KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

ARRL Board of Directors

ICQPodcast Episode 452 – Disqualified ARRL board nominees tell their stories

By Leave a Comment

In this episode, I join Martin Butler M1MRB, Caryn Eve Murray KD2GUT, Edmund Spicer M0MNG, and Ed Durrant DD5LP to discuss the latest amateur/ham radio news:

From my point of view, the big news is this episode’s feature, which starts at approximately the 1:25:00 mark. In the feature, Frank K4FMH and I interview the three hams who were disqualified from last year’s ARRL board elections. They are:

  • Jim Talens, N3JT
  • Dan Marler, K7REX
  • Fred Hopengarten, K1VR

Each of them tells the story of how they came to be disqualified, and I’m sure that these stories are sure to raise an eyebrow or two. After hearing their stories, we all discuss how the recent board decision to modfy ByLaw 18 will make the ARRL even less democratic and what that might mean for ARRL membership. (TL;DR it’s not a positive thing.)

I used to think that I was the biggest thorn in the ARRL’s side, but…

By 3 Comments

k4fmh: a blog about amateur radioI used to think that I was the biggest thorn in the ARRL’s side, but I now cede this title to my friend, Frank Howell, K4FMH. Since the beginning of the year, Frank has written a number blog posts, which I can only describe as “scathing.”

He’s gotten the attention of the ARRL’s CEO, too. ARRL CEO, David Minster, NA2AA, ends his April column with the admonition, “Reading the baseless conspiracy theories about ARRL does nothing to promote or protect amateur radio.” Are they baseless, though? I’ll let you read Frank’s meticulously-researched posts and decide for yourself.

In his January 18, 2025 post, “Many ARRL members couldn’t get there from here…So they left. Here’s how to get them back,” describes what he thinks is a major flow in how ARRL governance is organized and how that has led to a decrease in membership. His two main suggestions to remedy this are:

  1. Replace the CEO with a COO hired from the non-profit sector.
  2. Elect the President and other Officers directly by the membership.

Frank’s January 31, 2025 post, “They went down, down, down..and the flames are higher … but it’s not too late,” addresses the decline in ARRL  membership. Frank notes that the percentage of licensed radio amateurs who are also ARRL members is now close to 16%. And yet, the only visible attempts at increasing membership are a raffle for new and renewing members that will benefit only a single ham and cheap coffee mugs for those renewing for three years.

The March 3, 2025 post, “Election Ethics and Bylaws of the ARRL: Are They Being Applied to Everyone?” addresses what Frank sees as a possible conflict of interest. He notes that the ARRL CEO does a little moonlighting as a real estate agent, even though By-Law 35 clearly states that the “[CEO’s] entire time shall be devoted to the duties as set forth above.” Frank asks, “Why is there such a different emphasis on election ethics while allowing a clear and specific violation of Bylaw 35 to go unchecked?”

In Frank’s latest post, “Only the Shadow (Board) Knows…,” he addresses what some refer to as the “shadow board.” Frank describes the shadow board as a “a subset of Division Directors who I’m told have teamed-up with the non-voting Board member CEO and President to form a caucus.”

Frank notes:

It is not authorized in the Bylaws.This group’s “shadow” actions circumvent public disclosure of League business discussions. Why? One source states below it is because they fear some Directors will actually tell their member constituents—you know, the dues-paying ones who vote for them—what is on the horizon for ARRL actions in the future.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, Frank thinks that the existence and actions of the shadow board are in violation of IRS rules for governance of charitable organizations.

If you’re concerned about how the current board of directors and officers are running the ARRL, I hope that you will read Frank’s blog posts and raise a little cain with your director. I think you’ll find that these issues are not as “baseless” as the ARRL CEO would have you believe.

What the heck is the ARRL Board of Directors thinking this time?

By 9 Comments

I wrote a couple of months ago about the shameful disqualifications of several candidates for the ARRL Board of Directors. In an attempt to prevent future embarrassment—and prevent any dissenting voices being elected to the board—the ARRL Special Committee on By-Law 46 Revisions, headed by Arthur I. Zygielbaum, K0AIZ, ARRL Midwest Division Director, has come up with revisions to By-Law 18. After reading it, and the commentary, By-Law 18 is a Terrible Idea, written by past New England Division director and chair of the Ethics and Elections Committee, Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, I can only ask again what the heck are they thinking?

K1VR writes, “After reading it in detail, the answer jumped out at me: It is designed to protect incumbent ARRL Directors from challengers in elections. Put another way: It is designed to continue the ‘good ole boy’ culture.”

Dubious timing

Perhaps the first thing to note about the proposed by-laws change is its dubious timing. The committee released the proposed changes on December 18, 2024, and the board is scheduled to vote on it at the January 17-18, 2025 meeting. Fred writes, “They don’t believe in widespread public discussion, to include public debate at conventions, of By-Law changes they propose. . In case you hadn’t noticed, the holiday season of Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, and New Year’s celebrations all occur between the release and the vote. During those 30 days there are no ham radio conventions where it can be the subject of a forum, discussion, or debate.”

No second home for directors?

One of the candidates disqualified this year was Jim Talens, N3JT. He was disqualified because the Ethics & Elections Committee ruled that he actually lives in Florida where he has a second home. He says that by law, he is both a legal resident of Virginia and Florida.

To remedy this dispute, the proposed change to By-Law 18 (c)(i)reads:

Along with requirements specified in ARRL Articles of Association Article 12, candidates must maintain their permanent residency (as referenced in Article 7 of the ARRL Articles of Association) in the division for which they are running for election. Permanent residency is defined as living full-time within the division. Ownership of property or part time residency within a division does not satisfy this eligibility requirement. ARRL membership records and other sources will be considered in verification of permanent residence.

So, does this disqualify anyone who spends an appreciable amount of time outside their division for whatever reason? Should it? I’m no lawyer, but even I can see that the wording of this change doesn’t really clarify residency requirements.

K1VR writes, “Why not simply use the criteria Connecticut uses to decide if you are eligible to represent Connecticut in the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives?” The U.S. Constitution says that to be elected to either body, the candidate must be “nn inhabitant of the state when elected.” Shouldn’t the voters in a division be trusted to select their whoever they wish?

Campaign rules quash debate

In addition to the eligibility rules, there are a couple of campaign rules designed to protect incumbents by quashing debate. For example, 18(d)(4) reads:

A candidate may not make any comments, directly or indirectly, referring to their opponent(s) in any campaign communication, oral or written. Candidates participating in a debate may mutually agree to wave (sic) this provision for the duration of the debate.

The way I read this is that if a director does some stupid stuff (and some of them do a lot of stupid stuff), an opponent cannot point that out to voters. How does that make any sense, except that the rule was designed to protect incumbents.

The real kicker, though is 18(d)(v) which reads:

Because outside influences can create misleading bias and unfair advantage, ARRL intends that election campaigning and fundraising take place entirely within the division holding an election. Candidates may not solicit or accept financial support of any kind from outside of their division by any means. This includes using services such as GoFundMe or by using an intermediary. Except if acting as a member of E&E, no ARRL board member may become involved in an election that is outside of their own division. This includes providing financial support, providing testimonials, campaigning for candidates, and actively engaging and supporting potential candidates. Board members may provide information to candidates, if asked by a candidate, only if that information is shared with all candidates and vetted in advance by E&E. E&E is
responsible for overseeing all communications related to division elections.

The only misleading and unfair advantage that I can see is the one given to the incumbent by this rule. I’d go even further and say that this change was in direct response to my calling for ARRL members to form a group to identify and support candidates in all divisions that support openness and want to push the ARRL in a new direction. This by-law change would quash that. It’s simply “divide and conquer.”

Should you quit the ARRL?

All along, I’ve encouraged everyone to join the ARRL, and I’ve remained a member myself, even as more and more of my ham friends quit. I’m just about to the point, though, of quitting myself and actively encouraging others to quit. Only some new faces on the board of directors is going to pull the ARRL out of its death spiral, and it’s apparent that the current board is too myopic or too impressed with their own importance to see that.

In closing,  I ask again, what the heck are the board of directors thinking when they propose these by-law changes? Do they honestly think that these changes are good for the ARRL and for amateur radio overall? Changes like these only encourages current members to quit the ARRL and prospective members to blow them off. Seriously, why would anyone want to belong to an organization that puts in place such ridiculous measures to strangle any kind of dissent?

These changes are not good for amateur radio, and in the long run, not good for the ARRL. I’m not sure that it will do any good, but I’d encourage you to get K1VR’s commentary and read it for yourself. Then, contact your director and voice your displeasure with these bylaw changes. Ask them the questions that K1VR asks at the end of his commentary:

  • What are the benefits for the members for these by-law changes?
  • Will any by-law change result in more members?

The  meeting is next weekend, so don’t delay.

The ARRL elections this year are a sham

By 34 Comments

I’ve always recommended that hams join the ARRL, but recent events have certainly tested my resolve. The ARRL seems to lurch from calamity to calamity. Earlier this year, there was the decision to discontinue sending copies of the print version of QST to members. Then, in May, there was the cyber attack on the ARRL’s shaky IT infrastructure.

The latest debacle is this year’s board of directors election. Every year, the ARRL conducts elections for five of the 15 directorships. This year, candidates in three of these elections have been disqualified,  for somewhat dubious reasons, in my humble opinion.

Officially, these candidates were disqualified for violating one of the ARRL’s election rules. They all share a common characteristic, though: they are all critical of the current board and CEO, David Minster, NA2AA. Whatever the real reason, these disqualifications have turned this year’s elections into a sham.

N3JT Disqualified!

The first disqualification that I became aware of was that of Jim Talens, N3JT. At first glance, Jim seemed like a great  candidate. Professionally, Jim was an attorney for the FCC for 22 years and has both BSEE and MBA degrees. He is an active radio amateur and is one of the founders of CWops, a group devoted to furthering the use of Morse Code. He had hoped to run for Roanoke Division director.

Jim lives in Virginia for about half the year and in Florida for the other half. He says that by law, he is both a legal resident of Virginia and Florida.

His FCC license shows his Virginia address. His long-time home of 49 years and his primary station are located in Virginia. He pays real estate taxes in Virginia. He pays personal property taxes in Virginia.  His cars are registered in Virginia. The signatories to his nomination were all in Virginia. When he submitted his nomination petition, he was a full member in Virginia, and not living in Florida.

Despite this, the Ethics & Elections Committee decided—wrongfully in Jim’s opinion—that he was not a resident of Virginia, and therefore, not eligible to run in the Roanoke Division. ARRL By-Law 18 requires that a candidate must be a “Full member of the division.” The problem is that the by-law doesn’t define what that phrase means. In the absence of that definition, the committee just made up its own rule for political expediency rather than apply common sense, law, or fairness.

Sounds pretty shady, doesn’t it? Would Jim have been disqualified if he hadn’t been so critical of the ARRL? Over and above that, should the Ethics and Elections Committee have the power to disqualify a candidate when the bylaw isn’t specific about what constitutes residency in a division?

K1VR Disqualified!

Fred Hopengarten, K1VR was disqualified on even shakier grounds. In his case, he submitted his nominating petition 24 hours before the deadline (noon of August 16), but inadvertently failed to attach the pages containing the signatures of ten or more members of the New England Division. He was informed of this fact by email at 11:05 am the next day, less than an hour before the deadline. He didn’t see this email until after noon, and when he did, he immediately replied with the signatures. But, he was 27 minutes late. This is the reason he was disqualified.

I don’t know about you, but this sounds pretty shady to me. Could it be because Fred supports policies that buck the current trend on the ARRL board?

K7REX Disqualified!

This is another disturbing case. Dan Marler, K7REX, is as good a candidate as you’d want. He currently serves as Idaho Section Manager, has served as Section Emergency Coordinator, and is the founder of the Radio Amateur Training Planning and Activities Committee (RATPAC). He is a retired computer systems administrator for a Fortune-500 company and would bring a much-needed understanding of IT management to the League.

In an email—which I haven’t seen, to be honest—Dan made several statements that the Ethics & Elections Committee took issue with. The committee specifically demanded that he retract several statements.

Here’s the message that he sent to the  members of the Northwest Division listing the supposedly offending statements and his responses:

Members of the Northwestern Division of our League

I have received a demand from the Ethics & Elections Committee to retract certain statements in my last email message within 24 hours or suffer the consequences. The complaints of the Committee are unfounded in my good faith view. But since they have the power to disqualify me if I do not comply with their demand, I offer each statement, their complaint, and my justification to them.  I believe my statements contain nothing inaccurate, false or personally accusatory.  Accordingly, I leave it to you to hear both sides in fairness.

Each of the five specific statements questioned by the E&E state my opinion and belief as to certain matters that I believe do or may adversely impact the ARRL and invites potential voters to evaluate whether they share my concerns as to those matters.

Excessive employee turnover, expensive compensation, a decision to engage in the sale of amateur radio equipment that competes with the League’s advertisers, the extended absence of IT leadership that may have contributed to a $1,000,000 ransomware attack that resulted in damage to the League’s finances and operation, and the unacceptability of handicapping Directors by withholding financial information are what they demand is retracted. For your information as a voter, you decide. as to each of my stated opinions below:

My Statement

1. ” If you are concerned about historically high personnel turnover in Headquarters, where over 50 League employees have left since the arrival of the present CEO, your views align with mine.”

E&E’s COMPLAINT: As we discussed, there have been people leave the ARRL, but this was through natural attrition and not due to the arrival of the present CEO. It has been long known that we would experience a higher number of retirements since there was a large increase of employees hired in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This along with the natural attrition of employees leaving for better pay or advancements in their particular fields of employment has caused our employee numbers to fluctuate some but is not the fault of the CEO.

MY RESPONSE:    The statement that employee turnover for the prescribed period of time is historically high is accurate. The statement that over 50 League employees have terminated their employment during the prescribed time period is accurate.

The statement does not identify any reason for the turnover or attribute responsibility for the historically high turnover to any specific cause or person. Your objection is based on the false assertion that the statement attributes cause of the historically high turnover to the “CEO.” The reference to the “CEO” merely establishes the time period during which the employee turnover is excessive; it does not attribute the turnover to anyone.

As there are neither inaccuracies nor anything false in the statement, my answer stating both sides of this issue here should settle the concern.

My Statement

2.    ” If you are concerned that an annual salary of $350K plus benefits for the ARRL CEO is substantially above what is warranted, your views align with mine.”

E&E’s COMPLAINT: As we discussed, Mr Minster is not making $350,000 at this time. His salary is $315,000. This figure was verified today and is correct.

MY RESPONSE:    The statement expresses my concern that the compensation for Mr. Minster exceeds that which is justified for his position and responsibilities. The dollar amount is sourced from multiple Directors who advised that the Administration & Finance Committee approved a $100,000 salary increase to Mr. Minster’s initial base salary of $250,000. If that compensation package has been modified, it appears the modification is unknown to multiple members of the Board.

If the $350,000 amount is not current, and if no increase to the $315,000 salary amount has been formally or informally agreed to, I have no objection to correcting the dollar amount, but a concern about executive compensation being too high will not be withdrawn or restated. I ask for verification of Mr. Minster’s current salary and benefits and any approved increases that have not yet taken effect. This will allow me to accurately respond to the membership.

My Statement

3.    ” If you think there is no need for the League to sell antennas competing with its advertisers, your views align with mine.”

E&E’s COMPLAINT: As we discussed, we are selling “kits” to encourage folks to get back into building again. These “kits” are also being used for our STEM projects for students and teachers as well. Our advertisers do not have issues with us doing this, therefore there is no competition.

MY RESPONSE:    The statement accurately reflects my concern that the ARRL, financially dependent on advertising revenue, has – or may have – erred by choosing to sell amateur radio equipment similar to that offered by the ARRL’s advertisers. All antennas require some assembly, so attempting to differentiate the League’s offering by characterizing it as a “kit” is disingenuous. I would point out that JK Antennas’ JK803 is also a “kit”. The ARRL’s rationale for offering the “kit” doesn’t alter the fact that it is amateur radio equipment of a type available from the ARRL’s advertisers.

The fact, if true, that none of the ARRL’s advertisers have publicly, or perhaps privately, objected to the ARRL’s conduct does not alter the reality that the ARRL is selling a product, an antenna, that is offered by multiple ARRL advertisers. It is competition whether anyone complains about it or not: a rose by any other name…

As there are neither inaccuracies nor anything false in the statement, my answer here should settle the concern. But members should decide.

My Statement

4.    ” If you feel that not having an Information Technology Manager for the majority of the present CEO’s term is unacceptable and may have contributed to the ransomware attack damage, your views align with mine.”

E&E’s COMPLAINT: As we discussed with this question and question 1, employment today is much different than it was for you and me. Young adults today jump from one job to another regularly for advancement, benefits or just plain old salary increase. The loyalty to stick to a single employer as you and I did in the past is not the philosophy of today. Today, these young adults, many of them in high-tech jobs, go to the highest bidder and the ARRL isn’t usually the highest. So, to imply that this is the CEO’s fault is something that just isn’t so.

MY RESPONSE:    Once again, you are inferring causation, which I did not assert. I made no statement or implication that any of the foregoing was the fault of the current CEO. That said, lacking an IT manager for an organization of the size and importance of the ARRL for a substantial period of time, in this case a period measured by the term of the current CEO, is unacceptable because of the risk that the absence of such leadership, oversight, and knowledge poses to the organization.

My statement also conveys my belief and concern that the absence of such a Manager for such an extended period of time reasonably could have contributed to the lack of maintenance or installation of protocols that could have prevented a $1,000,000 ransomware attack.

As an aside, your comments regarding young adults are remarkably wide of the mark, as neither of the two IT managers since 2016 met the definition of young.

My statement contains nothing inaccurate, false or personally accusatory  Accordingly, I leave it to the voters having sent the E&E concerns.

My Statement

5.     “ If you feel that keeping any League financial information from ARRL Directors is unacceptable, your views align with mine. “

E&E’s COMPLAINT: As we discussed, this is a very misleading statement. If you or I are asked for information at a meeting that we aren’t able to provide immediately with but was willing to get that information and report back at a later time, is that refusing to give you the information? If the person wanting specific financial information demands information on the spot as has been a few times by a specific Director, is that fair to state later that you asked for and was refused the information?

MY RESPONSE:    My statement accurately reflects my belief that failing to provide financial information to the Board of Directors is unacceptable. Although my statement does not explicitly allege that such conduct has occurred, in fact I previously provided the Ethics & Elections Committee with multiple, verifiable instances in which financial information had been withheld from or denied  – not delayed – to Directors.  E&E Chairman Baker did not disagree or advise me that any of those examples were not true and further advised me that he would allow them to stand. There are multiple Directors prepared to publicly verify the accuracy of those instances.

It is my opinion that my original statements do not contain any inaccurate, false, personal accusatory comments.

I leave it to you to evaluate the validity of E&Es complaints. Please make your own decisions.

I thank you for your time, your consideration and I again ask for your vote for Northwestern Division Director.

Apparently, that wasn’t good enough for the committee. In a letter dated September 28, 2024, Dan was disqualified. It’s not clear if he was being disqualified for not retracting all of the statements or just the statement about the CEO’s salary. In any case, we see again the high-handedness of the E&E Committee, and again I have to say that this all sounds pretty shady to me.

Is this really the best thing for amateur radio?

At this point, all three candidates plan to appeal these decisions by the Ethics & Elections Committee. It is doubtful that appealing will get them reinstated, but I think it’s worth going through the process, if only to emphasize the shadiness of what’s going on.

Over and above this, though, I really wonder how the powers that be can justify to themselves the shabby handling of these candidates? Do they really think that they’re fooling anyone with these political machinations? Do they reallly think what they’re doing is good for the ARRL, much less for amateur radio in general?

It’s really sad that it’s come to this.

I support Jim Talens, N3JT for Roanoke Division Director

By Leave a Comment

n3jtAs you may know, there will be an election shortly for ARRL Roanoke Division Director. The Roanoke Division includes Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. I would like you to consider supporting and voting for Jim Talens, N3JT. Jim has a unique blend of experience and training, including 22 years as an FCC attorney, BSEE and MBA degrees, and many years of law firm and consulting experience – all of which he will use to improve the ARRL.

In addition to his experience and training, he is an active radio amateur. He was first licensed in 1960, has won the ARRL DX contest, and has written articles for QST and the National Contest Journal (NCJ). In addition, Jim co-authored ARRL’s Morse Code book, and co-founded the 3,500-member CW Operators’ Club. He also supports the League financially as a member of the Maxim Society and Diamond Club,

Jim believes that key to the future of ham radio is change in the current leadership of ARRL. In his opinion, our member-centric organization needs:

  • Transparency (too much is done in secret)
  • IT competence and protection
  • An aggressive school program to entice young people into the hobby
  • More work on spectrum preservation
  • Continuing lobbying in Washington, DC
  • Reduced internal drama (politics) at headquarters (approx. 50 staff members have left in the past few years)
  • A more focused effort to push federal legislation assuring that virtually every ham can put up an outdoor antenna

To achieve these objectives, he needs your vote! For more information about Jim and his positions, visit his QRZ page. And, if you feel as strongly as Jim does and I do about the ARRL board needing some new faces and some new ideas, please consider donating to his GoFundMe campaign. I”ve made a small donation, and I don’t even live in the Roanoke Division!

ARRL Member Bulletin on second board meeting of 2024

By 4 Comments

ARRL logoYesterday, the ARRL published a report on the second board meeting of the year. There’s a lot to like here:

  • I like the new mission statement. “ARRL’s mission is to promote and protect the art, science, and enjoyment of amateur radio, and to develop the next generation of radio amateurs” is short and to the point, and  I like the emphasis on developing the next generation of radio amateurs.
  • The report notes that the president will “appoint a study group to review the current structure of ARRL governance and the Field Organization.” This is long overdue.

Of course, there are some things that I would rethink:

  • It almost seems like they’re giving up on increasing membership. Instead of increasing membership, the report says that they will be trying to , “develop new sources of revenue and seek support from donors and grants from both public and private organizations.” Without more members, I don’t think the ARRL will be successful.
  • Targeting middle- and high-school STEM education programs is a good thing, but I think that targeting a little older and more technically sophisticated audience, like those I encountered at the HOPE Conference might be a more effective strategy for developing the next generation of radio amateurs.
  • Aside from the mission statement, there’s nothing in the report that points to the ARRL taking a leadership position in technology development. This is a technical hobby, and the hobby’s “national organization” should take a leadership role in the technology.

That’s all for now. Here’s the complete report. The bolding was all done by the ARRL

ARRL Board Completes 2024 Second Meeting, Approves Report to Advance a 3-Year Strategy

ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR, gaveled in the 2024 Second Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors on Friday, July 19, in Windsor, Connecticut. The Board meeting was preceded by standing committee meetings held on Thursday, including Administration & Finance chaired by Rocky Mountain Division Director Jeff Ryan, K0RM; Emergency Communications and Field Services chaired by Great Lakes Division Director Scott Yonally, N8SY, and Programs & Services chaired by Dakota Division Director Bill Lippert, AC0W.

President Roderick recognized new Officers and Board members including First Vice President Kristen McIntyre, K6WX (January 2024), Second Vice President Mike Ritz, W7VO (January 2024), Hudson Division Director Ed Wilson, N2XDD (July 2024), Northwestern Division Director Mark Tharp, KB7HDX (January 2024), Northwestern Division Vice Director Michael Sterba, KG7HQ (February 2024; not present), Pacific Division Director Tony Marcin, W7XM (January 2024), and Pacific Division Vice Director John Litz, NZ6Q (April 2024).

Here are highlights of some of the actions taken at the meeting:

Strategy

  • The Board unanimously accepted a report establishing a 3-year strategy for ARRL, and recognized the efforts of the Strategy Working Group. They authorized CEO David A. Minster, NA2AA, to proceed with further planning.

The report included a revised mission statement: ARRL’s mission is to promote and protect the art, science, and enjoyment of amateur radio, and to develop the next generation of radio amateurs.

The strategy articulates continued commitment and enhancements to our existing advocacies:

    • Promoting Amateur Radio
    • Protecting Amateur Radio

A new advocacy is being created, committing ARRL to develop the next generation of radio amateurs through the expansion of existing programs and the creation of curriculum-based initiatives targeted at middle and high school STEM education programs:

    • Inspiring and Educating Youth

The strategy calls for investments in Information Technology to continue along the path of ARRL’s Digital Transformation. This will include evaluating membership models, content delivery methods, and next generation software products along with the infrastructure improvements required to support them:

    • Serving Members and Driving Growth Through Technology

In committing to dramatically expanding our capabilities and activities in the STEM education space and investing in upgrades and additions to our Information Technology platform, we recognize that revenue from membership dues is insufficient to fund these initiatives. In fact, dues contribute less than half the revenue required to operate ARRL. Efforts are required to develop new sources of revenue and seek support from donors and grants from both public and private organizations:

    • Expanding Our Means and Financial Capability

  • The Board requested the President establish the ARRL Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC), acknowledging the importance of providing information technology-based services to ARRL members, and to improve and protect ARRL systems. The ITAC will engage experts in the field of IT to help oversee the development, operations, and evolution of the ARRL IT system infrastructure and applications.
  •  The Board reassigned the Logbook of The World® (LoTW®) Maintenance Committee to the newly established Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC). ITAC will support the Maintenance Committee’s responsibilities with LoTW® development, including technical changes and future upgrades to the system.

Advocacy

The Board recommended and authorized the creation of additional publications, including books and online resources, and products, such as antenna kits, to help expand ARRL’s commitment to help hams who are faced with limits on station building capabilities due to space limitations and/or limited resources.

Governance

  • The Board requested that the President appoint a study group to review the current structure of ARRL governance and the Field Organization and suggest changes that would improve the organization and better support the membership.
  • The Board requested that the President establish an ad hoc committee to review the ARRL Director’s Workbook and establish an annual review process to keep the document up to date with Board practice and procedure.
  • The Board approved expanding the policy for recording roll call votes to being required for any pending motions pertaining to ARRL governance documents.

Trademarks

Following recent review of ARRL’s trademarks and the completion of related registrations and trademark renewals, the Board requested the CEO to provide a report at its next meeting consisting of efforts and actions taken during 2024 to identify, remedy, and protect the use of its trademarks by other parties.

The complete minutes of the 2024 Second Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors will be available soon on the ARRL website.

The next meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors will be January 17 – 18, 2025.

Still more information on the Bylaw 46 proposal: N2RJ on K6UDA, N6AA statement

By 1 Comment

Here’s some more information about the Bylaw 46 proposal. Both N2RJ, former director of the Hudson Division, and Dick Norton, N6AA, are urging members to contact their directors and express their displeasure with this draconian measure. If you haven’t done so yet, please do. You can find email addresses and phone numbers for your director by going to https://www.arrl.org/divisions.

I’m also including a message to the board sent by Skip, K4EAK. In addition to being an ARRL member, Skip feels that this proposal is so poorly drafted that it should be killed, whether or not those who drafted it have ulterior motives

N2RJ on K6UDA

N6AA Statement

Dick Norton, N6AA, Southwest Division Director has issued this statement:

Dear ARRL Member,

It is with a sense of profound disappointment that I find it necessary to share some of the background and details of recent action of the ARRL’s Ethics and Elections Committee, and its apparent use in a scheme to attempt to deprive ARRL members of their ability to choose their representative on the ARRL Board with proposed changes to Bylaw 46.

When I received the following unfounded claim made by ARRL Pacific Division Director McIntyre and learned that ECE Committee members even considered acting on it, I was so stunned and outraged that I was at a loss of how to respond.

Interestingly enough, during the period before my response was submitted, information came that revealed that the other two members of the Elections and Ethics Committee, Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab, had already accepted the scurrilous claims as being fact and were broadcasting defamatory statements to League members.

The following language has been used by the members of the ECE Committee in communication with membership:

Rocky Mountain Division Director Ryan, K0RM: “In today’s political climate, it has become ‘OK’ to ‘lower oneself’ to include name-calling, personal attacks that question an individual’s competence, heritage, and/or motives; and to generally have emotional distrust or contempt for an individual with whom you disagree. It is my intention to ensure such behavior is not present in the ARRL Board room—because our members deserve representatives that always act in a manner that is consistent with the highest business and ethical standards as would any corporation—non-profit or otherwise. I’m perfectly OK with dissent; I’m not so fond of disrespect. I have been in the minority on votes in the ARRL board room. It goes with the territory. What is not proper is to act like a spoiled four-year old who didn’t get his way.”

Central Division Director Luetzelschwab, K9LA: [W]hen a Board member calls someone on the HQ staff a derogatory name, when a Board member verbally threatens another Board member, when a Board member advances on another Board member in a physical manner,” etc. [T]hat’s what this is about.”

Both Directors Ryan and Luetzelschwab have been requested to provide specifics of their charges made to the League membership, and neither has done so. The bizarre and unique comment from Director Luetzelschwab about “advances on another Board member in a physical manner” should leave no doubt about his source.

Regarding Proposed Changes to Bylaw 46 –

The real reasons behind the proposed changes appears to be that some Board members and management want to hide bad decisions and the resulting impacts from the membership, and that they want more excuses to remove a Director from office..

For example, Mr. Minster has expressed that League financial information, especially that which he may find embarrassing, can be self-declared as being “confidential,” and that Directors who discuss it with their constituencies should be removed from the Board.

Mr. Minster’s supporters on the Board are attempting to grant Minster the ability to do just that, in spite of Connecticut law not permitting it.

The Ethics and Elections Committee plays an outsized role in such activities. Does the League benefit from efforts like this, obviously aimed at Director elimination? After reading this, do you think the procedures followed in this example reach reasonable quasi-judicial standards? Is this what you want more of from your Board? If the proposed changes to Bylaw 46 are passed, this is what your Board will be up to.

This single example, among many, of abuse of the League’s ECE Committee system by three politically connected actors should by itself give reason not to encourage and validate ARRL Board secrecy.

I believe the ARRL members are the owners of the ARRL. I believe they are entitled to knowledge of how their assets are managed, and how their representatives vote.

There is no dispute about not releasing lobbying or litigation strategies. Almost all disagreements about disclosure to members involve what is being done with their money or how Directors voted on issues before them..

There is essentially nothing I do or have done as a League Director that should be kept from the membership.

I encourage any and all members who agree with me to express their opinions to all the League Directors and Officers. I strongly oppose Board secrecy and the ARRL Motion to change Bylaw 46.

73,
Dick Norton, N6AA

K4EAK’s message to the board

All –

As you know, the proposed new Bylaw has generated considerable controversy. Although much of the discussion is little more than the rancor typical of modern debate, I do want to remind you of some serious deficiencies in the proposal irrespective of the merits, or lack thereof, behind the initiative.

There’s been a side discussion going on among a bunch of lawyers (yes, I am one) and the new bylaw is at least an incomprehensible mess of cross-references, incorporated documents, and vague allusions to obscure sources. I know a lot of people read some nefarious motives into the proposal, but whether that’s true or not the draft makes it impossible for anyone to know exactly what is, or is not, a bylaw, what information can be, or cannot be disclosed, and what grounds exist for disqualification, among a host of other drafting deficiencies. I’ve had the misfortune of litigating numerous cases where the requirements of the underlying documents were hopelessly obscure, and this is as bad a case as I’ve ever seen. Really.

Hopefully you’ve seen the numerous inputs from attorneys to the ARRL Board pointing out that the proposal is an interpretation nightmare and I urge you to take those comments to heart.

If there are ulterior purposes behind this change, it needs to be killed; if there are not, it needs to be redrafted. Either way, it needs to be voted down.

Thank you for the tie and effort you put into representing the interests of amateur radio. It is greatly appreciated. And thanks for your consideration.

73 Skip K4EAK

More on the Bylaw 46 proposal

By 1 Comment

As you can imagine, there’s been a flurry of activity this past week regarding the ARRL board’s proposal to change Bylaw 46. Last Thursday, for example, RATPAC hosted a discussion on the proposed changes. The presentation was headed by Marty Woll, N6VI, a former ARRL vice director. Below is a recording of that discussion.

Several of the directors that seemingly plan to vote for this bylaw change have issued statements. Fred Hopengarten, Esq., K1VR, Past New England Director, responds to some of those statements in a recently-published document.

The most common point put forth by the supporters is that there is nothing new in the proposed changes. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is that if there’s nothing new, then why bother to change it? Hopengarten takes this a step further, though, writing:

It is true that there are some bad policies from the prior bylaw that are carried forward into the Proposed ByLaw 46. We’ll look at them. To find bad policies that are not new means only that a bad policy has been carried forward.

He goes on to show not only how some of the new policies are damaging, but how some of the old policies should be changed as well. The tl;dr version of this is that this new bylaw will make secrecy the order of the day, or at least that’s how it seems to K1VR and me.

I’ll conclude this blog post exactly how Hopengarten concludes his, “Please ask your director to vote no on Proposed ByLaw 46.” In the end, it’s not going to be good for the ARRL or amateur radio.

UPDATE January 12, 202

Fred Kemmerer, AB1OC, the New England Division Director hosted an online “town hall” on Wednesday, January 10. At the town hall, Kristen McIntyre, K6WX, the Pacific Division Director, gave a presentation on the proposed bylaws change. She was one of the directors that drafted the proposal. You can view a recording of the meeting at https://nediv.arrl.org/2024/01/11/town-hall-recap-january-10-2024/.

ARRL 1st VP’s report sheds some light on ARRL board issues

By 4 Comments

As a result of my posting about the latest ARRL board issues, someone forwarded to me the 2024 annual reportby Mike Raisbeck, K1TWF, who is the ARRL’s First Vice President. In this report, which was published on the PVRC mailing list, K1TWF addresses many of the issues ARRL board, including:

  • What is a not-for-profit and what does that mean for the way that ARRL conducts its affairs
  • The highly unethical nature of the “Shadow Board”
  • The meaning and importance of Board transparency
  • Equal representation for our members
  • Restructuring the Ethics and Election Committee

Shadow board

Perhaps the most troubling thing in this report is what K1TWF calls the “shadow board.” He writes,

Over the last two years or so, [the board has] developed what I call a “Shadow Board.” Those on the Shadow Board, roughly 10 Directors, apparently meet periodically to discuss Board matters, including proposed motions and actions. The remaining Directors are excluded along with the other Board officers. To the best of my knowledge, no formal reports or minutes of these meetings have been prepared, and certainly not shared with the rest of the Board.

This is highly unethical, and highly damaging to the Board and to the League.

He goes on to say,

It is wrong, it is unethical, it is harmful to the League and its membership, and it needs to stop. NOW.

How might we protect the league from things like this in the future and make clear to our members that we take representing them seriously? I would propose something like this in the standing orders:

“Whenever a quorum of the Directors meets, in person, virtually, or mixed, the meeting shall be announced to the entire Board and access to the meeting shall be given to all Directors, Vice- Directors, and Officers.”

Board Transparency

In the section on board transparency, he tackles the issue of the seeming obsession with secrecy. He writes:

So, what is the real reason for the Board’s obsession with secrecy and confidentiality? As mentioned above, it is clearly the desire to avoid embarrassment (and perhaps even accountability?). This raises a HUGE RED FLAG. We’ve all experienced embarrassment and it isn’t pleasant, but fear of embarrassment is also a very important signal that warns us when we are on a path that is ill advised, unethical, or worse, and that requires some serious rethinking.

An indication of this obsession with secrecy is that last summer the board pout into place a measure designed to make calls for roll call votes harder to accomplish. It used to be that a single director could call for a roll call vote. Now, it takes five directors asking for a roll call vote for one to be taken. The end result is that the members know less about how “their” national association is being governed.

Ethics and Election Committee

He also addresses some of the issues associated with the Ethics and Election Committee. He points out that “on big issues our Ethics and Elections committee has been an almost total flop, and in some cases, have “fueled anti-League rhetoric and damaged the reputation and stature of the Board.”

One of the solutions that he proposes is for the ARRL to hire a third party to investigate ethical issues. Apparently, other groups are already doing this. Another approach would be to recruit “3 individuals who have served, but are not currently serving, as Director, Vice-Director, or Board Officer.”

Parting comment

I really am saddened to have to report all of this, but as Raisbeck say in his summary, “These are challenges not to the body of the League, but to its soul.” I hope that the board will do the right thing here, and that we can make some real progress on addressing these issues.

As always, I’d love to know what you think.

ARRL Board Annual Meeting to take place January 19-20, 2024

By 1 Comment

The draft agenda for the ARRL Board of Directors Annual Meeting was published today. See below.  The meeting takes place on Friday, January 19, and Saturday, January 20, 2024.

You can’t really tell what will be discussed from the agenda. So, if you’d like your directors to address some specific issues, get in touch with them beforehand. If you’re not sure who your director is, visit the ARRL Divisions page.