Frankford Radio Club, Philadelphia, PA
Respectfully Submitted to the Directors, Vice-Directors and Officers of the
American Radio Relay League
INTRODUCTION
The membership of the Frankford Radio Club (FRC), an Affiliated Society of American Radio Relay League (ARRL) since 1930, is profoundly concerned about the current state of ARRL governance. The FRC Board of Directors (FRCBOD), with the support and urging of the membership, makes this public statement.
The FRC is the oldest radiosport organization in the world. It has earned recognition as a leader in international radio competition over its 90 year history. Our members strongly support the ARRL’s core mission of amateur radio advocacy. Most FRC members are also ARRL members and a substantial proportion are Life Members. We are proud to have former ARRL Directors, Vice Directors, a former ARRL President, and countless Field Organization Leaders as members. Many provide enhanced financial support to the ARRL as Diamond Club Members, Maxim Society Members, and Legacy Circle Members. FRC members reside in and are represented by Directors and Vice Directors in no fewer than ten ARRL Divisions (Atlantic, Great Lakes, Hudson, Midwest, New England, Northwestern, Roanoke, Rocky Mountain, Southeastern, and West Gulf).
The FRC membership is a very well-informed group on matters of ARRL governance. News is routinely shared on a timely basis via our email reflector, in our chat room, at monthly regional and regular club meetings, and in our monthly newsletter. A sizeable percentage of our members monitor and participate on social media daily and share items of interest with fellow club members. This heightened awareness contributes to the thoughtfulness and value of their opinions.
FRC members have shared with the FRCBOD their growing displeasure with ARRL governance. The substance of this letter reflects their concerns which fall under two broad themes: Issues of Transparency and Matters of Governance.
ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY
The feeling that we are not being told the whole story in League reporting has long been a concern among our resident ARRL followers. Alternative versions of events offered by independent sources have confirmed the validity of this skepticism time and again. The ARRL “spin” on the late-hour changes to HR555 was proven false and deceptive. Antenna Zoning experts K1VR and N3JT credibly argue the bill leaves those of us in
HOA limiting situations worse off with passage of this legislation. We thank Director Woolweaver for blowing the whistle on the deception and the secrecy surrounding this action.
A more troubling trend has been the complete absence of information from ARRL HQ explaining governance decisions. We look at the K4AC and K3RF election petition disqualifications and wonder what was the Ethics and Elections Committee thinking? We are still waiting for an accounting of their reasoning in both cases.
It has become common knowledge that an attempt was made by the ARRL Board last July to eliminate the position of Vice Director. The apparent intent was to give the Board the authority to appoint replacement Directors without member balloting. No mention of this attempted dilution of member rights is found in the July Board Meeting minutes, since it is common practice to never record motions in the minutes that are withdrawn. The willful withholding news about this initiative is reason to question whatever trust we may still have in our leadership. Again, secret actions were taken by the ARRL leadership. Fortunately a sufficient number of Directors displayed good judgment which resulted in the motion being withdrawn.
The censure of Director Norton crystallized opinion in regard to ARRL governance for many of our members. The explanation for this Board action offered by ARRL HQ does not pass the smell test. Our FRC President attended the Visalia Forum and fully validates the account submitted by Mr. Duffy, K3LR. It is simply inconceivable the censure was based on Mr. Norton’s actions at the forum, and our suspicions were recently confirmed by Hudson Division Director Lisenco who stated in an email to a constituent it was a “personnel matter.” Director Frenaye’s concurrence with Director Lisenco that it was a personnel issue and as such the Board’s deliberations must remain confidential is equally deceptive, since Mr. Norton is not an employee of the ARRL. Only the ill-conceived Director Code of Conduct prevents full disclosure. We await a truthful accounting of this Special Board Meeting and real reasons for censure.
This brings us to the so-called “Director Code of Conduct.” Having a Code of Ethics is normally good policy because it limits corporate liability – no argument. But the unique version of an ethics policy enacted by the ARRL Board (passed very quietly last January) goes far beyond what is normally considered appropriate for a not for profit membership organization like the ARRL. Any layman reading the document walks away with the impression that it is a “gag order” that will inhibit rather than encourage communications between members and their elected officials. A policy which says not once but twice “the board member should consider voluntarily resigning his/her position on the Board” if they do not feel they can comply with the policy should be viewed with total skepticism. Without the ability for a Director to openly and freely discuss matters that come before the Board, even after the Board has acted, members are denied the ability to evaluate the performance of their elected officials. The permutations on this theme are many – the document as written is Orwellian and warrants withdrawal and replacement. It is simply a BAD POLICY statement and the ARRL can do much better.
Respectfully Submitted to the Directors, Vice-Directors and Officers of the
American Radio Relay League
INTRODUCTION
The membership of the Frankford Radio Club (FRC), an Affiliated Society of American Radio Relay League (ARRL) since 1930, is profoundly concerned about the current state of ARRL governance. The FRC Board of Directors (FRCBOD), with the support and urging of the membership, makes this public statement.
The FRC is the oldest radiosport organization in the world. It has earned recognition as a leader in international radio competition over its 90 year history. Our members strongly support the ARRL’s core mission of amateur radio advocacy. Most FRC members are also ARRL members and a substantial proportion are Life Members. We are proud to have former ARRL Directors, Vice Directors, a former ARRL President, and countless Field Organization Leaders as members. Many provide enhanced financial support to the ARRL as Diamond Club Members, Maxim Society Members, and Legacy Circle Members. FRC members reside in and are represented by Directors and Vice Directors in no fewer than ten ARRL Divisions (Atlantic, Great Lakes, Hudson, Midwest, New England, Northwestern, Roanoke, Rocky Mountain, Southeastern, and West Gulf).
The FRC membership is a very well-informed group on matters of ARRL governance. News is routinely shared on a timely basis via our email reflector, in our chat room, at monthly regional and regular club meetings, and in our monthly newsletter. A sizeable percentage of our members monitor and participate on social media daily and share items of interest with fellow club members. This heightened awareness contributes to the thoughtfulness and value of their opinions.
FRC members have shared with the FRCBOD their growing displeasure with ARRL governance. The substance of this letter reflects their concerns which fall under two broad themes: Issues of Transparency and Matters of Governance.
ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY
The feeling that we are not being told the whole story in League reporting has long been a concern among our resident ARRL followers. Alternative versions of events offered by independent sources have confirmed the validity of this skepticism time and again. The ARRL “spin” on the late-hour changes to HR555 was proven false and deceptive. Antenna Zoning experts K1VR and N3JT credibly argue the bill leaves those of us in
HOA limiting situations worse off with passage of this legislation. We thank Director Woolweaver for blowing the whistle on the deception and the secrecy surrounding this action.
A more troubling trend has been the complete absence of information from ARRL HQ explaining governance decisions. We look at the K4AC and K3RF election petition disqualifications and wonder what was the Ethics and Elections Committee thinking? We are still waiting for an accounting of their reasoning in both cases.
It has become common knowledge that an attempt was made by the ARRL Board last July to eliminate the position of Vice Director. The apparent intent was to give the Board the authority to appoint replacement Directors without member balloting. No mention of this attempted dilution of member rights is found in the July Board Meeting minutes, since it is common practice to never record motions in the minutes that are withdrawn. The willful withholding news about this initiative is reason to question whatever trust we may still have in our leadership. Again, secret actions were taken by the ARRL leadership. Fortunately a sufficient number of Directors displayed good judgment which resulted in the motion being withdrawn.
The censure of Director Norton crystallized opinion in regard to ARRL governance for many of our members. The explanation for this Board action offered by ARRL HQ does not pass the smell test. Our FRC President attended the Visalia Forum and fully validates the account submitted by Mr. Duffy, K3LR. It is simply inconceivable the censure was based on Mr. Norton’s actions at the forum, and our suspicions were recently confirmed by Hudson Division Director Lisenco who stated in an email to a constituent it was a “personnel matter.” Director Frenaye’s concurrence with Director Lisenco that it was a personnel issue and as such the Board’s deliberations must remain confidential is equally deceptive, since Mr. Norton is not an employee of the ARRL. Only the ill-conceived Director Code of Conduct prevents full disclosure. We await a truthful accounting of this Special Board Meeting and real reasons for censure.
This brings us to the so-called “Director Code of Conduct.” Having a Code of Ethics is normally good policy because it limits corporate liability – no argument. But the unique version of an ethics policy enacted by the ARRL Board (passed very quietly last January) goes far beyond what is normally considered appropriate for a not for profit membership organization like the ARRL. Any layman reading the document walks away with the impression that it is a “gag order” that will inhibit rather than encourage communications between members and their elected officials. A policy which says not once but twice “the board member should consider voluntarily resigning his/her position on the Board” if they do not feel they can comply with the policy should be viewed with total skepticism. Without the ability for a Director to openly and freely discuss matters that come before the Board, even after the Board has acted, members are denied the ability to evaluate the performance of their elected officials. The permutations on this theme are many – the document as written is Orwellian and warrants withdrawal and replacement. It is simply a BAD POLICY statement and the ARRL can do much better.
Comment