I think this is under consideration as some are up for re-election. However let's at least give them a chance to listen. If they turn stone deaf (as it seems they are well on their way to) then maybe it is a good time to start auditioning potential challengers.
News flash: http://www.arrl.org/arrl-articles-of-association Specifically, "Article 1: The name of our corporation shall be The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated." Also respectively, WN1MB Licensed since 1969 Associate ARRL member prior to being licensed, Full member upon becoming licensed, Life Member since early 1970's
Apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but quite different from one another. Management of ARRL and local radio clubs share some common ground. However, though they're both membership societies and some clubs are corporations, their management have to be different, largely dictated by their size and financial obligations. So to expect ARRL to be managed like a much smaller radio club is naive, simplistic, flawed, as well as sheer folly. And for the record, I do NOT agree with the recent heavy handed way the League has addressed recent events regarding some Directors and field volunteers/appointees.
A suggestion to show the solidarity of the ham radio community against this proposal it has been suggested that in the unlikely event that the proposal passes with out change, that the amateur radio community not participate in the upcoming ARRL DX contests. 73 GO FRC! Jay K2TTT/C6ATT
Dear Mr Blocksome K0DAS. ARRL Midwest Division. And the ARRL Board of Directors. Mr. Blocksome,I did not vote for you and will never vote for you. I will support ANY candidate running for your seat in the future. YOU sir are part of the problem outlined here in this post. To the ARRL board of directors, ALL 15 of you voted to oust a loyal fellow ARRL Member and Director. Shame on you for censuring someone who is by all accounts an honorable and dedicated member of the ARRL and the membership in general. You all have disappointed me with your actions and will watch closely your future decisions when considering to purchase any further publications, awards, ETC. You are here to serve US, not yourselves. If at any time your personal opinions get in the way of serving in the best interest of the American Amateur Radio Operator at large, feel free to resign your position. NO "73" for you K0DAS or the ARRL BoD. Derek/N0GB
As I wrote my Director, and cc: to all Directors yesterday, something devastating is happening at OUR headquarters. Things that are bothering me are the "sell out" to the HOA group, and some of admittedly "second hand" information I have received concerning the PR "relief effort", or Group of 50. I am appalled at the fact a Vice Director is not allowed to attend a board meeting without the presidents approval. The proposals as I read them, and I am not a lawyer, are blocking league transparency, and the loyalty business is blocking open dialogue of differing view points, not only within the board, but from the membership itself. I delved through the December QST, looking for information that would be published to the membership. Nothing. Nada, zilch. This reeks of "back door politics" and "the old boys club". For us old timers (licensed 1972), ham radio is changing and we must change with it. That being said, kangaroo courts, and a secret society do not make positive change. If this passes, I think we will see a lot of changed estate plans by members, a rapidly declining membership, and loss of credit of the league. If this does not get "laid on the table", I as one would like to see a roll call vote, that when made public we would have the opportunity to express our opinion at the ballot box. Perhaps it is time for the league to divide itself into the two entities it already is: a publishing company, and a lobbying group.
If the ARRL ceases to advocate for its members, the members will stop sustaining it through dues. The ARRL will suffer and they will either correct course, downsize or perish. I met Gallagher at Ham Radio University last year on Long Island. From what I understood, he is trying to pull the ARRL finances together and right the ship. He took a lot of questions from the crowd, and I believe that he answered them honestly and well. If I recall correctly he addressed the Amateur Radio Parity Act and reassured us that the ARRL would push to end restrictive HOA covenants regarding amateur radio antennas and operation. Per Tom, there was a significant cash flow problem at ARRL as of last January. He has the right background to address this issue. He's also been a ham for a long time, and I believe he understands his difficult mission quite well. The Board appears to be retreating and pulling back with some of the proposed changes to the Articles of Association being very controlling and punitive. I've seen this behavior before in organizations that are undergoing rapid, unexpected or uncomfortable change and are feeling challenged. I am a member of both the NRA and USAA. They are different organizations from themselves and the ARRL, but they both, in general (there have been exceptions with the NRA) advocate for their members and lobby in Washington for member interests. If the HOA bill HR 555/S.1534, Amateur Radio Parity Act, was drafted with ARRL language that sided with the HOA lobby-either through ignorance or intentionally, this would represent a major betrayal of the ARRL membership. The NRA has made mistakes in the past, and new members were voted in who have very consistently advocated for its members. I encourage all amateurs (ARRL members or not) to do their own independent reading on the issues and, if so motivated, contact their ARRL section leader, ARRL officers, and ARRL board of directors.
Is that a link to the ACTUAL board of directors or to the FOUNDATION? I've been looking for the actual list of the BOD but haven't found anything concrete except for a list on a pdf of the November Special Session published by the ARRL.
Some of the names at the foundation appeared in articles that mentioned board members. My assumption is that it is the board, but I can't state that for a fact.
My comments to my Division Director: Director Pace The purpose of this correspondence is to express my strong concerns regarding the direction currently being considered by the ARRL Board of Directors and the top staff at ARRL Headquarters. By way of introduction I have been continuously licensed as an Amateur Radio Operator for 60 years, have been a Life Member of the League for decades, and an annual member long before that. I have served in numerous capacities as a League appointee, served as the first Chairman of the ARRL Emergency Communications Advisory Committee, and as an elected Section Manager in the Pacific Division prior to moving to Oregon 16 years ago. To save you reading the same input twice suffice it to say that I support, 100%, the input provided to each Division Director yesterday by the Frankford Radio Club. Their's is not the only input from Affiliated Clubs worth noting. I believe two immediate actions are required of the Board. First, table any and all of the proposed changes to the ARRL By Laws until such time as additional member input is solicited and until the Board can fully think through the ramifications of the proposed changes. Second, consider the direction the CEO of the League is apparently "pushing" the board in. I have followed the comments of Mr. Gallagher since his appointment and, frankly, I am unimpressed. While his mindset is "corporate", and realizing the ARRL is a corporation, it is not one based solely on profit motivation. Nor is it one in which the majority of the "power" should rest with the CEO and a select group of others. That appears to be where Gallagher is heading the League. The League never has been, nor should it be, a top down organization. The League is member supported and derives most of its income from membership and membership purchases. To alienate those who ARE the League will not result in a positive outcome. Remember that the CEO works for and at the direction of the Board. You do not work for him. In conclusion I think the issue of whether Mr. Gallagher's employment as CEO ought to be addressed first. If he is not retained, and I believe he should not be, the resultant problems will likely cure themselves. Jerry Boyd N7WR
