A petition has been posted at "change.org" demanding transparency at the American Radio Relay League. Those who are uncomfortable with the "star chamber" style of governance at the ARRL may find this petition and its demands for transparency to be worthwhile and reasonable. The link to the petition is at: https://www.change.org/p/arrl-board...ansparency-at-the-american-radio-relay-league The text of the petition is as follows: The American Radio Relay League is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization for radio amateurs dedicated to public service, advocacy, education, technology and membership. The organization is supported with membership dues and is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the membership. Recent questionable events, as well as an on-going lack of transparency, have caused significant concern amongst members. Board of Directors meetings are conducted behind closed doors. Programs and Services Committee meetings are conducted behind closed doors. Executive Committee meetings are conducted behind closed doors. Detailed financial data is extremely difficult to obtain. Recently, the Section Manager for Eastern Pennsylvania was removed from office by the Executive Committee without any form of due process or consultation with the members. Worse yet, a press release was issued, which was untrue and clearly designed to be a personal attack. These vindictive and unprofessional actions have exposed the organization to significant financial liabilities (see the case “Ames vs. American Radio Relay League,” which is pending in Federal Court). We, the undersigned members and former members of the ARRL who have resigned in protest wish to express our extreme dissatisfaction with the “star chamber” methods of governance and significant lack of transparency within OUR representative organization. In particular, we demand: · Open Board of Directors meetings · Open Programs and Services Committee Meetings · Open Executive Committee meetings · Annual publishing of a detailed budget identifying the application of funds to specific programs and operating interests. · On-the-record voting at Board of Directors meetings. · Audio recordings of the above meetings, which are made available to members via the web page. · Rules preventing “off the books” meetings of elected officials and corporate officers. The ARRL is broken. It’s ours. Let’s fix it. WE DEMAND TRANSPARENCY!
The ARRL is a membership organization. As such, the members have a right to know what is going on. Transparency in the operations and most especially the finances will not change anything that the ARRL is doing(unless there is some monkey business going on). The ARRL collects a very large amount of money in our name. We have every right to know how that money is being spent. The Declaration of Independence talks about the "just consent of the governed". There can be no consent of the members if we have absolutely no idea what is happening. The ARRL is basically doing a good job. That is not really what this push for transparency is all about. Whenever an organization tries to hide what it is doing, you wonder, "What are they trying to hide"? Secret meetings and secret finances don't breed a lot of confidence in my mind. I don't want to tear the ARRL down, I just want to know what they are up to and where the money goes. 73 Marshall K5QE
Good gravy.. I see this kind of stuff and I just wonder how it gets traction. If the ARRL haters out there want to change everything, transparent or not, why do they not start their own national organization? Nothing to stop them except their own inertia. Much easier to criticize an existing organization than to start your own and possibly suffer the same arrows and rocks, right? So, put you money to some good use. We will check back with you in a decade or so to see what progress you've made.
Strangely, that is how some VK hams feel about their national body, the Wireless Institute of Australia (WIA) . see http://wiarg.org/ The ARRL seems to be doing a better job than our WIA. 73 Paul VK2APA
How does it get traction you ask? By the very means outlined in the demand. A lack of transparency and an unwillingness to involve the membership in policy have soured many members. Remember RM-11708 or incentive licensing? I am begrudgingly still a member despite what I perceive as a broken organization. While they have their problems, they are still our voice. Kvetching without involvement wont fix anything. Will I sign the petition? I don't know..... 73, Jim, W5QM
While I do prefer to see organizations err on the side of transparency....I do wonder if those who argue for transparency have considered three questions: 1. Is what's being sought "transparency" or "spoon-feeding of all details, so I don't have to ask any questions to get information I might be curious about"? 2. Is there such a thing as too much transparency? Put another way: people are stupid; is there a level at which it doesn't make as much sense to publish data because an inordinate amount of resource would be required to fight fires lit by stupid people overreacting to their misunderstanding of that data? 3, How does the concept of complete transparency jive with the need to be appropriately defensive in a litigious society? After all, discussing legal strategy in public puts you in a disadvantage given the adversarial climate in a courtroom. Or, discussing certain personnel actions opens an entity up to claims of slander even if the organization is correct. The ARRL isn't the first organization I've been involved with that has taken heat over accusations of opaqueness, and I think there are plenty of mis-steps that the organization could and should learn from. I'm just offering those questions because sometimes I wonder if folks who think they want transparency have really considered the potential unintended consequences of what they think they want.
I nor any of my closest friends on HF are part of the ARRL -they have done a lot of damage in the past and acted extremely irresponsible. I support anything to remove the dinosaur thinking of this antiquated out-of-date organization who is more interested in getting in bed with big box radio stores and dumbing licensing down to push the market.
I don't live in your house nor do I pay your mortgage, but here's how you should raise your kids, cut your lawn and treat your wife... What is the reaction to that? If you are not an ARRL member, you have no voice in how the organization is run. Yeah, even if you and all your friends have been licensed since Marconi personally gave you a call sign. It's our club and non members are welcome to visit, but not to direct the organization. ...And that's just the polite version of how I feel about the current discussion.
From the Wades petition on Change.org: "Recently, the Section Manager for Eastern Pennsylvania was removed from office by the Executive Committee without any form of due process or consultation with the members. Worse yet, a press release was issued, which was untrue and clearly designed to be a personal attack. These vindictive and unprofessional actions have exposed the organization to significant financial liabilities (see the case “Ames vs. American Radio Relay League,” which is pending in Federal Court)." Let's make one thing clear; I'm not a big fan of the ARRL. However, barndoor actions like this petition and most-importantly the aforementioned lawsuit will lead to no greater transparency. They will likely have the opposite effect. The bunker mentality at Newington will harden because of this. Everyone wants their national association for amateur radio to have greater transparency. It's an admirable goal. Probably the best thing the league could do would be to relocate to a central or west-central state. Jiggle things a bit, and leave Connecticut behind.
WB8SIW , I think that having transparency in many organizations is a requirement , but maybe not all mentioned above - as an example there may be a subject / or person that needs some discussion to start to find a consensus , or if there is really no issue all , if on the record it could stir something up , that did not exist in the 1st place , then if there is an issue , further discussion is on the record . N1EN , good counter point , now the tricky part is where to go from here ? I am uninformed on a lot of what they do , so do not watch every step they make . I've belonged to a bunch of organizations of this type and have noticed over the last 60+ yrs. , or lets say 40+ to give the mind enough age to judge that as an organization gets larger it is attractive to some mindsets that want to dominate others for all kinds of reasons , and corrupts almost any / or every organization as it grows . He was the only son of Sir Ferdinand Dalberg-Acton, 7th Baronet and a grandson of the Neapolitan admiral Sir John Acton, 6th Baronet. He is perhaps best known for the remark, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Just seen it too often to see it otherwise , if you belong to a group , be ready at all times 24-7 to put this behavior in its place / that is no place .
As regards the petition itself -- I honestly don't know if the folks behind it are really concerned about what they see is a lack of transparency, or if someone's just peeved that a buddy got kicked out of the job of Section Manager. If it's the former, the petitioners probably should have gone into a little more detail about what their grievances are and provided a clue as to what kinds of changes they would like to see made. If it's the latter....I don't have the details to make an honest, informed opinion; and the potential for litigation over slander means that those who know more than I probably shouldn't enlighten me. For all its faults, the ARRL is significantly better when it comes to transparency than a professional organization I'm acquainted with. The organization I have in mind denies members any opportunity to sit in board meetings, declines to publish minutes of board meetings, and has structured its bylaws such that it's almost impossible for dissenters to get candidates on the ballot when new board members and officers are elected. Some vocal critics have found themselves facing charges of "unprofessional behavior" by a professional disciplinary body. Now, I'll admit that I've never tried to attend a board meeting (even though they frequently meet just a couple of miles away from where I sit at this moment), so I don't know what policy is on spectators at board meetings. But if I want to know what happened/is happening at a board meeting, I only need to look to the ARRL website or ask a board member. The hardest part about getting a contested election within the League leadership structure is finding an opposition candidate who's willing to run. And there certainly seems to be no lack of opinions floating around in the public among members and former members. If the League has a fault, it's that it doesn't always do the best job at seeking consensus on certain subjects, or in making cases on certain controversial subjects in a way that members get. That fault is aggravated, however, because so much of its membership/potential membership tends to be ornery and inflexible. Consensus isn't always going to be possible...which means that sometimes the organization is going to have to do what it thinks best, or be completely impotent. The only realistic thing to do for folks who care about such things is to elect leadership that they can either trust, or who will at least be receptive to feedback that they provide.
Transparency of the ARRL ? Well, I am a member. I receive email notices of Board meeting agendas and Board meeting minutes. And I actually read that stuff and if I see anything that concerns me. I know how to contact my Director to express concerns and opinions. I know how to get the Committee Reports. And I actually read some of those, too. I read the ARRL Letter regularly. I have bookmarked the Articles of Association, the Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations. Every year I download and read through their Annual Reports (although the 2015 annual report still isn't posted yet). I vote in ARRL elections I have the Division and Section web sites bookmarked. I have the contact information for the Division Director and Section Manager. I can go into the ARRL web site and download additional information, for example MOUs between ARRL and other entities. I am not sure how much more "transparent" they can be and still function.
FWIW, there is nothing in the ARRL Bylaws, Articles of Association, or Rules & Regulations that says Board or Executive Committee meetings are open either to the public or even to ARRL members. I have no problem with that, because for such a large organization, that would not be practical. If you look at photos of such meetings from the ARRL news or web, you see they are typically sitting around a large square table arrangement in a fairly small room. If anyone really did want to attend a meeting, I suppose one could ask their Division Director if it's possible to do so as a guest of the Director. And obviously, if one wanted to attend all the meetings and participate in the decisions, you have the option of running for Division Director.
I wonder what percentage of amateurs...especially the ones that like to gripe...can even NAME their Division Director.
