Yes, advertisers do pay attention to customer feedback. And if you want to kill the ARRL, feel free to get the advertisers to quit. The ARRL won't last long and you can feel happy that you helped contribute to its demise - and the eventual demise of ham radio in the U.S. Or you can take a proactive stance. Let your directors know. Vote for directors who support your position and vote out those who don't. Even run for director yourself. Work for POSITIVE changes, not negative ones.
I just posted the following comment on the HRN site (under the video of their Webcast "One League Under the Siege") and thought it might be appropriate for this thread as well. (The episode rambles a bit, as we hams are wont to do, but is still well worth a listen; it's at https://www.hamradionow.tv/episodes/2018/1/8/hrn-379-on-league-under-the-siege) Guys: I have been involved in the founding and governance of several nonprofit organizations, and the behavior that you report is disturbing. It sounds exactly like what happens when an organization's board and staff are about to "go rogue," betraying the group's original purposes and running it for their own benefit. Because US law doesn't provide much recourse in such situations (perhaps it should, but it doesn't - which is why this is not an uncommon occurrence), members' and supporters' only recourse is often to abandon the group and form another with sincere leadership... as well as built-in mechanisms to prevent such failures of governance. But it would be a shame if the ham community had to do this, because the ARRL has worldwide name recognition and so many programs in place that would require great effort to duplicate. This problem is also cropping up at a particularly bad time - when hams are seeking legislation to ensure that they are able to practice their art and their spectrum resources are being threatened. I hope that the ham community is able to straighten this out without having to break with the organization, and without being split into pro- and anti-ARRL camps. Perhaps it would be wise to implement a mechanism via which the members, via a majority vote, can force re-election of the entire Board of Directors... and/or an initiative process which allows some percentage of the members to trigger a vote on an initiative that forces action or changes the bylaws. (This could be used, for example, to require greater transparency regarding the Board's actions, or even posting of audio and video of Board meetings. Both of these mechanisms have been used as antidotes for behaviors that undermine a group's mission, and with sufficient pressure from members it may be possible to persuade the existing leadership to adopt them.) I am not a member of ARRL, and have been dissuaded from joining it because of these failures of governance. I hope to join, but am withholding my support pending the outcome of this debacle. I sincerely hope that these problems will be resolved and that I will be able to become a member - perhaps even a life member - rather than having to seek out or support a different organization instead. Brett Glass WY7BG, Laramie, Wyoming
The note contains an important link to The ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors. It directs to this web page URL for a "missing file", http://www.arrl.org/img/file_types/missing.png Ironic? Or indicative ...
FWIW Here is my response to K5UR's missive, sent to him and to the NW Division Director Dear Mr. Roderick That was a well written editorial about issues regarding ARRL Board of Directors actions in the last two years. Well written, but almost completely irrelevant and deflective. I’m not an attorney, nor much concerned with being diplomatic at this point. Organized misinformation campaign? Give me a break. The people involved in this are being paid exactly the same as the ARRL Board members, 0 Dollars and 0 Cents, with the addition of not being reimbursed for expenses. The vast majority of what the League has “accomplished” with this BOD and this CEO amounts to irritating people, trying to impose a “corporate nonprofit” model on a membership services organization, ambulance chasing publicity photo ops, condescending editorials and mail responses from a CEO with a Public Relations deficit that would make Gandhi want to smack him, and a botched campaign for a ARPA bill that has forced Hams themselves who *support* the concept into lobbying their Senators into voting against. Given the obfuscation and evasion about the disqualification of K3RF and K4AC, and the clear intentions to disqualify N6AA next time, the only choice *has* been to “talk to people off the record” who come from different points of view and put together the picture. The Board can *never* state this publically, because they are rightly afraid of the liability issues, but the bottom line is ..this Board has struggled to get anything done, got tired of members who called them on it, finally got sick of hearing it, and came up with excuses to bounce them. The quote given to me was “They weren’t team players.” Please remember, in a member services organization, there is no place for the BOD to self select. The ByLaws give a BOD (and give me a break, the “Ethics Committee” is a fig leaf,) that option for serious misconduct, not for “We’re sick of his/her crap.” Repeat again, “We don’t select our own members.” The Code of Conduct is mostly boilerplate, but again, you know as well as I do, that it is there because the BOD decided they needed justification for any future “Not a Team Player” situations. Bottom line for me, for any proposed ByLaw changes, other than cosmetic, is, “Do they remove the power for the BOD to self select.” From a policy point of view, the lesson learned is that no matter who comprises the BOD in the future, they must never have that power again at any time for any reason. In the bigger picture however, whatever may be in the ByLaws, it is clear here that “Personnel is policy.” It *shouldn’t* be that way, but, too late now. This BOD and this current ARRL CEO have been abject failures. You hired a CEO with an impressive resume, that, much like your missive, was absolutely irrelevant to the actual challenges. Mr. Gallagher has many accomplishments in his life, and exactly zero of them have anything to do with Amateur Radio, or managing a BOD in a Membership Services organization (aka “cat herding”) This Board and this CEO have created an untenable and likely unfixable situation. You *can’t* address the real issues, due to the liability concerns, you can’t reestablish trust without doing that, and, the overall record is bad and getting worse. I understand that except for Mr. Gallagher, they are all volunteers, and nobody is looking to punish or damage them, but with three exceptions (W3TOM, N6AA, and K5RAV, who have consistently supported transparency), this Board is too compromised to recover. The rest of the Board needs to resign, be recalled, or voted out at the earliest possibility, and Mr. Gallagher needs to be relieved of his position. It is the only way forward. Sincerely Stephen Bloom KL7SB
Hi Again AI0K, You have mentioned this dialog before. I believe you are correct in all that you say, HOWEVER, my director IS N6AA! Do you really think expressing my view to him at this point in time is of any matter???? ALL hams out southwest are in N6AA's district so please, tell me which director we should all contact???? We Did elect a director who does what we liked and has informed the members in his district exactly what has happened, just as we wanted. And the result of that duty is WHY we are even having this conversation in the first place!
I'm only going to say that those of you that are "leaving" the league - will then have no say in getting it fixed. If you feel is is messed up - run for the Board! Maybe I will in a few years when I retire -right now I have a full time job that doesn't let me. Steve KA6S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How should I stay in the league when the league hurts ham radio and every penny they get goes towards that end? Talking to directors is futile... What's the point? Withholding dues does make a difference and you are making your voice heard doing that. de NK2U
And there it is. While that is a great idea, the fact remains that under the new Code of Conduct, a director is not allowed to say how they, or how other members of the BoD have voted on issues, and they are not allowed to speak negatively about any ARRL policy or negatively about the ARRL in general. So, exactly how will you be able to identify which directors support your position? Aye, there's the rub.
I spent a really great day at the ARRL yesterday, operating W1AW. I really disagree that every penny they get goes toward hurting ham radio. Withholding gives you NO voice in the matter, you're just a complainer on the sidelines at that point. Real change comes from within, get involved and be the change.
No, that's not what it says - there has been a huge amount of misinformation going around. Read the resolutions up for vote. They say one shall not criticize the league or board. One is free to say how he/she voted on an issue.
I don't know him, so I can't say. But if you don't like what he's doing, replace him in the next election! Find someone who will support your views and support him/her in the next election. Or run yourself! In the meantime, let your director know you are unhappy. If he gets enough mail he will either change his tune or know he'll soon be out of a job.
On the contrary, refusing to voluntarily fund activities that aren't compatible with one's conscience is perfectly reasonable for people who have reason to believe that their voice won't be heard, anyway. And there's no reason to try to apply yet another demeaning and meaningless label to people who choose that option for such reasons. By definition, a member who complains only to have that complaint ignored is already on the sidelines, so what is lost by withdrawing their funding of the organization that ignores them?
