About a week ago, I worked a guy and he told me he was glad to work me again. To be honest, I was a bit flummoxed at this, as his call did not ring a bell. I punched his call into my computer log, and as it turns out, we had had a single contact nearly two years ago!
He guessed that he remembered my call because I have a 6-land call even though I’m located in Michigan. I also suggested that perhaps he’d read my blog at some point or remembered my call from my unsuccessful run for Great Lakes Division Vice Director a couple of years ago. We never did quite pin it down.
The comment about my unsuccessful run for Vice Director got us talking about the ARRL. It was such a good conversation, that I felt compelled to follow up with him via e-mail. One of the issues I touched upon was the low percentage of hams that are ARRL members. He replied with the following:
Regarding the state of the ARRL, one must wonder what compels the League’s officials, as a group entity, to respond (or not respond, as the case may be) to issues concerning the general membership. Not being a conspiracy theorist, per se, I wonder what is the motivation, beyond the oft-heard simplistic view that bolstering membership solely to “sell more magazines” thus attracting more advertisers, that constitutes the collective driving force of Harrison, et al. I truly believe that the ARRL exists beyond their (OUR) magazine publication interests. But, their questionable “behind the scenes” maneuvering sometimes makes it unclear exactly what their intentions are.
I believe each and every ham should be a member of the League. The more members, the more diverse, yet stronger, the League would be. Any organization, through loss of membership, loses its “solvency through evaporation” and becomes more tightly ensconced in its own increasingly ineffectual existence.
I also believe that the terms of those elected to official positions be restricted to a certain length of time. Term limits ain’t all bad.
I think his question as to what motivates ARRL officers is a really good question. Some hams say that all they want is to be able to sell more magazines and books, but unless they are doing some fancy footwork with the books and siphoning off some of the money into personal bank accounts—which I don’t think they’re doing—that theory doesn’t really hold a lot of water.
My theory is that it is a power and ego thing. No matter how small the pond, they are the “big fish” in that pond. Furthermore, I think this kind of thinking actually goes all the way back to the revered Hiram Percy Maxim, who, by all accounts, was quick to quash any competitors to the ARRL.
The only way to change this is to get more people involved in the ARRL. It’s really a shame that so many ARRL elections don’t have at least two candidates. I don’t think anyone should run unopposed.
Unfortunately, ARRL HQ seems more interested in keeping the membership at bay then they are at getting them involved. And those that aren’t involved, or don’t feel that they are involved, simply quit the ARRL.
As far as term limits go, I wholeheartedly disagree with my friend on this issue. Here in Michigan, we voted in term limits for our legislature ten or fifteen years ago. This has been a disaster. The legislature has turned into a political circus with many legislators having little or no experience and no one to learn from.
David N8SRE says
I actually think the ARRL does a lot for amateur radio, but most of it isn’t very visible — it comes in the form of behind-the-scenes lobbying, and doesn’t make for very interesting reading.
This complaint isn’t unique to the ARRL and amateur radio, by the way. I was a member of the Soaring Society of America for a while, and there was a litany of complaints about them along the lines of, “All I get out of being a member of the SSA is the magazine.” Sound familiar?
BIll KA8VIT says
>I believe each and every ham should be a member of the League.
This is what *everyone* in any position in ARRL says.
>Term limits ain’t all bad.
If people actually voted (be them ARRL members or the population at large)
Term-Limits would be unnecessary!
You’d have a very tough time trying to convince me to (re) join the ARRL.
It seems that politics is better off when there are multiple parties.
Maybe it’s time for a new party… (a new national radio group/affiliation/union/lobbyist).
The ARRL has become too much like any party in a single party system.
Respectfully.
73 – Bill KA8VIT
Bob K0NR says
The ARRL is the worst national amateur radio organization in the US, except when compared against all others :-)
Its what we got….better to make it work. Vote, volunteer, do something positive.
73, Bob K0NR
Dave K7DAA says
I definitely have mixed feelings about the ARRL. I feel strongly that it is critically important for hams to have representation to the FCC, WARC, etc. I’m just not sure that the ARRL should be that voice.
When I first became a ham at age 11, I got my first exposure to ARRL publications such as QST and the License Manuals. I have to say that I was more than a little turned off at the “old guy insiders group” feel that it all had. Funny thing is, now at age 55, I STILL feel that way! It just seems to me that the ARRL has never been able to give me the feeling that I belong in their world.
Am I an ARRL member? Yes. As K0NR said, its what we’ve got, love it or not, and better than any of the alternative organizations!
Will I ever get involved, such as running for office? No, and I’m sorry to be saying that. As they have amply communicated to me over the years, I have absolutely nothing in common with ARRL leadership except for my ham license and a desire to see the hobby continue.
Fred N6FS says
My experience with being a member of the ARRL off and on for over four decades of activity and non-activity is exactly the same as Dave K7DAA…they seemed like elitist “old farts” in the 60s and now that I’m their age and one myself, they STILL act the same.
However, as he and others point out, consider the alternatives, such as RAC for Canadians (yes, I’m a member) and RSGB, which for all its imprimateur of orthodoxy (oh yes, I’m a member), WIA (pretty neat group) and JARL (tried to join, but haven’t succeeded yet).
All provide QSL bureaus and publication sales, along with old-fashioned print magazines; but, for all its obvious flaws, the ARRL seems generally more progressive and comprehensive in services, and conveys a sense of being closer to the cutting edge of technical and regulatory issues and concerns than any of its equivalents around the world that have come to my attention.
Any who subscribed to 73 Magazine back in the 60s and 70s recall one attempt at providing an alternative, and one that at times offered interesting articles, albeit probably no more so than CQ Magazine or Ham Radio, which merely competed instead of trash talking the League. Wayne Greene’s effort ultimately came to nothing, and two of those magazines are long out of print.
From Canada’s experience, it seems tough to support two competiing national Amateur Radio organizations in one national entity, and at least what I receive from the League at the Division level appears to be attempting to reach out and be relevant to members, even if only perfunctorily. Write your ARRL Division/Section level representative and let them know what you want that the League isn’t providing. You have got to remind them that they represent you to keep those elitists a bit humbler than otherwise!