Opinion: The ARRL By-laws Need Changin’

Thanks Fred. I like the idea of open meetings and open records for ARRL members. Appreciate the well thought out proposals. Let's keep the organization above board.

 

If we (the ARRL members) are dissatisfied with the directions the ARRL seems to be headed, we can always 'vote with our feet'. With the outgoing bureau fees massively increased, the only reason left to maintain my membership is QST. If I can find a ham that will pass along his used QSTs to me, all bets may be off.

 

Attorney-Client privilege should apply only to those which the client pays the legal fees. If League funds are used to pay the fees of a member of the BOD, Executive or other ARRL employee or entity, those communications need to be accessible to the regular member. That also includes any communication paid by a bonding agency or other entity which derives its fees direct or indirect from League revenue streams.

 

If open meetings would cause the board meetings to resemble what happened when Lance Ito allowed cameras in the court room, you might have a point. But every other suggestion Fred made would have to be in implemented.

 

A Message to Members from ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR
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 mis-characterizations, 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 nonprofit 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.

 

If you compare the present dues to those in 1960 and account for inflation
the dues have risen by a few percentage points. I would like 1960's dues
but I do give the League credit for holding the dues at par given inflation.

Now if you compare today's QST content to that printed in the late 60's
and early 70's then there is something to grouse about.

 

I am a current member of the ARRL have been since 1991. After the 2004 fiasco where they tried to ram a hush hush band plan by all or us. With one dissenting vote from the Adhok Committee.. And trying to justify their politics and BS.. I have not fully trusted the ARRL since.. This smells a lot of the same stuff.. Lets all keep an eye on it.. I doubt they can afford a mass exodus of membership. I personally would like to know WHO one of the borard is they are censoring.. I have my reasons for wanting to know. If its who I think it is, it tells a story.

73 Jerry N9LYA
My Trust in the ARRL went to poo in 2004...

=======
A Message to Members from ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR
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 mis-characterizations, 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 nonprofit 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.
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. -- ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR
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 Articles and Bylaws. And ARRL member input is welcome on all
such subjects. Indeed, the recommended Article and Bylaws 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.

 

In the 70's, I was a subscriber to 73, CQ and QST. I got them for their build-it articles. I was not joining the ARRL at the time, I was getting some construction information and it was fine with me. However, after three years, I dropped QST and kept the other two because of it was too expensive to keep all three. I eventually ended up with only 73 and have the old articles which I go through sometimes because they are still very informative.

I am not criticizing QST because there are forums such as satellite communications, RTTY, old-time radio, contesting, etc., etc., that are still interesting to some elements of ham radio. In fact, if 73 were still being published, I'd get it. Now, however, I am in the ARRL and read most of the QST articles, still learning from them.

I wish the ARRL would not try to change the format of the magazine, though. I consider the older QST format as a tradition and see the latest changes as attempts to not appear out of place if it were on the magazine rack at Walmart. Some traditions don't need to be broken in the spirit of "change for the sake of change." It seems quite enough just be hams and not like everyone else.

 

I have box after box of old QSTs from year one on.. Not all bust most I acquired from an SK. I like reading them sometimes more so then anything new...