As if the “Code of Conduct” wasn’t draconian enough, I’ve just become aware of a new set of proposals to amend the bylaws by Director Lisenco, N2YBB. The word is that they will be presented to the ARRL Board at their January meeting.
Here’s how Article 4, would be modified (changes are shown in red):
You can find all of the proposed amendments in a single PDF file here.
If passed, these amendments will give voting privileges to the ARRL President and the three ARRL Vice Presidents, none of whom are elected directly by the membership.
I’ll ask again, “What the heck is the ARRL Board thinking?“? How is making the ARRL board less democratic going to make the ARRL and amateur radio better? If anyone can explain this to me, I’ll be happy to publish their comments here.
In the meantime, I would urge you to once again contact your directors and make it known that you oppose these proposals. Perhaps if you have not yet contacted your directors about your opposition to to the “Code of Conduct” and the N6AA censure, you can add a line about these proposals to your message.
Frank Howell says
My State RACES Director told me today that there are numerous emails circulating from League HQ to state ARES officials about plans underway to centralize all ARES activities out of Newingtin. This is apparently after the poor PR in PR, so to speak.
The key change here is the new CEO. A financial sector corporation is not a largely volunteer organization. This is likely to continue down a bad road, I’m afraid.
Dan KB6NU says
Wow. That is certainly a recipe for failure. They hardly have the staff to do that, for one thing. What the heck are they thinking??
Goody K3NG says
Years ago my grandfather told me I would regret my ARRL lifetime membership. I’m starting to regret it.
Todd KD0TLS says
There’s a certain internal consistency to the ARRL’s reasoning.
If you accept the premise that the League “runs” amateur radio, then a rigid corporate approach is the natural next step. In this paradigm, the ARRL is marketing a product.
As is usual in the corporate world, more control is the common ‘solution’. Also usual is that less accountability is built in, to allow leadership to make the tough and unpopular decisions that are needed for the future. In theory, this approach is more likely to yield increased value for the shareholders. Control of the product and its marketing is essential, from the top down.
For example, if Ford decides that a new minivan is the industry’s future, they don’t want a lot of subsidiaries pushing pickup trucks or sub-compacts instead.
Obviously, this approach is flawed fundamentally. The League is an advocacy organisation, not a company marketing a brand. Even if it were, its control of that brand is ephemeral. And there are no shareholders that will see increased value on their investments should the League succeed. But if you bring in people from the corporate world to shake things up, then it’s hardly surprising that they would bring this corporate paradigm with them.
To be fair, we got to this point by hams expecting the League to “do something” about the problems facing amateur radio, as if the ARRL “ran” the hobby. And this expectation arose because the FCC has handed off virtually every responsibility that it legally can to third parties like the ARRL. In turn, this came about because the FCC’s responsibilities are tailored to the world of the 1930’s.
As operators, we need to decide what the role of the League is. That’s not as clear-cut as many would believe. The League has responsibilities that go beyond the usual advocacy group, and their success as an advocate is unimpressive. With the new FCC leadership, it’s highly possible that their influence will diminish even further. This isn’t the League’s fault, but they will get the blame.
I am not speaking in support of these changes; merely explaining the internal logic that drives them.
Dan KB6NU says
Thanks for your comments, Todd. I think you’re right on with these comments.
Dave, N8SBE says
Did anyone check the state of Connecticut corporate bylaw regulations? I mentioned this before, but it doesn’t seem to have gained any traction. The ARRL board behavior and recent changes to its governance seems to closely follow a typical for-profit corporate board, which is not elected by its customers, but rather by controlling financial interests in the corporation.
Considering that ARRL general counsel has been involved and consulted on these changes, I’d say that the ARRL board will insist that they are simply following what the state of Connecticut requires them to as a corporate body.
Dan KB6NU says
I’ve tried to research this, but haven’t found any specific requirements. Also, I find it odd that they’ve come up with this so all of a sudden.
Having said that, I did find a website for The Alliance: Voice of Community Nonprofits. They publish a document, Principles and Practices for Nonprofit Excellence in Connecticut. I’ve been through that and don’t really find anything that requires a nonprofit to have such a “code of conduct.”
Say, I wonder if I could get one the ARRL’s legal volunteers to look into this for me?
Ethan says
Do the parts of the bylaws not being changed state that the officers of the board most already be members of the board? (I will check later, myself.) This reads to me like rules for electing the President and Vice Presidents from among the sitting members, which is usual for a non-profit.
I’m not very happy with board conduct lately, either, and I appreciate the time you’re taking to shed light on the subject.
Ethan says
OK, I looked this up. You’re absolutely right, the officers (per the Articles of Association) have no requirement to be elected to the board in any capacity, and this is simply giving non-elected officers the right to vote.
By-the-by, I love the current blog/web site design. It’s very attractive on both mobile and desktop browsers.
Dan KB6NU says
Thanks, Ethan!
William F Koltz says
I am just delving into this and one thing that comes to my mind is to separate the financial end of the ARRL from the fraternal end. Let there be a ARRL, LLC or INC for matters of running the “business end of things and remove that from the fraternal being. Who “owns” the ARRL? If there should be a division of opinions, leading to the demise of the ARRL, who gets what?
Richard Montel KW4MQ says
I just finished reading all 30 pages, and most of the linked articles. I am almost ashamed to be an ARRL member. I will wait and see how the board votes at the Jan meeting. If they continue down the same recent path, I will be demanding my dues back. I will also be putting a red X through every public ARRL emblem that I have.
The recent actions of the board have put such a stink on the ARRL, I don’t know if it can ever recover. It is a crying shame that the board has done this to us.