ARRL President Rick Roderick released a "Note to Members" on the ARRL Website today. My response (cc'ed to the NW Division Director Jim Pace K7CEX) beneath. _______________________________________________________________________ A Note to Members from ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR 01/15/2018 In the last few weeks, the ARRL’s Board of Directors has been the subject of an organized misinformation campaign. It is being orchestrated by a group of hams, some of whom are well-intentioned but have been misled. This effort, which consists of a series of mischaracterizations, initially dealt with (1) the ARRL Board’s censure of an ARRL Director, and (2) some proposed revisions to ARRL’s Articles of Association and Bylaws that are likely to be considered at the upcoming ARRL Board meeting and which were circulated by a member of the Board. None of the proposed Article and Bylaw changes has yet been addressed by the Board of Directors. More recently, other equally erroneous and false statements have been made with respect to completely unrelated issues, in an effort to draw into question ARRL’s decision-making processes. The principal suggestion is that ARRL operates under some “cloak of secrecy.” The criticism is unfair and undeserved. ARRL’s representative system of governance, which has worked exceptionally well in the advocacy and promotion of Amateur Radio and the interests of ARRL members for more than 100 years, is unchanged. And the legislative and other advocacy positions currently being pursued are critical to the long-term survivability of the Amateur Radio Service. The ARRL Board does seek thoughtful, informed input on policy issues concerning Amateur Radio from its roughly 150,000 members. ARRL’s governance structure provides that regionally elected, volunteer directors will represent the interests of the members in their respective Divisions, working collectively and collegially within our Board to make policy and to advocate their constituents’ interests. ARRL’s Board members hold cabinet meetings and forums at hamfests and conventions, and they staff ARRL booths at hamfests and conventions in order to find out what interests and concerns you have as ARRL members. They take this feedback from you, and they come to Board meetings twice a year to make policy for the organization. They work together collegially to develop the best policy decisions. This structure presumes that the Board’s collective wisdom is far greater than that of any one Board member, and each Board member is obligated by our Articles and Bylaws to come to meetings with a good idea of what the members need and what is best for Amateur Radio as a whole. As is the case with most large, national non-profit associations, ARRL Board meetings are not open to the public. It has always been that way, as a matter of necessity. That is because, at all such meetings, confidential issues such as spectrum protection, employee compensation, financial information, and FCC submissions are candidly discussed, and the members’ interests at those meetings are advocated by the Directors on a representative basis. Unfortunately, it was necessary for the Board to take the highly unusual action of publicly censuring one of its members recently. The Board heard the allegations made by an ARRL member of what transpired at an Amateur Radio event; it heard reports from other amateurs who were there, and it heard all the information that the Director involved chose to present. Everyone had a chance to speak and to evaluate the presentations. The Board, in an 11 to 3 vote with one abstention, took action to protect the organization’s integrity based on the information presented. This process and procedure are what nonprofit associations have to be prepared to employ, and do employ, to maintain order within their organizations and to ensure that the interests of the affected Director are protected as well. This is not a procedure that any nonprofit organization would conduct publicly. The ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors has been drawn into question, probably as the result of the fact that the Board’s censure decision was based upon a violation of that policy by the Director involved. The Policy is intended to protect the democratic decision-making processes by which ARRL has operated effectively for so long, and to set forth principles to guide an organization’s decision making and the behavior of individual board members when acting on behalf of ARRL. When it was adopted by the Board a year ago, it was posted for ARRL members to read. The policy calls for honesty, integrity, transparency, confidentiality, and equity. The purpose of adopting such a statement formally is to provide employees, volunteers, and board members with guidelines for making ethical choices and to ensure that there is accountability for those choices. When board members of a nonprofit adopt a code of ethics, they are expressing their commitment to ethical behavior. It is intended to protect the Board’s deliberations and to protect the staff from inappropriate actions by Board members. It seeks to preclude precisely the type of selective disclosures and unilateral and subjective characterizations of proposed Board actions that have happened recently. There is nothing at all insidious about the policy, which is subject to regular review and modification, as are all other ARRL organizational documents. As to the criticism of the proposed Articles and Bylaws changes, the Board has not yet considered them. It may or may not adopt some or all of the changes recommended by its Executive Committee or by an individual Director. Any responsible Board of Directors regularly reviews, amends and updates its Articlesand Bylaws. And ARRL member input is welcome on all such subjects. Indeed, the recommended Article and Bylaw changes were not considered to be Board confidential. The problem, however, is that it is not fair to members, or to the representative Directors who have yet to evaluate them collectively, to have the proposals mischaracterized or misrepresented. ARRL Directors are volunteers. They are smart, dedicated radio amateurs who each devote thousands of hours per year of their own time to representing you as best they can. To those who try to suggest that the Board has abandoned its obligation to the members in favor of the organization — you draw a distinction that doesn’t exist. The Board absolutely understands that the members are the organization. The members of ARRL are always best served by an informed Board that works together to make policy that is in the best interests of the organization. The divisive tactics that are being used now, commenced through disinformation and a lack of candor, are harmful not only to the organization, but to Amateur Radio operators everywhere, the good work of the ARRL staff, and the Service that we love so much. Rick Roderick, K5UR, President _________________________________________________________________ And here is my reply, _________________________________________________________________ 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
Seatbelt... fastened. Rick's letter does seem to be rather anti-customer-service. If there are enough people concerned about the various issues that he feels the need to respond at such length, doesn't that mean that there is enough of a customer relations problem that the actions in question deserve to be reviewed, openly? I once worked for a group that had similar issues with customer relations. A local reporter wrote an op-ed or other such thing about our group, and his summary was that we "couldn't spell P.R. with a dictionary." That summary would seem to be not unreasonable when applied here.
I've been through this goat rope in other situations, professional and community. Someone comes in, tries to establish order or control, depending on what side of the line they are in, get in over their head and it eventually goes down the drain, but in all of those situations, something tangible was at stake .. money ..career possibility .. philantrophic mission, here, nothing ..except for Gallagher, volunteers. I just don't get it. There is almost no real world power there. If the BOD can't get along, let someone else take a shot. If a CEO hire is a bad fit, try again. Just crazy.
Hmmm. "As is the case with most large, national non-profit associations, ARRL Board meetings are not open to the public." Many do have public meetings. And of those which do not, most have meetings that are open to members. Often, audio and video are available. "It has always been that way, as a matter of necessity." It hasn't always been that way, and in most cases is not that way now (see above). But even if it were, "It has always been that way" would be no excuse for defying the will of the membership. And secrecy is certainly not necessary in a membership organization that represents the practitioners of a hobby. "That is because, at all such meetings, confidential issues such as spectrum protection, employee compensation, financial information, and FCC submissions are candidly discussed" The only issues which are, or should be, confidential are HR matters, and these should be handled briefly in an executive session. The rest of the meeting should be open to members. "and the members’ interests at those meetings are advocated by the Directors on a representative basis." If that's really true, what is there to hide? "When board members of a nonprofit adopt a code of ethics, they are expressing their commitment to ethical behavior." Only if it is a good code of ethics. This is not a good one. Among other things, it actually commits board members to unethical behavior: hiding important material information that affects members' ability to select the organization's leaders. "It is intended to protect the Board’s deliberations and to protect the staff from inappropriate actions by Board members." From what, exactly, do the board and staff feel they need to be "protected?" From being removed because they do not serve the members or support their interests? "It seeks to preclude precisely the type of selective disclosures and unilateral and subjective characterizations of proposed Board actions that have happened recently." Such as a disclosure, by a Director, that he disagreed with a decision? This is not something to preclude. It is important information that is valuable to the membership, especially come election time. "There is nothing at all insidious about the policy, which is subject to regular review and modification, as are all other ARRL organizational documents." Many members, and prospective members (myself included), differ on this point. One definition of the word "insidious" is "stealthy." And under this policy, the board acts - not just on confidential matters but on all matters - by stealth. This, IMHO, is conduct unbecoming the leadership of a volunteer organization which purports to represent the interests of hobbyists.
The questions to be addressed here are: What is the specific problem that the proposed Bylaw changes is addressing? What are the consequences of not changing the Bylaws?
I dont have any contact with Rick, and I do not believe this letter was wise. However-- Rick is a very bright, accomplished, experienced, and facile gentleman who is volunteering to work with all ARRL members for the benefit of amateur radio. That is the job he took on as President. If you continue to provide Rick, the board, and CEO, with membership positions on issues, it is their obligation to implement those positions, at least if they are legal and within the purview of the ARRL as an organization. Do we all agree? Obviously not. Do I agree with Rick on everything? Nope. But I am happy to listen to his well thought out stance, in part to make sure my own--which closely but not fully matches that of many here-- is factual, accurate, and to everyone's benefit. Basically, it would be great --now--if we could elevate these deep disagreements to a useful dialogue, on both sides. 73 Chip W1YW
Since I am not an ARRL member, the best I could do was take the coupon from their membership solicitation and send it back... after having written the following on it with a Sharpie: REPEAL THE GAG RULE AND I WILL JOIN. NOT BEFORE. The address on the supplied return envelope is in Newington, so this feedback will go directly to their offices. Let's hope they take note. 73 DE WY7BG
Folks..... You all better work things out or you won't have an organization to squabble over. I'm sure others will agree with me in that I'm NOT going to spend my limited resources on a organization in which governance is based on personalities. If I'm going to waste my money on crap, I will donate to our political parties or ice cream for my grandchildren! Wake up! Corky w2aat
Although Rick Roderick has had years in his position to refine and practice writing statements such as this, he ultimately falls well short of meeting the expectations of the paid subscribers of the ARRL and the greater community of amateur licensees. Roderick, and by extension the League's Board of Directors and their legal counsel, misunderstand the criticism appropriately expressed by active, concerned radio hobbyists that their input has been disregarded or not solicited before major political and policy positions taken by the ARRL. Roderick's letter at the top of this thread struggles to defend current closed-door activities and the internal agenda of the ARRL by asserting there has been input from supporters to shape the outcome. Yet, he provides no evidence of a direct connection, causing resentment with a patronizing "we know best for you" stance, which is often at odds with the consensus of actual sentiment. Roderick joins staff counsel Chris Imlay, who himself has written letters with the same high-handed, dismissive tone as Roderick trying to deflect well-founded criticism, in vaguely citing obligatory ways of doing things that supposedly all non-profits must follow. Yet, the most basic research into such practices affirms the contention among many of us that the ARRL is not following an approach that could assuage many of the concerns expressed by people who otherwise could get behind the League's goals. One most important shortfall: Regularly update the organization’s website with current, detailed program and evaluation information, including information regarding strategy, evidence-based evaluation metrics, and the underlying theory of change Source: http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/finding-the-right-transparency/ The ARRL's Board of Directors, in announcing and pursuing various regulatory and political missions, typically fails to establish why the broadest community of licensees supports such moves. We are supposed to just accept that someone or some panel has identified a given mission as being "good" for the hobby. Most irritating is when there is substantial testimony to the contrary, that is then disregarded by Messrs. Roderick, Imlay, and the anonymous BoD. No wonder the ARRL is subsequently challenged in the Public Record of the Federal Communications Commission. Gone are the days when it was difficult for served licensees to discover and refute a questionable proposal from the ARRL. Since the advent of the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, the League is essentially reduced to being one of many stakeholders in a regulatory proceeding that could affect the Amateur Service. For years now it's been up to the rest of us to correct the League when necessary, such as when their internal agenda involves an ugly trade-off among aspects of the hobby we enjoy. Eventually, the impact of being regularly discredited at the FCC may curb their misbehavior in how they run things in Newington.This should be a direct result of Roderick's disregard for legitimate requests to be directly and openly included in the process of "representation" he cites as seeing to it our concerns are influential. When it comes to the Board of Directors, I do not feel my concerns make a difference at the ARRL, or that my input is even welcomed. I had high hopes for departing CEO Tom Gallagher, who during his brief time not only reached out to my part of the hobby, but took specific, long-term steps to represent us in the League's activities.
My e-mail to Mr. Roderick Dear Mr. Roderick I read your recent memo to ARRL Members in which you attempted to assure ARRL members that all is well with the League. By way of introduction, I am a Life Member of the League, have held numerous positions in the field organization, and am a former Section Manager. Without attempting to refute many of the points you made let me be brief. You have undoubtedly heard the phrase "perception is reality". I hope you are aware that the current perception regarding the League on the part of many members is not positive. Further I hope you are aware that some of the deep concern for recent Board actions comes from many who in the past have been extremely supportive of the League. When a significant number of the most prominent members of the amateur radio community express concerns, including long time big money donors to the League, that ought to be a major concern of yours as President. The tone and content of your memo does not convey what many of us expect of you as ARRL President. The perception is that "minority opinions" are neither valued by the majority of Board members nor will they be tolerated. Recent proposed changes to the Articles of Association and ByLaws are perceived as an attempt on the part of some to weed out from the Board those who are not "yes men". If the perceptions are true, actions of the Board on which those perceptions are based need to change. If the perceptions are not correct, little in your memo is convincing enough to cause perceptions to change. As one who has worked in organizations for fifty years and led them for over thirty years my view is that some of the apparent problems which the League currently faces were caused by the about to retire CEO. His departure offers the promise of restoring the League to a position of credibility not the divisiveness which appears to currently exist. The needed corrections will only be half cured with his retirement. The rest is up to you and the Board of Directors. Jerry Boyd N7WR
