Yup, Rich is still alive and kicking but he is recovering from some serious surgery before he goes back to work. Still has repeaters. Check out both his and my (especially near bottom) QRZ pages. The other memory I wanted to share relevant to your Dad and The Bronx is that several years ago I was cleaning out old papers and found an envelope. It was your Dad's stationery done by a print shop with his return address. He was EC and RO for The Bronx and he had used it to send me some certificate or other mailing. He had appointed me AEC and ARO. Oh, the envelope had a 5 cent stamp on it. First class postage back then!
Yes, there used to be a lot of hoaky stuff in League publications, by golly! But it also probably had in the code, "of, by, and for the radio amateur" and the League's field structure made for a high degree of democracy AND participation. I like to think all of us OT's are not against the ARRL or the BOD but simply want it function democratically and be member oriented. We did have it better before, I think. And we believe that is possible if the BOD takes an enlightened view. More transparency for starters. You can see it in all the recent posts. We all come from different parts of the country, have different backgrounds and beliefs, but we mostly respect each other and are united by our radio interest and the basic American values concerning freedom and democracy. Yes, many of us are angry at what we are seeing, but we do want something constructive to be the result soon.
I wonder how many folks are in this exact situation, in that they really only belong just to get the magazine? I'll bet a lot. So why then does the League think it prudent to reduce the size and content of QST. Sometimes I think they can't see their nose from their face. For the sake of saving a few bucks, that they may be mis-spending somewhere else.
The announcement from ARRL was a trivial change in trim that will definitely save money, and a modest reduction in page count. No word on content, such that it is. There are less ham orientated businesses than there were a decade ago. The page count reduction may be mostly advertising space. Let's give them a year for their new format and direction before we sharpen the pitchforks.
When i finally got my license 3 years ago, joining the ARRL seemed like the thing to do..well after this mess...I will not be renewing. I vote with my wallet and feet. bye bye.
I agree and this makes me think if they stopped soliciting for donations with the cost of the mass mailing how much $$$$$$ they could save per year QST has been so dumb downed over the years its sad heaven forbid if the FCC gives them authority as they once sought a few years back I let my renewal lapse a couple of months back my original issue was the outgoing qsl fees & now this compounded on top
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When I was a subscriber (never considered myself a member) I did it only for QST and the outgoing QSL buro; that's it. I can do without both and have now for two years. I can't see even giving the ARRL another penny as long as they continue to hurt ham radio. de NK2U
Hmmm... I have been a ham since 1969, but was never an ARRL member until a few years ago. I joined primarily to get QST, as it occasionally has some articles of interest to me, and the new format looks promising. I am one of those who, for the most part, mistrusts any bureaucratic leadership. I haven't followed what the ARRL does/doesn't do very much, but past experience tells me that, just like so many other organizations, the people who are placed into controlling positions are people who want to control. They believe (and in many cases sincerely) that they know better than the "rank and file" what is best for the organization, and I'd also submit that, in certain areas, they actually do. However, whenever a governing board puts itself into a situation where they essentially ignore the "rank and file", and squashes any dissent or contrary opinion in the board, then that board needs some serious cleaning out. Sadly, when this happens, the people who will end up replacing the existing board will tend to be those with the same mental attributes, and the cycle perpetuates. Is there a solution? Sadly, unless there is some way of making a truly democratic (i.e. every ARRL member gets to vote on every decision) process, we are stuck with the republican (not the party, the political system) process of elected representatives to bring the concerns and decisions of the various areas to the central board. Does the ARRL have a referendum process? If so, that might be a way of changing the way things are run.
Why leave the league and weaken it ? Why not forge ahead using your membership and the power of a group to change these things? Seems leaving the team because the mangers suck is just leaving the door open for many others to play on the SAME team for the SAME manager.. Change the team don't abandon it..
Perhaps I did, but sarcasm or not, I truly believe that quite a few 'members' are really just 'subscribers', and if the print magazine went away, so would they.
Great write-up on both parties. After reading everything that I could find about the changes, I've found that most of Appendix B would be somewhat standard language in a publicly-traded corporation. They are not necessarily standard in the non-profit organization. If public corporations are all the executive committee knows, then obviously they believe that they are doing what is right for "the corporation" by proposing the new code of conduct. To quote Tom Gallagher, NY2RF, in his article "Second Century" in July, 2017 QST, "If you've never run a large organization or served on a board of directors, if you are untutored in matters of finance and accounting, if you've never dealt with today's state regulators and labor boards, it's easy to believe the myths [about the ARRL].". Based on that state of mind, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is used to working in the public sector, where the CEO calls the shots and the Board of Directors, although elected by the shareholders, represents the corporate. The ARRL was designed a little differently, and the Board of Directors are elected by members to represent the members (not the corporation). I digress. I think it is a simple case of round-peg-square-hole. We all know the saying "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" right. By appearance, we may believe this is a power grab, but maybe the executive committee believes they are really doing whats best, not get power, but because it's worked for them before. If that's the case, they should listen to reason. On the other hand, if it is a power grab, and an attempt to take control away from the members, time will tell. No matter what happens, it's not worth quibbling about. At this point, the best we can do is stay informed, communicate with our representatives and hope for the best.
