Yesterday, ARRL president Rick Roderick, K5UR, complained that the ARRL’s Board of Directors—a group of hams, some of whom are well-intentioned, but who may have been misled—has been the subject of an organized misinformation campaign. This letter is part of an organized effort to spin some of the awful decisions that the board has made in the past year, including the adoption of the ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice-Directors (aka “Code of Conduct”) and the censure of Southwestern Division Director Dick Norton, N6AA.
Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve seen similar statements by various directors responding to inquiries from amateurs in their divisions. The words are slightly different, but these responses all seem to come from the same set of talking points, and like most political gobbledygook, the script is meant to obfuscate rather than elucidate. The board’s actions speak louder than its words, however. Look at what they’ve done rather than what they’re saying.
For example, Roderick says, “The principal suggestion is that ARRL operates under some “cloak of secrecy.” The criticism is unfair and undeserved,” and in a later paragraph, “The ARRL Board does seek thoughtful, informed input on policy issues concerning Amateur Radio from its roughly 150,000 members.” I would like to ask when the members were asked for “thoughtful, informed input” on the awful ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors? The ARRL Letter of Jan 19, 2017 does not mention that the Code of Conduct will be discussed at this meeting, nor does the published meeting agenda. Nor does my director, Dale Williams, WA8EFK, mention it in his December 2016 “Dale’s Tales.” It’s awful hard for members to provide input when they don’t know what’s going to be discussed.
As if to further discount the “cloak of secrecy” argument, Roderick says, “When it [the Code of Conduct] was adopted by the Board a year ago, it was posted for ARRL members to read.”. He’s right about that, but they certainly didn’t go out of their way to draw any attention to it. There was no news item about it, nor is it mentioned it mentioned in the 2/9/17 ARRL Letter item that discussed what transpired at the board meeting. Nor did WA8EFK inform the GL Division members that he voted for it in his January 2017 message to the Great Lakes Division. So, while the Code of Conduct wasn’t entirely cloaked in secrecy, the ARRL certainly didn’t go out of its way to inform members that it had been passed or what it contained. Frankly, if I were on the ARRL board, I wouldn’t want it publicized either.
To be fair, as I’ve written, I don’t disagree with most of the Code of Conduct. It calls for directors to be financially responsible and to treat staff members with respect. Who can argue with that?
What’s at issue here are those sections that restrict a director from speaking his or her mind. While those sections may be appropriate for a corporate board of directors or the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation whose board members are appointed, they are not appropriate for a board whose members are elected by the membership.
That brings us to the censure of Dick Norton, N6AA. The ARRL Board’s decision to censure was prompted by his alleged violation of that policy. Neither Roderick nor any of the directors who voted for the censure have seen fit to present the evidence, except to say things like, “Unfortunately, it was necessary for the Board to take the highly unusual action of publicly censuring one of its members recently,” and “The vote was 11 to 3, so trust us, what he did was really bad.” They have refused to explain their decision any further, even when the statements in support of Mr. Norton would seem to refute the board’s reasoning for the censure. If that’s not a cloak of secrecy, I’m not sure what is.
Finally, I’d like to address the proposals to amend the Articles of Incorporation and ARRL By-Laws at the board meeting being held this weekend in Newington. Roderick says, “ARRL member input is welcome on all such subjects. Indeed, the recommended Article and Bylaw changes were not considered to be Board confidential.” If they were not considered to be confidential, why the whining about their publication before the meeting? Roderick says the proposals are being “mischaracterized or misrepresented,” but offers no explanation for this opinion. I guess any criticism quickly becomes mischaracterizations and misrepresentations instead of thoughtful, informed input in the eyes of the ARRL board.
I don’t doubt that the directors are “smart, dedicated radio amateurs” who devote many hours of their own time and try to represent us as best they can. But so are we. I and thousands of other smart, dedicated amateur radio operators personally devote many hours of our own time to promote the hobby and help people have more fun with amateur radio. I don’t see how the Code of Conduct, the censure of N6AA, and other questionable board actions are serving the amateur radio community. I don’t think that “the Board absolutely understands that the members are the organization” and that it’s the board’s “disinformation and lack of candor” that’s precipitated this debate.
Time will tell how this all plays out. I do know that these latest board moves have prompted many to not only criticize the ARRL Board, but also get organized and challenge them in upcoming elections. In my mind, that’s a good thing. Heck I’d even run again myself, but since I now make part of my living selling amateur radio products, I’m sure I’d be disqualified.
John Fuller says
Hi Dan:
I totally agree with your statements. If they feel their new policies are acceptable, then it is time to get new Directors. He talks about misleading yet he states “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.” So he leads you to believe there is nothing new here. Then later he says
“The ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors has been drawn into question …… When it was adopted by the Board a year ago..”. So it is not unchanged. It was just changed a year ago and not for the better.
I am not a real fan of this either “..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…”. Since when is Spectrum Protection, Financial Information and FCC Submissions confidential? Their supposed to be representing us yet we aren’t allowed to know what their doing? Then how do we know there representing us and not their own interests or ideas?
It’s our organization. Without us they fold. There should not be much of anything that is Confidential, besides Personnel Records, in Our non-profit organization.
Sounds like it’s time for a change.
Kevin Sanders K0KDS says
The ARRL is digging themselves a hole to China.
Dave New, N8SBE says
Thanks for taking this on, Dan.
What strikes me about Roderik’s speech is how much it parallels other similar current political rhetoric.
Characterize the opposition as being untruthful and misleading (an opinion, not a truism), thus convincing yourself (and others who may believe you) that the opposition can be ignored, and indeed, must be suppressed, to protect all those folks that cannot make up their own minds, based on their own investigations.
Oh yeah, I forgot – Directors would be prohibited from doing their own investigations (thinking for themselves).
The mind boggles…
Gary Johnson says
Maybe the ARRL Board learned too much in dealing with HOA’s. They seem more and more intrusive than ever.