What do you want in an Amateur Organization?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by AE6JM, Nov 30, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: QSOToday-1
ad: Left-3
  1. AE6JM

    AE6JM Ham Member QRZ Page

    There isn't a provision for a business meeting because of the structure of the bylaws, giving 100% of the decision making power to the BOD and Executive Committee, made up of 5 directors and HQ paid staff.  The executive committee runs the day to day business operations.
  2. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There are ~ 120,000 members.

    The BOD is elected by the members.

    If the members don't approve of the actions and decisions of the executive committee, chosen by the BOD, then each BOD member may be replaced as each election comes up.

    Yes, it will take time.

    If the BOD members have not been replaced with this process, then what makes anyone think that changing the election schedule will make any difference?
  3. N0NB

    N0NB Ham Member QRZ Page

    I understand and don't dispute that. I'm just tossing out an idea for a bylaws change that may have more mass membership appeal.

    The staggered Director elections assure that the focus of the board won't likely take a major shift with each election. Many organizations do it this way, and it's probably good for the long term stability of the board and the organization. It also means changes to the long term direction is slow to occur.

    I'm no expert at this stuff although I've held all positions of several local clubs over the years. I was involved with one club that was incorporated with a board of directors and I was elected as one of their number. The club's constitution laid out the duties of directors clearly. Yet, the club had monthly general business meetings that the board could not over rule by fiat.

    I find it interesting that the ARRL has no such general membership business meeting. It's also interesting that after 25 years of League membership that I just noticed that today. [​IMG]

    In either case, I suspect a bylaws change of any sort would be quite difficult as I presume that only the ARRL Board of Directors can propose, vote on, and enact such a change. I also doubt they would enact either change except in the case of extraordinary membership support.
  4. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page


    As usual you are making up a Strawman argument to flail away at so you can beat the stuffing out of it and make yourself feel better.

    *I* don't have a spectrum analyzer. I don't plan on spending $6000-$15000 to get one.

    I can *still* do the best I am capable of in checking my transmitter output to insure it is clean.

    Doing manual checking of the messages that go through my station and get on the air DOES NOT HAVE THE MONETARY PENALTY BUYING A SPECTRUM ANALYZER DOES. It is something I can do that only requires effort -- not money, not skill, not technical knowledge, not hand/eye coordination, not anything **except effort**.

    Your attempt to equate the two only shows the shallowness of your argument.

    Time is *NOT* money when it comes to obeying the rules and regs of the amateur radio service.

    Things like a scope and a spectrum analyzer make it easier to analyze your transmitted signal but it is NOT the only way to make sure you are operating within specification.

    All you need is a voltmeter and a simple peak reading circuit to measure the linear range of your amplifiers. If you insure your signal never exceeds this level you can be sure you are not generating any more intermod products than you have to (intermod is the primary cause of adjacent channel spurious interference). Using your voltmeter to insure you have proper bias levels is no harder. If you buy or build well-designed equipment you can be sure you will meet the FCC requirements. *ANY* ham should be able to accomplish these two basic measurements. It isn't much more difficult to measure the deviation of an FM signal.

    Amateurs that never make any attempt to check their transmitted signals are no better than those that put unchecked 3rd party traffic on the ham bands. Both are trusting to luck that they never get caught.

    That is *NOT* an attitude I would ever teach my children. I would *never* even teach other children such an attitude.

    You can excuse your attitude by trying to classify it as "pragmatic" all you want. It still just boils down to the old "the end justifies the means" excuse.

    Yes, integrity *is* the issue here.

    tim ab0wr
  5. AE6JM

    AE6JM Ham Member QRZ Page

    It would take 15 years to change the BOD under the current bylaws. I don't know about you, but I'm getting old. I hesitate to buy green bananas! Yes, it would take extraordinary support of the membership to insist that the board change the bylaws. Maybe thats the only hope to make ARRL an effective organization representative of the general membership. I woud rather reform the ARRL, but will look forward to a new organization if reform proves hopeless, which it is under the current board and bylaws.
  6. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think what you say makes sense.

    Like you, however, I don't believe the powers that be at the ARRL will ever accept such a change. They really *are* fascists in their worldview. The organization doesn't exist for the members, the members exist for the organization.

    tim ab0wr
  7. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    And as usual you are making distinctions to support your argument where there are none.

    What does a monetary penalty have to do with anything? Doing the best you are capable of is not doing all that is possible.

    Time is always money.

    As I noted with my first use of the spurious signal analogy, what if the ham has NO test equipment, not even a VOM? Should he suffer a monetary penalty and be required to have that minimum amount of test equipment in order to get on the air?

    According to your reasoning the answer is yes because without being able to do those basic tests he should not be on the air, so there is a line relative to the montetary expenditures a ham should be require to make. Who positions the line Tim, you?

    I've excused nothing, but explicitly stated that there are no excuses, so why must you continue with that rhetoric? We've already agreed that when it comes to violations, having "done your best" does not mitigate, so why do you keep using it as a justification?

    Twist it all you want, differentiate all that you want, there is no difference when it comes to violations, which is what the discussion is all about.

    It's a true statement that amateurs who never make any attempt to check their transmitter signals are no better than those who put unchecked third party traffic on the ham bands. I agree with you.

    There is also the reality that those operators are risking being cited for rules violations, perhaps losing their licenses, by never doing either.

    You miss a point when you compare the two however. The ham who never makes any attempt is not the same as a ham using an automatic message filter because the latter has made some effort to avoid violations even if it is not 100% certain, where as the former has made no effort.

    You're drawing arbitrary effort lines to suit your position. Think about it Tim: You expect and accept, by your own words, some minimum effort by an op to ensure that he has a clean signal, which anyone must admit cannot be 100% certain, yet insist that message filtering must be 100%. Some minimum, uncertain effort is OK for one, but nothing less than 100% is acceptable for the other.

    Each op is responsible for the transmissions of his station. What is behind each op's clean signal, from no effort to a maximum effort with all of the test equipment required to be 100% certain, is none of my business as long as the signal is clean. Even when there is a violation, it's still none of my business as long as he eliminates the problem.

    Until an email is transmitted that should not have been, it's none of my business what if any effort is being made. And when there is a violation, it's still none of my business as long as he eliminates the problem.

    Don't even begin to chastise me for saying it's none of my business. The FCC doesn't care anything about effort, doing your best means nothing; all they care about is that violations, when they occur, cease.

    You condemn based on the possibility of violation, but only where it suits your position.

    We will not agree. You see my position as being all that is wrong with ham radio, or something along those lines. You like to chartacterize my position as being indicative of one that is destroying ham radio.

    I see your position as one that is denying the current technical world, denying what is an obvious and understandable desire to use ham radio in new ways by (according to you) a growing number of hams.

    I have no stake in this because I have no interest at all in internet connectivity; I'm only acknowledging today's world, and see nothing wrong with a ham who wants to connect to the internet using his hobby, a relatively new use that is, whether you like it or not, authorized.

    Your stake is that you don't want to see ham radio used in ways that you disapprove of, using ham radio for other than ham-to-ham communcations despite the fact that ham radio is used in several ways that don't involve ham-to-ham communications.  More power to you.

    We disagree, but I don't think and express less of you for your position. Wish I could say it was true in reverse.

  8. KI4NGN

    KI4NGN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Remember what you said about facts Albert! [​IMG]
  9. AE6JM

    AE6JM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Though the paid staff technically doesn't have a vote, they lead the actions of the BOD with their "professional" expertise and input.  Also, several corporate officer positions are indeed held by paid staff, with the authority given them by the state non-profit corporation laws.
  10. AB0WR

    AB0WR Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you know of a ham that doesn't have a VOM and wishes one, let me know. i picked up several at a garage sale for $2 apiece. I'd be happy to send them to someone who needs one.

    My guess is that if they don't already have one they wouldn't use it anyway for testing their transmitter.

    tim ab0wr
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page