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.
I have 2 or 3 months left of my 3-year sub , which sounds like a prison sentence ending :-( I WAS (notice I’m getting used to past tense) a member for 4 years.
I didn’t need another nail in the coffin for my decision not to renew – but Dan you swing a big hammer.
My membership was up at the end of 2024, and I didn’t renew either. I’d been a member since I was first licensed in 2012, in four three-year renewal chunks. Lately though, the bean counter games have just become more than I’m willing to put up with. If they get things sorted out, I’ll be back. But in the meantime, I don’t want to be party to all the drama.
These proposed changes seem internally focused and (arguably) an attempt to consolidate power in the Board. They will do nothing to improve amateur radio and may have the opposite effect.
Frank K4FMH presents some important data here:
https://k4fmh.com/2025/01/02/the-decline-in-arrl-membership-and-market-share-2001-2023/
It’s very simple, the arrl directors have sinecures which
they intend to keep. In the UK it’s called rent chasing.
The ARRL has to die so it can be reborn into something more transparent. Or someone should start an alternate voice of amateur radio. I quit the ARRL in 2023 and encourage everyone to stop sending them money.
I ended my membership when the cost was more than the value to me. The information contained here will keep me away unless the ARRL changes course.
And this is after many years of membership.
I have been an ARRL member since the day I was licensed. After the disqualification of qualified candidates in the last round of elections (not a first for the ARRL) and an email exchange regarding the process with my region’s director, it was clear that the board and management is focused maintaining control, no matter the consequences. Continuing to support an organization that does not represent broad segments of the amateur radio community, seeks to silence dissenting voices, and whose board and management are focused on self-preservation rather than addressing organizational failures doesn’t deserve community support. I did not renew at the end of this year.
Sometimes the only to fix a broken organization is to let it die and start over. That is probably what needs to happen here.
Dan KB6NU makes some good points. This is only one of several similar articles and YouTube videos that pretty much say the same thing.
The bigger question is, does anyone care (?) If they did, this would have never gotten this far.
The ARRL is riding a culture change wave that threatens to destroy the League as we know it.
Dan / K7REX
ARRL Membership has been falling since 2016.
The ARRL’s “Strategic Plan” is dated January 2016, and is full of platitudes and generalities. Reversing the loss of members requires an explicit plan around which we all can align. Where is it?
LoTW’s poor usability in combination with the recent failure to promptly recover from a ransomware attack has led to the ARRL being widely-ridiculed on amateur radio social media. Had even the most basic IT security audit been conducted during the current CEO’s 4-year tenure, the absence of immutable backups and a tested disaster recovery plan would have been revealed and could have been corrected — in which case the ARRL would have been able to recover within a few days, instead of 8 months – and counting.
The ARRL is in crisis, but its Directors are squabbling over bylaw changes to protect themselves from each other. It’s a classic case of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.