A couple of days ago, I got an email from a reader who was upset that his section manager (SM) had stated that he was not going to cooperate with one of the recently-elected division directors. Apparently, he was disappointed in the outcome of the election, and even though the director-elect extended an olive branch, the SM said, “[I] will not support you”
I’m wondering if perhaps the ARRL Field Organization needs some reorganization. The IEEE, for example, has local chapters that are closely affiliated with the international organization.Sometimes the chapter encompasses an entire state, but more often it serves a more limited area. The New Hampshire chapter covers the entire state of New Hampshire, but Southeast Michigan chapter covers only about ten counties.
I realize that this is only a partly-baked idea, and I apologize for that, but I think it’s something that we need to think about. I don’t think that the current Field Organization is really meeting the needs of ARRL members nor amateur radio in general. It’s not the fault of the SMs and other dedicated volunteers, but rather a systemic problem. Maybe if we can change the system, the ARRL can better meet the needs of its members.
Frank M. Howell says
Dan,
Nice column! I’ve not studied the ARRL website on the technical elements of the SM vs the Division Director. However, following your url link to the ARRL website, here’s the critical paragraph in the SM position description:
“Maintains liaison with the Division Director; makes periodic reports to the Director regarding the status of Section activities; receives information and guidance pertaining to matters of mutual concern and interest from the Director; serves on the Division Cabinet and renders advice as requested by the Director.”
The maintenance of a liaison to the DD is nebulous at best. When I’ve queried the League office on an issue, I’ve almost always (except when I was serving as an Asst Division Director) be routed back to my SM. Now, with the ARES Connect System, it seems as some of the ARES management responsibility (and chain of command) is being removed from the SM. The SM is often a very thankless job which is why there’s little competition during elections, as you note. Moreover, while the SM executes most of the Section’s activities, it’s the Division Director who has the “say” as voting members on the ARRL Board. Sure, DDs likely poll their SMs privately on Board matters beforehand. But this “liaison” characterization only sets up the narrative of conflict such as the message you recently received.
As the League responds to the grass roots demands for more transparency and with a new CEO, these organizational weaknesses —- and I concur that they are real weaknesses —- should be objectively reviewed. And, with the inclusion of rank-and-file members as constituents. The recent backlash in DD elections by turning out several controversial incumbents just begs for these new Board members to make thus an agenda item!
David Edenfield says
My personal opinion is that I like how things stand currently as far as the ARRL leadership is. However, I think that instead of reorganizing ARRL leadership over this purported disagreement between the SM and the division director, that THAT is what might need to be resolved. Let me ask you this Dan: if you were “king for the day”, what would you change, and how would it make a change you want?
Dan KB6NU says
That disagreement certainly does need resolution, but even so, I still the the Field Organization needs some reorganization. Since we’re both in Michigan, let’s take Michigan as an example. I’m not sure it makes sense that Michigan is one big section (the second largest in the ARRL). The Upper Peninsula has more in common with Northern Wisconsin and Eastern Minnesota than it does the Detroit area. Perhaps there should be an Upper Great Lakes section that encompasses those areas. As I said in the post, I don’t have any specific ideas, but I think that it’s something that should be considered.
Ron Fish, KX1W says
Dan,
As ACC for ENY, I agree that the Field Organization at ARRL needs overhaul. I don’t think the League has enough contact with clubs, and unless you have an active ACC, I think that’s a problem. As a quick example, clubs are required to post annual updates to maintain their active status. If you look at many Sections, this does not happen, and no one enforces this affiliation provision.
Frank M. Howell says
Ron,
Hammer=>nail! Club interaction and service by the ARRL to affiliated clubs is largely a bogus operation. The League, as per Norm Fusaro, just puts the forms of annual club activity to retain affiliated status intoa file drawer! Geez. Clubs enforce membership retention for the League but get little in return. This should be part of Dan’s reorganization as King, lol!
W says
For something completely different, look at DARC (Germany). As I understand it, local clubs are actually chapters of DARC, not just affiliated. Back in the traffic relay days, it seems ARRL was a bit more like that. You join the national relay system through your local net.
I need to spend more time with the (translated) DARC constitution to see what I can learn.
Dan KB6NU says
That’s one thing I had in mind. That’s the way the IEEE works, too. Of course, having “chapters” doesn’t preclude the existence of independent amateur radio clubs. On the other hand, I hear from Ed, DD5LP, one of my co-panelists on the ICQ Podcast that DARC isn’t doing so well lately.