UPDATE 1/4/18: Jim, NO1PC has started a petition on change.org. Jim says, “This is NOT an anti-ARRL petition. It IS an improve-ARRL petition.” Sign it here.
If you’ve been reading my blog for the past month, you’ll have read posts critical of some ARRL Board actions with respect to the “Code of Conduct,” N6AA censure, and some new proposals that would make the ARRL less democratic. I’ve appeared on podcasts that have discussed this issue, and I’ve called on readers to send a message to their ARRL division directors that they’re not happy.
I’m not the only one raising his voice here. I’ve gotten emails from many hams who are unhappy as well. This includes some well-know ham clubs.
For example, the Northern California Contest Club (NCCC) sent the following letter to the ARRL Board:
To: ARRL Directors and Officers
From: The Northern California Contest Club, Inc.
Date: December 25, 2017Gentlemen,
The Northern California Contest Club is an ARRL affiliated organization
with approximately 300 members, most of whom are themselves League members. We pride ourselves upon having many of the most active hams in Northern California and Western Nevada among our ranks. These are hams who are active not only on the air, but also in ARRL matters. Over the 45 years of our existence, our membership has included many ARRL Pacific Division Directors, Vice Directors, Section Managers, Volunteer Counsels, Official Observers, Emergency Coordinators and a host of other League appointees.We are sending this letter to express our concern about events unfolding at League headquarters. Specifically, we believe the ARRL Board has made a serious error in its recent censure of Southwestern Division Director Dick Norton, and we are concerned with the lack of transparency and the stifling of communication we see possible under the Board’s Code of Conduct (ARRL Policy on Board Governance and Conduct of Members of the Board of Directors and Vice Directors).
Many NCCC members were in the audience for the ARRL forum at the 2017 Visalia International DX Convention, and we have seen the letters written to the ARRL Board by Mark Weiss, K6FG, and by Tim Duffy, K3LR, stating what happened in that forum. The events as described by Mr. Weiss and Mr. Duffy are accurate. In our opinion, Mr. Norton did nothing in the Forum to deserve the censure. We respectfully request that the Board rescind the censure and issue a public apology to Director Norton.
As a related matter, we also have seen the letter Hudson Division Director Mike Lisenco, N2YBB, sent to members of his Division in which he stated “…there were individual witnesses who attended the forum in Visalia who came to us with a different story than those released by Mr. Norton’s supporters. … I will not discuss the specific reasons enumerated as they are of a personnel nature and not appropriate for discussion …”. Director Lisenco’s letter alarms us. Essentially, he is saying the Board censured Director Norton based upon secret facts (which obviously differ from what we, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Duffy observed) asserted by one or more unidentified witnesses. This lack of transparency does not put the ARRL Board in a good light. To the contrary, it suggests that there is an ulterior motive or something the Board is trying to hide, and is far more likely to bring the Board’s decisions into disrepute than anything Director Norton did at the
forum.As for a code of conduct, we certainly understand why it is appropriate for the ARRL Board to have one. However, we believe that the specific Code adopted by the Board at its January, 2017, meeting is wrong for our type of membership organization. It inhibits the free and effective exchange of information between our elected Director and Vice Director and the League members residing in our Division. As proof of the Code’s “gag order” effect, we need look no farther than Director Norton’s censure and the fact that our elected representatives refused to discuss it with us in any detail for fear of violating the Code themselves. We urge you to please amend the current Code to provide for much more transparency of Board actions and a freer exchange of information (including how the Directors voted) with League members.
Very truly yours,
THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CONTEST CLUB, INC.
Bob Hess, W1RH (President)
Chris Tate, N6WM (Vice President)
Ian Parker, W6TCP (Secretary)
Dick Wilson, K6LRN (Treasurer)
Ron Castro, N6IE (Director)
Rich Cutler, WC6H (Director)
Rusty Epps, W6OAT (Director)
Jim Talens, N3JT, one of the founders of the CWOps, wrote the following:
December 30, 2017
To ARRL Officers and Directors:
As a member of ARRL for nearly 60 years, as a life member, and as a Maxim Society member, I am deeply distressed, and I’d appreciate a personal response from at least one officer or director.
We all know that a Code of Conduct is an appropriate vehicle for establishing good governance for an organization, including a 501(c)(3) non-profit such as ARRL. Board members should be held to their statutory duties. Since inception, ARRL has required duties of care, loyalty and good faith. But until this past January, I had never heard of a Director being prohibited from expounding on his opposition to a Board vote, what he expressed in the Board meetings, the issues that were discussed, etc. But now we hear again and again of obdurate responses from our elected representatives when asked about matters such as legislative proposals, cherry-picking directors, or disciplining directors.
The level of confidentiality (mislabeled loyalty) now imposed on Directors transcends the reasonable level one would expect from a membership organization such as ARRL, and is inconsistent with ARRL’s historical openness. In balancing transparency and an appropriate need to maintain confidentiality associated with some policy decisions, the proposals now before the Board are inimical to the interests of the ARRL membership, as are certain Code of Conduct provisions as they have been applied.
It is frightening to see that a Director can be “fired” if what he expresses outside a Board meeting could conceivably “bring the organization into disrepute.” What is the standard of this “disrepute”? Does disagreeing with a Board vote, and explaining why, deserve punishment? What is the standard to determine what constitutes “disrepute? This is reminiscent of Star Chamber proceedings, where a secret set of values are imposed and a verdict announced without further disclosure. It is a gag order. Too much said and the Director is subject to removal. What kind of good governance requires this Draconian approach? Is this something an unenlightened lawyer somewhere has advised you? Is this misguided misapplication of protective measures imported from the corporate world? A rational examination of the proposed Bylaw changes and the Code of Conduct as it currently reads would lead most any reasonable person to conclude that the ARRL has brought itself into disrepute.
Even worse, there is a proposal to eject an ARRL member (even a Life Member?) for “cause” – without specifics. Will I be the first to be summarily expelled for authoring this letter? That is the fear the extant proposals and Code of Conduct evince. ARRL Directors need to stop this slide into the Dark Side before it is too late.
Along with the concept of Star Chamber proceedings, the Ethics and Elections Committee treat disqualification of a candidate for Director or Vice Director as a personnel matter, and confidential. This is wrong for several reasons. First, an elected official is not an employee. Personnel policies do not apply. Second, disqualification should be a rare, imposed only if, for example, a conflict is “continuous and pervasive.” No one-topic conflict meets the “pervasive” test. The more appropriate remedy would be recusal
I am also profoundly concerned about the proposal to allow the President and certain Vice Presidents to vote as though they were Directors. This would reduce elected Directors’ voting power. Combined with appointed directors, and the power of incumbency, the representative membership democracy ARRL has enjoyed for over a century will be destroyed. Is there a compelling justification for this proposal?
Someone is endeavoring to dupe the ARRL Board into believing that its proposed Bylaw changes and provisions of the Code of Conduct are fitting and appropriate for a membership representative organization. These changes are wrong.
There is nobody in ARRL membership who has been a more stalwart supporter over the years than I – until now. I contributed $10,000 recently to ARRL, I have been a life-member since I was 15 years old, I have written multiple articles for QST, and I have engaged in personal conversations with regulatory and Congressional staff where they needed insight into what ham radio is all about. Going even further, my personal will contains a provision that would allocate a substantial portion of my net worth to ARRL when the will matures. I wrote that provision because I believed that ARRL was a membership organization dedicated to supporting Amateur Radio through the fair, member-based decision-making of its Directors. Never had I heard of Directors being removed for not agreeing with “management,” with others being removed from the ballot under deeply troubling circumstances and without fair opportunity to object; nor have I ever heard of disqualification of Directors for de minimus ownership in private companies doing business with or through ARRL. And now the threat of membership termination?
In short, the collegial concept of governance at ARRL has been undermined by what appears to be an effort to consolidate power in a management team that is opposed to open, membership-based decision-making. Directors’ fiduciary duties will not be at the minimum level necessary to achieve good governance. Moreover, it eschews the notion of implementing its Bylaws in a transparent and fair fashion.
It is rumored that Connecticut corporate counsel was retained to provide guidance that suggests that the more Draconian elements of the Code of Conduct are required by Connecticut law. I think the League should waive the lawyer-client privilege so that I, and lawyers familiar with corporate governance matters, could review it. I ask that opinion of counsel on this matter be released.
On a related matter, I never would have expected the unpleasant response I received to my expression of opposition to ARRL’s sadly misguided support of HR-555 and its Senate counterpart. Those who advised ARRL management on this project may believe they supported Amateur Radio in their negotiations with the real estate industry, but as many experts more qualified and experienced than ARRL have offered, the result has brought ARRL into disrepute among its membership – and properly so.
In sum, I no longer feel that ARRL is worthy of my future donations. Absent withdrawal of the proposed Bylaw amendments at the January meeting, and reversal of questionable actions against certain Directors and Vice-Directors, I intend to remove ARRL from my will. I know there are others similarly inclined.
I hope the Directors who read this message will demonstrate their strength and commitment to Amateur Radio by rejecting the proposed Bylaw changes, revise the Code of Conduct and reverse actions against certain Board members. The next step would seem to be changes in management team members and advisors.
Yours truly,
James M. Talens, N3JT
It appears that some directors are getting the message. I’ve seen correspondence from one director who said that he will oppose the proposal to give voting privileges to the presidents and vice presidents. He also says, “I have introduced [a motion that] would eliminate significant ambiguities in the ARRL By-Laws’, “The ARRL Policy on Board Governance”. Simply stated, a Director MUST have the ability to tell the members of his Division how they voted on any issue before the Board.”
Even so, I think that we need to keep the pressure on the directors so that they do the right thing. Just as they urged us to keep in touch with our legislators on the Parity Act, I’d urge you to keep in touch with them. If you haven’t yet, send a message to your division director.
RickB KA8BMA says
IANAL, but add my name to the list for the same reasons.
Richard Barnich KA8BMA
James says
KI4HTC
james
I am adding name on the list for the same reason.
Pete Babacheck says
The Toledo Swap is in March. I’m certain that the college has an auditorium large enough to hold more than a few people.
Perhaps it would be nice to have, during the swap, a Q&A with Dale WA8EFK and/or Tom W8WTD.
Is this something the Toledo club and the Division could pull together?
I’d pay an extra $5 for attendance to the Forum.
Dave New, N8SBE says
Doubt that you’d get anything out of them other than the party line. They are under the same gag order as any ARRL director, vice-director, or officer.
Dave New, N8SBE says
I will point out though, that the vote that was taken on the censure was published, and Dale voted against it.
Jim Aspinwall says
Bravo !!! Sadly due to the very issue at stake, we can’t openly, independently see how many people have spoken up, thus allowing the ARRL to bury or deflect the significance of concern.
For that reason and others I started an independent, trackable petition to effect outreach. It could use some focus and refinement in any/all areas of concern. Warrants some discussion, and certainly valuable contributions to get the point(s) across.
Thanks for staying on this – let’s make it bigger!
https://www.change.org/p/american-radio-relay-league-improve-arrl-transparency-and-respect-for-present-and-future-membership
Robert H. Pusch, WD8NVN says
This issue on the Code of Conduit is interesting…. At the end of the day, QST will still continue be published, technical assistance will be provided, everything the ARRL aimed to benefit Amateur Radio will continue… People directly in control of any organization need to follow guidelines and rules of behavior… An ARRL Director is free to express their opinion before the vote, but after the vote, they can only express positive approval of the board’s decision…What is so hard about that?? The vote to censure Dick Norton seems to me an elaborate mistake. He deserves an apology.
Charles Hargrove - N2NOV says
The real question comes down to – who is in charge of the ARRL? Is it truly a member-run organization where we elect and unelect those who are supposed to represent us at the section and division levels, or are we to be considered just consumers who pay a set price for a set product or service? These actions by the ARRL elected directors now makes the membership question whether we are members or customers. This is not how Maxim would have wanted it. I am a Life Member and I vote. I was also the DEC for NYC during 9/11, but bad ARRL politics made a bunch of us in EmComm form our own independent group in late 2003.
Alden Weiss says
What is lost on the board is the concept of ‘amateur’ radio. Our local club, funded by membership dues is toying with the concept of charging amateurs to test before a ‘volunteer” examiner. The strength of the ARRL is openness and anything less displays a lack of integrity at best and political appeasement at worst.
Alden Weiss
AL4I
Mike W8MRA says
” …. At the end of the day, QST will still continue be published, technical assistance will be provided, everything the ARRL aimed to benefit Amateur Radio will continue… ”
Very good point.
Jim E. - WY5Y says
Apparently, a lot of members are getting upset with the recent activities of the ARRL. https://www.myarrlvoice.org/
Jerome Kutche says
$$$ is in Charge at the ARRL.
David says
Just as a reminder, we live in a Democratically elected REPUBLIC, not a Pure Democracy as most fail understand. Pure Democracies fail.