 2006,16:49)]I don't have to be a member to surmise that if the ARRL is pursuing a course or making decision that the majority of hams disagree with, then the majority is not communicating this to that organization. Either that or those posters here so against the course and decisions of that organization are a minority.
Or the third reason could be that they have an agenda and they will do everything in their power to see that it becomes a reality the membership be damned.

It is not my intention to turn this into a political discussion, but some decisions made in Newington are like GW's decision to veto any action by Congress to block the sale of several port operations to a company based in the UAE. In other words, it doesn't matter what you or your elected officials think, he is going to see that this sale goes through, Congress be damned! For that reason, I think a lot of people are leaving the League over the frustration that their voices are not heard.

And yes, life experience counts for a lot.

There may be more current numbers, but the 2004 Annual Report (The 2005 Annual Report has not yet been published) states that there were 151,727 members at the end of the year.

As far as letting you know how the organization operates, you don't need to take my word for it. Just like their membership statistics, it is in print in their official publication.

The ARRL conducted a survey in 2003 that indicated activity levels. Even though I helped pay for the survey through my membership, they will not release the details of the survey to me or anyone not in an executive capacity at the League. Here is the official response --

"The surveys referenced in the League's comments filing on WT Docket 05-235 are not available on our Web site or in the annual because they are proprietary by agreement with the firm that conducts the surveys for us. They also are hard-copy documents and quite voluminous."

Rick Lindquist N1RL

[KI4NGN]

Yes, there is that third possibility. However in another forum thread I encountered this:

"951 comments to RM-11306 if you also count the "Reply to Comments". I'm willing to bet they're not all ARRL members. Last I heard ARRL had about 150,000 members. Where's the member majority you speak of? "

This is a valid point. Let's round the numbers and say that there were 1000 responses and 150000 members. This means that .7% even bothered to provide feedback. And the percentage is only that high if all of the responders were members.

If I was a board member of any organization and I received feedback about a proposal over a period of at least a year from less than 1% of all of my constituents, I would not feel at all wrong to proceed as planned. Why would I if (apparently) the proposal is OK with 99% of my constituents?!?

Though I may certainly be incorrect, I believe that a lot of the venting I've read about the ARRL not listening to its membership is not taking into account the fact that just because 'they' (the ones venting) are very verbal, perhaps even actively corresponding with the ARRL, that they and those like them may not represent as many as 1% of the ARRL membership, much less of all hams. I am not saying that their position is unrepresentative or not, just that their numbers are not.

I'm not going to throw out any numbers, but what I can say for sure is that I've not seen any posted or published numbers that come close to representing more than a small fraction of the ARRL membership or of all hams.

If the majority of ARRL members are opposed to ARRL decisions, then they have no one to blame but their own apathy for the results.

As I said earlier and will still express, if instead of 951 comments on that one proposal there had been 50,000(!), I guarantee that the organization would have listened.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] ]
If I was a board member of any organization and I received feedback about a proposal over a period of at least a year from less than 1% of all of my constituents, I would not feel at all wrong to proceed as planned. Why would I if (apparently) the proposal is OK with 99% of my constituents?!?


That is utterly moronic. - You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for that one.

Are you REALLY that dumb, or do you just think that everyone else is?

[KI4NGN]

Jeez Charles, just like all of your responses to me; insulting, demeaning, and serving absolutely no purpose.

You seem to get personal when you have nothing to offer other than your total frustration.

Moronic? How so? There was a foundation for the paragraph that you quoted. Do you have a refutation of my statement, or is your brain just so fried from anger and frustration at not getting your way or having people disagree with you that you are operating under diminished capacity?

Are you still upset that I demonstrated how totally futile your website is when it comes to polling?

I have been having reasonable discussion, going back and forth with reasonable people, each using logic and information to convey their point of view.

Please, go change your diaper and apply some baby powder to that obviously chafed ass of yours that causes such responses.

[N5PVL]

Your assertion that every amateur who did not comment to the ARRL BOD must have been in favor of what they were doing ( and even your implied assumption that they would know what the ARRL BoD was up to ) was utterly moronic.

Sorry OM, but that's just how it is.

And it doesn't sound like I am the one who is frustrated, it sounds more like you are.

I'm just pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy behind one of your statements. You can have a hissy fit if you like, but that won't change the facts. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Feb. 17 2006,18:04)]Well, Dave and I come from different schools. Any time I do a budget, (and I am doing a lot of them as of late in a new business venture) I always take into account not only the salaries, but benefits and capital up keep.

The building (in this case) will require paint at some point. I does need electricity and heat. So you can be sure that your projections are in line, I try to take into consideration of all possibilities. When I chaired the Administration and Fi