A couple of weeks ago, I posted the agenda for the upcoming ARRL Board Annual Meeting. As agendas go, this one had very little content. Well, I recently found out why. There are some very controversial items on the agenda, and I can only surmise that whoever published the agenda didn’t want the membership find out.
This post on reddit clued me in. This post included a link to a communication from West Gulf Division Director, John Stratton N5AUS, on some very controversial issues that are going to be discussed at this board meeting. The West Gulf Division has published the motions being made on their website. They include:
- Motion To Honor Membership Contracts
- Motion To Replace Bylaw 46 (New Code of Conduct)
- Motion To Establish A Reduced Youth Dues Rate
An extra $25 for QST
The first issue is requiring members to pay an extra $25 per year to get the printed version of QST. N5AUS feels that it is a breach of contract to require current members to do so. I tend to agree with him on this.
Some have even called for a class action lawsuit to force the ARRL to either issue a refund or to continue sending QST to those members who paid for it. I think that the reason that there hasn’t yet been a class action suit filed is that there’s just not enough money involved. It’s not enough to get a lawyer interested in pursuing the case.
Not only that, does anyone really care about QST anymore? It seems to me that it’s been a long time since there was anything in the magazine that was really groundbreaking or useful. Most of what’s in there can already be found on the internet, and you don’t have to wait for it to be published every month.
The bigger issue
The bigger issue is that there’s a motion to once again put into place a draconian Code of Conduct for board members, the end result being a far less democratic ARRL. Don’t believe me? Read Fred Hopengarten, K1VR’s statement on this motion. K1VR is past director of the New England Division. In a nutshell, here’s what he thinks is wrong with this proposal:
- It keeps secrets from members .
- You don’t know what it says .
- Sometimes, you can’t even find out what it says .
- Prevents Board members from talking to old friends without seeking permission .
- Can overturn elections.
- A person accused of a violation has little, if any, ability to defend themselves before banishment.
- It is illogical when it prevents seeking input from members.
- It violates state law.
- The goal is elimination of dissent from the Board.
- It is designed to be revenge against meddlesome directors, and it would prevent new thinkers from being elected to the board.
Atlantic Division Director, Bob Familglio, K3RF, has also issued a statement on this motion. He writes,
Finally, the most significant motion on the agenda is a newly proposed Code of Conduct, which I believe is the equivalent of a loyalty, confidentiality and obedience pledge to the League itself and not to the members that elect us. This is a rerun of the 2017 fiasco. It will further limit transparency for ARRL members, and seriously affect the way ARRL operates. I strongly oppose it and here’s why.
I consider the proposed Code of Conduct to be the most intrusive change that I have seen in my 10+ years on the board. An onerous Code of Conduct was passed in 2017, which includes a gag order section. It was suspended in July 2017 based on overwhelming membership outrage. The new directors elected in 2019 repealed it after membership outrage sent incumbents packing in four divisions. Another group, choosing to ignore the membership uprising in 2017 and 2018 is again attempting to impose a Code of Conduct intending to punish those directors who do not fall in line with the majority. The new language offered is an attempt to appear beneficial to the members so as not to alarm us. Don’t be fooled.
My own newly-elected division director, Scott Yonally, N8SY, appears to be in favor of this bylaws change. I don’t think he’s trying to be malicious here, but if not, he’s certainly being naive about the effects this change will have. I am urging him to change his opinion and vote NO on this motion.
That this issue would come up and be seriously proposed again is amazing to me. I honestly don’t understand how anyone in favor of this motion thinks that it will make amateur radio better or improve the standing of the League. Is the majority of the ARRL Board really that much out of touch?
All this foolishness is consuming energy that would be better spent. The ARRL really needs to figure out how to be leaders in amateur radio again, and squabbling over the Code of Conduct isn’t the way to do that.