Opinion: The ARRL By-laws Need Changin’

Gentlemen: Shall we begin to form Committees of Safety, Correspondence, and Observation????

 

You are not wrong in your thoughts, this is A Republic is it not? I am all for open forums ,

 

We all ready hove those. You just posted in one .

 

Fred, AA7BQ agree 100%.
Harry

 

I don't think I am crazy about open meetings. What would happen there would be to turn a group of largely cooperative people into politicians - each trying to out 'grandstand' the other. What we want is a group that makes reasoned decisions, not a bunch of politicians. And there are situations where the League has decided to act for what they believe is the best interest of the members, even though it conflicts with the wishes of many. It isn't a democracy, and was never intended to be one - these Directors are our representatives, not our puppets.

Want better representation? Do you even know your Director? Have you made an effort to share your opinion with him?

I will make my own proposal based on the way that my Director many years ago did it. I propose that each Director receive a small budget for the purpose of holding one or more meetings in their Division each year. These meetings to be attended by representatives elected by the ARRL-affiliated clubs in the Division. At the meeting, the Director should take suggestions for items that will be taken to the next board meeting, and those suggestions will be voted on. The vote is non-binding on the Director.

That system worked well. The reps to the meetings would go back to their clubs and discuss what was voted on, and hopefully, some of the arguments for or against the proposals. One of the items that was adopted was to have ARRL consider a no-code license.

Otherwise, I see no problem with the proposals.

 

sadly the ARRL has never listened to its members and I dont feel like they will start soon

 

Tried and failed. They aren't allowed to talk to me. Code of Conduct, etc.

 

http://www.arrl.org/news/ham-radio-publications-pioneer-visionary-iconoclast-wayne-green-w2nsd-sk

 

Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ - REF. The ARRL By-laws Need Changin’

I CONCUR!

 

Well, I decided to get a life membership here on QRZ than with the ARRL. Fred's editorial proved to me that I made the correct decision. I have received more value here on the "Zed" than I have from the "league". I have serious questions with the things going on and have for a while.

I can attest that the league has been more about itself than the membership for a long time.

 

Now I am beginning to wonder about finishing the payments on my Life membership. I agreed to pay the money, but do I want to support an organization that seems to be turning away from its members? I think will honor my obligation but be a vocal opponent of anything that is not in the best interests of amateurs.
I have been a ham for almost 50 years and I have never seen the likes of this. However, I have a great deal of faith in Ham radio operators. They will improvise, adapt and overcome. And they have a lot of collective common sense. A bit of revolution is not a bad thing. Just throwing that out there....
Rich, K4CPM

 

ARRL is being run more like a boys' treehouse club than a 21st century national non-profit corporation.
The vote-packing at the Board is simply skulduggery.
In my experience (sitting on Boards of Directors) , the perpetrators of that kind of behavior are usually involved in executive money/power struggles.
They need to be weeded out before they poison the whole organization any more than they already have.
The primary function of Executive Committees usually is (or ends up being) to circumvent some member(s) of the Board of Directors.

They continue to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to so-called lobbyists, with nothing good to show for it.
Follow the money.

 

Open meetings would be a disaster. A prime example would be a BOD member saying something that is taken out of context and we start having one giant kerfuffle over some board member's ream of consciousness being expressed. Executive committees serve the purpose of BOD to discuss things in private without the entire world watching so they can have open and honest conversations when discussing controversial business. Not everything discussed should be public record, the sausage-making is often ugly and does not add any value for a majority of ARRL members.

 

...or, perhaps worse, actually accurately quoting the statement.

 

It's not unusual for non-profit board meetings to be closed--in most non profits, including 'trustee' meetings at universities. It's a practical matter, to allow conducting business on behalf of the membership --without disruption. The disconnect is when new business is not vetted BEFOREHAND with the membership, then there is no way to calibrate whether the board is executing the business at hand on the membership's behalf.

You don't have to rent a stadium for a board meeting to solicit input from the membership.

The REAL question here is whether the ARRL board will abide by the membership's desire to table these amendments pending additional input.

Neither HYPE nor HOPE.