|
There were two other letters received by the Board from ARRL-related individuals that also described the ARRL Forum.
Carl Luetzelschwab Everyone, I attended the International DX Convention in Visalia in April. My main purpose for attending was to give a presentation on the current solar cycle and discuss propagation issues. Being the Central Division Vice Director, I also attended the ARRL Forum chaired by Dick N6AA. I was up on the dais with Dick and other ARRLofficials Dick asked the audience what topics they were interested in. Many topics were suggested, and Dick settled on the 3 or 4 (or maybe 5) that appeared to have the most interest. The one that resulted in the most discussion was the Code of Conduct. Many in the audience were upset with this Code of Conduct as explained by Dick (he did not bias his explanation in any way). At no time did Dick express anti-Code or anti-ARRL comments. I saw this as him trying to get the members pulse on this critical issue. Carl K9LA Ward Silver Directors and Officers, Dick Norton N6AA asked me to relay to you my recollections of the ARRL Forum at the 2017 International DX Convention in Visalia, CA; specifically regarding the discussion of the new Code of Conduct adopted by the Board. The Code of Conduct was the primary topic of interest with a number of comments from audience members. Dick led the discussion with a description of the Code and his obligations according to it. He didn't seem particularly enthusiastic about it but neither did he disparage it or any other ARRL policy. My impression was that he was trying to be fair about it, knowing that a number of members opposed it. A number of speakers from the audience took strong exception to the Code for a variety of reasons, including some with detailed justifications for their position. There was no push-back from the panel (I can't remember who else was on the panel) to any of the speakers - people were given an opportunity to speak their mind and they did. It was not a debate in the sense of arguments and counterarguments. Dick explained the Code and his interpretation of what that meant for board members and the audience made their position known, mostly opposing it. There may have been one or two members speaking in favor of the Code but their comments were brief and not as vigorous as those opposing it. The Code of Conduct discussion took up nearly half the allotted time. Several audience members were quite anti-Code and from the applause following their remarks, many of the attendees were, as well. There were also discussions of the Antenna Parity Act's status and the California law regarding distracted driving. An award or two was given out and that concluded the forum. All in all, except for the energy associated with the Codeof Conduct, the forum was unremarkable. Any suggestion that Dick was anti-Code or anti-ARRL in his presentation or responses is unjustified. This might be a good time to offer my personal view of the Code of Conduct. I understand some of the recent history with individual board members, elections, and disqualifications that have resulted in personal conflicts and challenges to the normal order. I also understand that most non-profits operate with a Code of Conduct not unlike that now in effect for the ARRL Board and Officers and why they regard it as necessary. Nevertheless, the ARRL Directors are elected by the membership and have always been expected to provide two-way communication to the membership about issues, including internal governance, with a sense of decorum and mutual respect acting as a brake on personal issues. While the Board members should be expected to support decisions, cutting off the discussion with members afterward will be interpreted in the worst possible light, particularly in today's polarized climate, regardless of the perceived necessity or benefits. Furthermore, it reinforces the pervasive notion of "Newington thinks it is the center of the universe" among ARRL detractors and disgruntled members. I don't see the Code in its current form having the desired effect ofencouraging a coherent and focused organization - probably the opposite. You might want to rethink some of the provisions limiting post-decision discussion while preserving the requirement to support those decisions. More importantly, at a time when we should be concerned primarily with rescuing amateur radio from its demographics, this kind of internal squabbling among the leadership is counterproductive and damaging. As a Life Member and someone who has looked up to the ARRL since the 1960s, it pains me to see this happening among friends and colleagues. To be frank, if I was a person under 40 considering amateur radio and ARRL membership, one whiff of this stuff and I would be gone. We are failing in our obligation as leaders to reach out and develop a new and vigorous amateur radio - and we will not have many more opportunities to do so. It's long past time to quit fooling around with organizational and personal issues that affect mostly leadership and start focusing on whether there is going to be an ARRL in ten or twenty years. QKO - knock it off. 73, Ward Silver, N0AX |
|
|