Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:

Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

Pardon my taking a single line from your article, but it's the topic I
want to discuss.

The first problem is figuring out "what the membership wants". What do
you do when the membership is split into approximately equal factions
with opposite opinions and both feel passionately that their position is
Right? Do you develop a position that pleases one faction and is
completely unacceptable to the other, or a compromise that no one agrees
with 100% but most folks can accept?

I hear ya Steve! In a former life as a President of a Youth athletic
organization, I had just that situation. Hockey parents are at least as
passionate as Amateurs, and more shrill, since their dealing with their
children.

The association had to carry multiple insurance policies on my person
as well as liability for any decisions made by the BOD and myself. Its a
little disconcerting when the two sides of any argument each threaten
lawsuits if your decision goes against their wishes.

There were times I got to stand and deliver to a room in which at least
half of the people wanted me dead (seriously). I was glad that I am a
fairly formidable physical presence.

Somewhere along the line, compromise became a dirty word.



But the second problem is that "what the membership wants" may not be
the best course of action. It is perhaps arrogant of the management of
an organization to think that they are more qualified to set a policy
than the members, but sometimes that's the case.

One of the less pleasant parts of being on a board of directors is that
you occasionally have to make one of those painful decisions that will
really split the troops. But you have to make a decision, so you do it,
and sometimes you take the heat.

Even worse, sometimes you get in a hard place where the BOD makes a
decision that is so out of touch with the desires of most of the members
that you get to a crisis (one of the times I feared a bit for my health)

In that case, I did the right thing in the case, in defiance of the
board, 'fessed up, then offered my resignation. It wasn't accepted -
they were actually glad I got them out of a real jam.

Sorry for digressing - this was just a small example of some of the
issues that people on the other side don't get to see or think about.
All jobs are easy for those who don't have to do them. 8^)


Setting policy for a large national organization is a complex task. I
don't agree with everything that the ARRL does, but I don't expect to. I
suppose I have a mental threshold and as long as I agree with "enough"
of what the organization espouses, I'll continue to be a member.

There will be disagreements in any organization. If everyone agrees, we
can get rid of all but one person. 100 percent lockstep in opinion is
just not realistic.

The other aspect for the ARRL is that there's a Field Organization that
provides support for various aspects of the hobby. At various points in
my ham radio career, I have used that support structure and been a part
of it, adding to my enjoyment of the hobby. I find it a significant
disappointment that this organization does not exist in my current ARRL
section, and this may have more to do with whether I maintain my ARRL
membership than the organization's position on national issues.

Steve, where is that? It seems really odd that they don't have a Field
Org there.


to invest that amount of effort into it. So I have contented myself
with helping at the local club level. Maybe there are lots of other
hams in this ARRL section who would like to see an effective Field
Organization, and if we all worked together it would happen, but I have
no way of knowing if that's the case.

Not everyone can "lead the charge" so to speak. I would think that this
is a case for gentle persistent pressure by as many people as you can
muster. Then the ARRL might either acquiesce because it is a good idea,
or if that doesn't work, just to get your folks to "go away"

I didn't say that last sentence! ;^)


- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -

Steve Bonine wrote on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:55:21 EDT:

wrote:
Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

Pardon my taking a single line from your article, but it's the topic I
want to discuss.

The first problem is figuring out "what the membership wants". What do
you do when the membership is split into approximately equal factions
with opposite opinions and both feel passionately that their position is
Right? Do you develop a position that pleases one faction and is
completely unacceptable to the other, or a compromise that no one agrees
with 100% but most folks can accept?

A quandry worthy of Soloman. Natuarally, the organization splits
into two and each organization can then rightly claim to "represent"
its
membership. Every organization meeting night will be equitable as to
opinions. :-)

Everyone in both camps thinks they are "doing things" until they
need assistance from outside of a club group and run into
competition for assistance services from the other club. Then the
"battle" of wills begins anew, just at a different venue.


Setting policy for a large national organization is a complex task. I
don't agree with everything that the ARRL does, but I don't expect to.
I suppose I have a mental threshold and as long as I agree with "enough"
of what the organization espouses, I'll continue to be a member.

The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.
It has no competition...which can lead to a very small minority
directing or strongly influencing what the majority wants. But,
without any national competition for a long time, the ARRL has
gained a reputation with the FCC and has some status of some
representation. It must be blatantly obvious to the FCC that the
ARRL does NOT represent any sort of majority of US amateur
radio licensees, just less than a quarter of those.

But, in trying to discuss the matter of efficacy of the ARRL, we all
run into the League Zeolots to whom the ARRL is perfect, without
flaw, and get denounced for daring to negatively criticize their idol.
That clouds the issue and destroys any possible discussion.

73, Len AF6AY

On Jun 27, 8:55 am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote:
Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

Pardon my taking a single line from your article, but it's the topic I
want to discuss.

Works for me!

The first problem is figuring out "what the membership wants". What do
you do when the membership is split into approximately equal factions
with opposite opinions and both feel passionately that their position is
Right? Do you develop a position that pleases one faction and is
completely unacceptable to the other, or a compromise that no one agrees
with 100% but most folks can accept?

I say you do the latter. It's called consensus. Since there is no way
to give everyone everything they want, you work out a scheme that
gives everyone *some* of what they want.

And that's pretty much what ARRL has done.

But there's a couple of other steps. For one thing, it's important to
actively seek out what the membership wants. For another, it's
important to publish that information so that the membership and
others can see what the actual results are.

But the second problem is that "what the membership wants" may not be
the best course of action.

In whose judgement?

It is perhaps arrogant of the management of
an organization to think that they are more qualified to set a policy
than the members, but sometimes that's the case.

If so, then the management has to make their case to the membership.

The recent "regulation by bandwidth" fiasco is a clear example of how
*not* to do a proposal, IMHO. ARRL did a lot of things right, and the
proposal had lots of good points. But the BoD did not do a good job of
explaining the proposal, nor of getting widespread membership support
*before* submitting it to FCC. The end result was it got
overwhelmingly negative comments - mostly because 'phone ops don't
want wide data signals all over the 'phone subbands. Particularly
robot data signals.

Back in the 1960s the
ARRL lost a lot of support from their membership when they supported
incentive licensing; this seems to be a case of the organization doing
the opposite of "what the membership wants".

I was a ham back then, and it was a lot more complicated than that.

What happened was that, in 1963, the ARRL BoD proposed a return to the
pre-1953 system, which required an Advanced or Extra to operate 'phone
on the bands between 3 and 25 MHz. They claimed to have majority
support of their membership and the amateur community as a whole. And
perhaps they did.

But there was a vocal minority who loudly opposed the 1963 proposal.
There were also others who supported the *concept* but wanted a
different implementation. There were no less than 10 alternative
proposals that got RM numbers, comments, etc.

After several *years* of comments, arguments, proposals,
counterproposals, information and misinformation, FCC changed the
rules. The final rules changes bore little resemblance to the 1963
proposal from ARRL.

I suppose we'll be
debating forever whether the ARRL support for incentive licensing was
the Right Thing to do for the hobby, but I'm only trying to use it as an
illustration that there are cases in which a membership organization
does *not* set policy based on membership consensus.

Good example. Even if there was majority support for incentive
licensing, there wasn't a consensus.

Setting policy for a large national organization is a complex task. I
don't agree with everything that the ARRL does, but I don't expect to.
I suppose I have a mental threshold and as long as I agree with "enough"
of what the organization espouses, I'll continue to be a member.

Agreed.

The other aspect for the ARRL is that there's a Field Organization that
provides support for various aspects of the hobby. At various points in
my ham radio career, I have used that support structure and been a part
of it, adding to my enjoyment of the hobby. I find it a significant
disappointment that this organization does not exist in my current ARRL
section, and this may have more to do with whether I maintain my ARRL
membership than the organization's position on national issues.

One of the main problems with the Field Organization is that it's all
volunteers. If nobody steps up to those jobs, they go vacant.

Before someone says, "If you're upset that the ARRL Field Organization
is broken, why don't you fix it?", let me explain my position on that.
When I moved here, I did the same sorts of things that I've done on
other occasions in terms of getting involved in the local organizations.
It became quickly apparent that the ARRL officials at the section
level had no interest in actually *doing* anything. (There was one
exception, but with no support from the Section Manager, even that
individual was unable to accomplish much.) So where does this leave me?
I considered the option of trying to "fix" things, but it would
require many hours of work to accomplish anything. Ham radio is a
hobby, and I'm not inclined to invest that amount of effort into it. So
I have contented myself with helping at the local club level. Maybe
there are lots of other hams in this ARRL section who would like to see
an effective Field Organization, and if we all worked together it would
happen, but I have no way of knowing if that's the case.

That's the classic "bell the cat" problem facing any volunteer
organization.
My suggestion would be to take one small part of the Field
Organization and make it your own.

Out of curiousity - what is it that needs fixing in your section?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jun 27, 10:02 pm, AF6AY wrote:


The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.


There are many radio amateur organizations in the US with national
scope. AMSAT, TAPR, NCI, and FISTS are a few which immediately come
to mind.

But none of those is the size of ARRL nor has it's financial strength,
and each of them is of narrower focus. So ARRL remains without anyone
to seriously challenge it's tagline of "The national association for
Amateur Radio".

The model of a single dominant national radio club isn't unique to the
US --- in fact it seems to be the worldwide model. Britain has RSGB,
Germany has DARC, Japan has JARL, Australia has WIA, China has CSRA,
France has REF-Union, Russia has SSR, and so on. These are all large
countries with healthy populations of licensees, but each with only
one "substantial" national radio club.

The only example of a country with two "large" radio clubs was Canada
during the period that both CARF and CRRL were in existence. That
period was quite short lived, and the two clubs merged to become RAC,
so now even Canada has just one large national radio club.

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Michael Coslo wrote:

Steve, where is that? It seems really odd that they don't have a
Field Org there.

The organization exists in the sense that people are assigned to the
statewide positions. The "latest news" on the state ARES web page is
from September, 2006. The section traffic net summary includes the slow
speed net, which hasn't existed for years. There's no EC for some
important metro areas; in fact, there's a non-ARRL organization that
coordinates ham radio emergency response for that area.

So I suppose I shouldn't have used the phrase "does not exist". Perhaps
"nonfunctional" would have been more accurate.

On Jun 27, 5:33?pm, RDWeaver wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:02 pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.

The model of a single dominant national radio club isn't unique to the
US --- in fact it seems to be the worldwide model. Britain has RSGB,
Germany has DARC, Japan has JARL, Australia has WIA, China has CSRA,
France has REF-Union, Russia has SSR, and so on. These are all large
countries with healthy populations of licensees, but each with only
one "substantial" national radio club.

That was not my point. My point was about Who controls the
dissemination of news and information and, most importantly,
the subtle influence of a very very few on the vaster majority of
amateur radio licensees. The major income of the ARRL is from
publishing. RSGB does that to some extent and may someday
pose a real competition for League publications. With the virtual
monopoly on influence comes the clear and present danger of
youknowwhat of a certain fictional year.

The only example of a country with two "large" radio clubs was Canada

The population of the state of California is approximately that
of all Canada. Have you counted the number of licensees just
in California lately? Note that the ARRL's daily tally of licensees
doesn't lump California with Hawaii or other places of the USA
even though all must be in "six land."

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well, "RDW," it is a matter of convenience for a SMALL group
of hobbyists. You stated not too long ago that amateur radio
in the USA was merely a fractional percentage of the population.

The Radio Club of America was incorporated five years before
the ARRL. They are still in existance. While some members
of the RCA are licensed radio amateurs, their prime interest
focus is no longer on amateurism. Neither is RCA in the
publishing business simultaneous with membership doings.

If you have read Thomas H. White's remarkable history of
early radio in the USA, you will find out more about how the
ARRL got their first steps up the ladder.

AF6AY

On Jun 27, 9:33?pm, RDWeaver wrote:

There are many radio amateur organizations in the US with national
scope. AMSAT, TAPR, NCI, and FISTS are a few which immediately come
to mind.

But none of those is the size of ARRL nor has it's financial strength,
and each of them is of narrower focus. So ARRL remains without anyone
to seriously challenge it's tagline of "The national association for
Amateur Radio".

Yep. Other organizations have come and gone, usually centered on a
single issue or a few issues. None since the end of WW1 has ever
really been a contender.

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

Here's my theory, at least about ARRL:

From at least the WW1 restart, ARRL has aimed to be a "general
purpose" amateur radio organization. ARRL publishes a wide range of
books and periodicals, has the Maxim Memorial station on the air every
day, sponsors a wide variety of contests and operating activities, is
present at most major hamfests, is constantly involved with FCC, has
the QSL bureau, ARRL VEC, and a host of other things, all amateur
radio related.

That doesn't mean ARRL always does the best possible job in every
possible area, or that other organizations don't also do those things.
What it does mean is that ARRL offers something of value to more hams
than any other national organization. And it means ARRL's focus is
amateur radio *only*, which is as it should be.

The result is that more US hams join ARRL than any other amateur radio
organization.

IOW, the real question is "why doesn't a rival organization arise?" I
think the answer is that no other organization wants to take on all
the tasks ARRL does, or even the majority of them. Nor do rival
organizations want to deal with the challenge of balancing all the
various interests and opinions of a general membership organization.
Other organizations focus on a limited number of areas, which
naturally limits the number of hams who will join those organizations.
Narrow focus also avoids having to make the kinds of compromises
needed in a general-purpose organization.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jun 28, 12:14?am, AF6AY wrote:

My point was about Who controls the
dissemination of news and information and, most importantly,
the subtle influence of a very very few on the vaster majority of
amateur radio licensees. The major income of the ARRL is from
publishing. RSGB does that to some extent and may someday
pose a real competition for League publications. With the virtual
monopoly on influence comes the clear and present danger of
youknowwhat of a certain fictional year.

Except that ARRL does not have a monopoly of any kind on publishing to
the amateur radio community. There's CQ, Worldradio, and other non-
ARRL periodicals. There are other publishers such as RSGB as well.

There are also the vast resources of the internet, where ARRL has one
website. (An extensive website, but still just one).

Before the internet there were more US amateur radio publications that
were independent of ARRL, such as 73, ham radio, and the Howard W.
Sams books, yet none of them ever reached the popularity of QST and
ARRL publications.

The population of the state of California is approximately that
of all Canada. Have you counted the number of licensees just
in California lately? Note that the ARRL's daily tally of licensees
doesn't lump California with Hawaii or other places of the USA
even though all must be in "six land."

What's the point? There are a lot of people in California, and a lot
of hams. Does California need its own amateur radio organization?

Well, "RDW," it is a matter of convenience for a SMALL group
of hobbyists. You stated not too long ago that amateur radio
in the USA was merely a fractional percentage of the population.

The Radio Club of America was incorporated five years before
the ARRL. They are still in existance.

How many members does the Radio Club of America have today?

What does that organization do for amateur radio?

While some members
of the RCA are licensed radio amateurs, their prime interest
focus is no longer on amateurism. Neither is RCA in the
publishing business simultaneous with membership doings.

No one has claimed that ARRL is older than the Radio Club of America.

If you have read Thomas H. White's remarkable history of
early radio in the USA, you will find out more about how the
ARRL got their first steps up the ladder.

I've read it, and it goes something like this:

In 1914, ARRL arose out of the Radio Club of Hartford, led by Hiram
Percy Maxim.

There were other amateur radio organizations then, such as Hugo
Gernsback's Radio League of America (RLA). Some were regional, some
were national. All were new, because radio itself was new.

The term "radio amateur" wasn't even well defined back then. To many,
anyone interested in radio that wasn't commercial or government was "a
radio amateur". This included folks with only receivers, folks who
were primarily experimenters, etc.

The coming of mandatory licensing for transmitters in 1912 had a major
effect, but the biggest effect was the 1917 WW1 shutdown of non-
government/commercial radio, including receiving. The shutdown could
have meant the end of amateur radio.

Most of the pre-WW1 radio organizations, including ARRL and RLA,
simply disappeared or continued to exist only on paper, as their
members and officers went to war, antennas were lowered, equipment was
sealed or confiscated, and even listening was banned.

When WW1 ended, some of the prewar radio organizations reappeared.
ARRL did, and sent people to Washington in order to get the bans on
receiving and transmitting lifted. Some other organizations did the
same thing. But in the post-WW1 broadcasting boom, none of the other
organizations remained strictly focused on amateur radio. Gernsback's
RLA focused more on broadcasting, for example, and quickly vanished
from the amateur scene.

What really cemented ARRL's position was what happened at the various
international radio conferences of the 1920s, culminating in the 1927
conference which made amateur radio a separate and distinct radio
service, with amateur bands as part of international treaty, rather
than at the mercy and good graces of national governments.

Did the Radio Club of America send anyone to represent the interests
of amateur radio operators at the Paris conferences of 1924, 1925 and
1927?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hi everyone:
"Jim Higgins" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:55:42 EDT, Klystron wrote:

Jim Higgins wrote:

We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking
about is a different membership organization that appeals to a
different set of members. So... exactly which different set of
members would that be?


75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them.


Why start with them? First of all most aren't even active. Secondly,
which of their primary interests would you cater to that would cause
them to join your new organization when they don't join ARRL?

What would your new organization offer that ARRL doesn't offer and
that would cause them to join other than it isn't the ARRL?

Offered as an example, not as a point of debate,

I'd offer it as a point of debate Jim (Curiously of course ). What
*would* your new organization offer that ARRL & the many, many other
worldwide clubs don't already offer, Klystron & Iitoi?

I'm a member of one of the local clubs here in Denver. I'm also one of
those hams who IS NOT a member of ARRL itself. It's NOT because I don't
want to be. It's just that, with a fixed income, if I were to go pluncking
down PRECIOUS $$$ left and right for each and every organization covering
each and every interest of mine, I'd not only go insane, but I'd also GO
BROKE. As such, I have to ask myself WHERE DOES IT END? I don't *need* QST
Magazine to keep me updated on the world of Amateur Radio. Besides...Quite
frankly, compared to Newsline and ARRL Audio News & the ARRL Newsletter,
ANYTHING in QST Magazine would be DATED INFORMATION by the time I got it
anyway.

True, ARRL does do some valuable things for the Amateur Radio Service and
since I *am* a validly licensed Ham, they *do* represent me in various
political and legal capacities (For which I am eternally grateful BTW), I
still see a reason to join them if they're going to represent me anyway.
They know my position on various issues because much the same sentiment is
shared by SCORES of Hams like me. And many of those Hams have made their
sentiments public. I don't need to submit what would sound like a broken
record in the eyes of ARRL because they've heard it many times before.

Well...I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. So I ask
again....What *would* your new organization offer that ARRL & the many, many
other worldwide clubs don't already offer, Klystron & Iitoi? I'm really
curious.

Cheers & 73

Pat Cook, KB0OXD
Denver, Colorado
WEBSITE - http://www.qsl.net/kb0oxd/
**NEW VIDEO SECTION - http://www.qsl.net/kb0oxd/cybershacktv/

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:33:10 EDT, RDWeaver
wrote:

The model of a single dominant national radio club isn't unique to the
US --- in fact it seems to be the worldwide model. Britain has RSGB,
Germany has DARC, Japan has JARL, Australia has WIA, China has CSRA,
France has REF-Union, Russia has SSR, and so on. These are all large
countries with healthy populations of licensees, but each with only
one "substantial" national radio club.

I still hold membership in the Israel Amateur Radio Club, the
voluntary-membership national club (I was 4X4UQ in the '60s).

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

It is interesting to note that in some of those countries, one has to
be a member of the club to be licensed, and only the club gave the
license exams.

When the question of privatizing the license testing came up at the
FCC in the 80s, I pointed out this anomaly to the manager who was
dealing with it (Elliot Ours, one of the best folks whom I had the
opportunity to work with) and questioned whether we were going down
that route. I was told to "shut up and deal" to use a common humorous
phrase of the time. The agency was hell-bent to privatize as much as
it could and "damn the torpedoes".
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net