AmateurRadio.com

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.“

Wizard of Oz (1939)

This line from the classic movie, Wizard of Oz (1939), largely tells the tale of this article. The sidebar statement to the audience revealed that what was actually going on if the audience was astute enough to see it was not what was being presented to the audience in the play itself. Social scientists use this metaphor to describe organizational behavior as “front stage” (intended to be seen by the audience) versus “back stage” (not intended for the audience).

It is this distinction that I focus on in this article. I illustrate how the current voting options for League members just don’t elect hams to positions with the power (rather than authority) to effectively represent them in ARRL actions, policies, and service. I suggest one approach to resolving this problem by arguing that it’s the organization rather than “bad” hires. I outline a significant change in voting options that will force the League’s leadership to be responsive to members for they will then actually elect leaders with the authority and power to serve them. Or face shortly being unelected as part of the political process of a constituency voting. Finally, term limits would keep new blood in leadership positions which will reduce the estrangement between the League’s service and those they say they serve.

“In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.” Now-retired ARRL HQ Staff Member over lunch at a Five Guys restaurant to Frank K4FMH

My belief is that members left partly because of changes in QST, both in content and the disputed contract of printed copies associated with pre-paid multi-year memberships, and partly due to the frustration of their concerns just falling on deaf ears for a long period of time. A thorough reading of social media and website Forums will clearly make this case to all but those who have their heads in the sand. My sense is that the QST debacle was the proverbial straw and camel issue.

I’ve characterized this stance by the ARRL toward the marketplace in years past by using a paraphrase of the old Saturday Night Live news anchor, Chevy Chase, as Newington’s collective message to the members. All too often it’s: We’re the ARRL and you’re not. As I noted in a previous article, I had a now-retired League staff member haughtily say in my presence that, “In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.” That perspective, unfortunately, has been present in the culture of the ARRL’s Headquarters at least since their 50th anniversary. Chickens have to roost somewhere. They may well be coming home now.

Current ARRL Status in the Marketplace

In the past several blog articles, I documented how the membership of the League has dropped like a stone. If we accept what the ARRL’s CEO says are the reasons, it’s that hams who are not members just aren’t “active” hams. Unless you think that Canada is another planet instead of a previous Section of the ARRL, evidence from our friends north of the border shows that just is not supported by national survey data. Read the 2023 Annual Report and we are told that 75% of all new Technician licenses are “inactive” within 12 months. Assuming they joined the League upon licensure, is that the cause? (I show that it’s not very likely that they did but I’m just giving them the best possible scenario.) But, alas, they can’t or won’t produce the study cited in their Annual Report. Unless the reader, like many in ARRL management, have their heads in the sand on observable data, the ham radio market is doing just fine, thank you. But the League is simply not serving them as so, so many licensed hams want and need them to. After all, their slogan is the National Association for Amateur Radio.

After interviewing a number of American Radio Relay League staff at HQ as well as current and sitting Board members over the past few years now, I learned quite a bit about the lines of power being played out behind the curtain of the official organizational (authority) chart in the public-facing page at ARRL.org. As we will see below, these are the power relationships that stretch behind the “front stage” lines of authority, although it’s the latter that precipitates the fundamental sources of the today’s mess. I’ll explain in detail below.

None were willing to go on record for quotation right now because of reprisal fears for them (or their partners). Some did commit to a public interview in the future should leadership change. The reader would be highly surprised if they knew who in the organization talked frankly about the "inside baseball" of League management in recent years as some publicly appear friendly to the current regime at ARRL. They all say they just do not approve of how the main office, and the venerable League itself, is being managed.

If you’re a reader who can’t deal with investigative journalism ethics like this, turn your browser to another website. (As The Smoking Ape says on his Youtube Channel, go watch some cat videos, lol.)

We will need to cover the “front stage” of what the League presents as the organization and lines of authority before we get to the “back stage” of informal power relationships. I know, boring, right? But important nonetheless. I then produce a sociological assessment of what I see based on my decade experience as a volunteer “flunky” in the Delta Division, fleshed out by my discussions with key actors, frequently “in the room” when power relationships actually determine what the League does. Many of the existing Board, Officers, and key staff will do backflips to show how this analysis is wrong. But my perspective is from the member’s view and their vested interests, not those of the Board, Officers or HQ staff. This nearly always puts those in positions of authority on the defensive. You decide from your experience how accurate my analysis is. Some Board members who privately do not like the autocracy have said it’s spot on…but don’t quote them (yet).

The ARRL Okey Doke In the Organizational Chart

There is a key difference between authority and power. The League officials will focus on authority in the organization chart they make public whereas I will emphasize power relationships:

“Authority is commonly understood as the legitimate power of a person or group over other people…the terms authority and power are inaccurate synonyms. The term authority identifies the political legitimacy, which grants and justifies rulers’ right to exercise the power of government; and the term power identifies the ability to accomplish an authorized goal, either by compliance or by obedience; hence, authority is the power to make decisions and the legitimacy to make such legal decisions and order their execution.” Wikipedia

There is a wide gap in how the official organizational chart says the League operates relative to members and the power relationships that actually make decisions affecting the membership.

To a sociologist, organizations have formal (organization chart) and informal (routine behavior) lines of power, authority and processes for entry into official offices, such as President. Note that the power to control activities may or not be legitimately authorized by the organization itself. There is a wide gap in how the official organizational chart says the League operates relative to members and the power relationships that actually make decisions affecting the membership. Now, this is based on information I’ve gathered through interviews, whether completely reliable or not, but they paint a consistent picture. My professional analysis of a organization as a member has put this into a schematic framework that fits that picture. Bear that in mind. As I noted above, how good of a fit is it for what you have experienced?

My focus is on how members fit into the chart to have an adequate “say” over League matters as reflected in the “back stage” arena. The official organizational charts, narrative text about positions, and such will stand on their own as the “front stage” of the ARRL. The reader will largely see why so many former members just gave up in frustration in recent years. The old saying, “you can’t get there from here,” seems to apply in that what members can vote on leads to little or no authority to enact policies, practices, or actions desired by the members. It’s because the “man behind the curtain” is insulated from any short-term actions by those elected to represent members and their desires for League action.

The old saying, “you can’t get there from here,” seems to apply in that what members can vote on leads to little or no authority to enact policies, practices, or actions desired by the members.

Formal League Organization

Bear with me for a moment on this section as it is important to see what the front-stage in the play is presented to the audience of members.

The ARRL website has a listing of the “organizational structure” of the League. It also has a page for Officers in ARRL. There’s a Field Organization page as well. If you’ve not done so, it’s worth reading. Carefully. Just don’t assume you know what the authority and duties of a position name entails without careful reading, such as the President.

Here’s an excerpt from the Officers page:

Note that the President mainly presides over Board of Directors meetings and is the “face” of the ARRL to several external audiences. Members have no direct say in who the President is because, unlike most other associations, they do not get to vote for this position. This person does make Standing Committee appointments. These Committees are the bowels of the League’s bureaucratic machinery. Issues can move quickly or stay for years, backed-up in Committees. We will see how this movement is shaped below through informal power of the CEO. The President has a cascade of Vice Presidents who manage various tasks. Most come back to the Board for consideration rather than direct action. At times, the CEO just does things without formal Board authorization. The reader might think that the President of an organization is the proverbial Big Kahuna: the boss, leader, chieftain, or top-ranking person in an organization. Not so fast! S/he is not. This is very different from a majority of peer national associations leading amateur radio.

Let’s continue exploring the issue but it has been this way since 1926 (see this PDF file). Remember, the basic organization of the ARRL was established to facilitate regional message-passing (the “relay” in the ARRL), not to be an optimal organizational structure for a national hobby association (international when Canada was an additional Section). If anything, the ARRL is culture-bound, fossilized as some of it may be for today’s amateur radio, and continues myths to promote its importance.

Here’s where the okey doke begins. The CEO rules the headquarters staff and, by this, has the greatest direct effect on the membership experience. Members vote for their individual Division Director who has a seat on the Board of Directors. However, Board members can’t individually change anything except in unison. And they are stymied by infighting coalitions and a desire to become President one day. Remember, a member does not vote on all Division Directors, just one!

The Board selects the President and other Officers, including the Treasurer. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is technically “elected” as a formality (after actually going through the hiring process) to be a paid full-time employee of the Corporation. It’s typically for a multi-year contractual period, currently remunerated at $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721 per annum) according to the latest IRS Filing. Here’s where the okey doke begins. The CEO rules the headquarters staff and, by this, has the greatest direct effect on the membership. It’s technically under the “direction” of the Board.

But let’s work through that power relationship between the CEO and the Board of Directors. There’s usually a multi-year contract so unless a Division Director elected by constituent members can get enough other Board members to agree, the CEO can literally thumb his nose at a given Board member’s directions or suggestions. But they aren’t actual “directions” unless the Board officially acts on them. A Division Director can just spin and spin while pushing some policy but unless the full Board decides to act, it’s just that: arm-waving motion. And constituent members just wait. Remember the old phrase, when all is said and done, much more is said than done? Little comes out of it in terms of rapid action to solve some membership problem. There are some nominal exceptions, of course, but this is the routine pattern of behaviors. The Section Manager can just email the Field Services Manager. If an SM goes public with criticism of HQ, I’m told by one or more Board members that the CEO starts discussions with the Division Director about the need to replace that SM. Either way, the Section Manager volunteers for the corporation, with almost no power to do anything but simply ask Newington and reference the Division Director.

I want to emphasize that this narrative should not be interpreted to mean that I do not think that Division Directors or Section Managers do much. Officially, DDs are booked with the IRS at 10 hours per week on the average. Section Managers are not listed in the IRS filing for average effort on the corporation’s behalf. From my experience in the Delta Division, both of the DDs I have served as an Assistant Director spent many hours in meetings, phone calls, working emails, and on the road attending hamfests. My SM has served decades in that elected office with a similar workload. While each gets a travel and operation budget, I do not get the sense that it’s very large, certainly not enough to cover actual expenses. They do a lot! But they just do not have the authority, and certainly not the power, to directly effect change at the League HQ except by request. And this is part of the okey doke in the ARRL organization itself. It’s not necessarily the fault of the individuals serving in either of these elected positions! It’s the organization.

I want to emphasize that this narrative should not be interpreted to mean that I do not think that Division Directors or Section Managers do much...They do a lot!

Recall that the President and other Officers are elected by their peers on the Board. I’ll wager that every Division Director at least thinks about becoming ARRL President. Playing the long-game of “being nice” to competitive peers may provide that opportunity but it doesn’t bode well for quick change to benefit members. Moreover, as identified below, each single Board member has no direct power over HQ policy or actions. None. (Show me the money if I’m wrong.) Please note that some HQ staff do work hard to serve members but not all of them. If they are on the naughty list of the CEO, they may leave when they retire and not a single person speak to them as they exit the building because of the informal power relations at work at Headquarters.

I’m told by Board members “in the room” (Zoom included) that the CEO has argued for a change such that new Board members would be just appointed at the behest of the CEO. Afterwards, Section Managers would simply be appointed, too. This all on the predicate of getting individuals with the “best fit” of credentials and skillset. There is an Ethics & Elections Committee that “vets” candidates for fitness-to-serve in an elected position. Corporate loyalty, not representing the interests of members who elect them, is the political third-rail for the organizational okey doke. I was not a direct party to this discussion but it’s been confirmed by enough people with direct knowledge that I do believe it. Whether the reader does it up to them. I am just reporting a relevant set of remarks that outline the current power relationship associated with the Chief Executive Officer position in Newington. The reader will not see this in the public-facing organizational structure.

Let’s directly examine the organizational management chart, as published on the League website:

One sees how HQ is formally organized, all leading to the CEO. There are eight departments, ranging from Operations to Product Marketing & Innovation, in addition to the CFO and assistant. Quite a management load but note the Director of Operations (now vacant due to a separation with the most recent employee, I’m told). Hmm. That person quarterbacks the operations on an daily basis. What does the Chief Executive Officer/League Secretary do? A lot, I suspect. We only know what he tells us. His monthly columns in QST tell us quite a bit.

But he said in his October 2021 QST column, for instance, that “I enjoy starting every day with a coffee and a tour of the social media outlets that feature ham radio, from Facebook to Twitter to Youtube.” A CEO has gotta keep up on that social media! Like many CEOs in the corporate for-profit space, thinking deep thoughts gleaned from Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book or planning a contesting trip to a super-station in the Caribbean with fellow ARRL Officers or staff does immerse the CEO in the culture of contemporary amateur radio. That’s important, right? He has the authority to schedule his time as he sees fit. But there’s an income stream that can be tied to a for-profit CEO’s actions like this. Is there for the non-profit dues-and-donor-driven ARRL? The Operations Manager does free-up time for those “executive” activities at an annual cost of $124,354 plus $20,980 (or $145,334 total) according to the latest IRS filing. That’s what makes it an executive position and not a manager: an executive has a Board and a manager has a boss.

It could well be than many who take issue with League actions (or lack thereof) actually care about the hobby, the organizing group leading it, and their ham radio friends. They recognize that the League is more than the personnel occupying the current positions.

The CEO title emerged late under long-serving David Sumner K1ZZ’s tenure. I’m told by a Board member and staffers from back then that it was largely done as an reward to his years of service, but indeed at Sumner’s vociferous request. Up to that point, the office was League Secretary. But now, with the CEO title, it’s become a boondoggle of struggles over who has the power to actually make policy and procedures enacted by staff at HQ. Just read social media or the Forums or read the mail on the bands.

But the CEO has publicly said that these detractors should just be ignored, largely because they are “self-interested or self-serving” in their complaints (QST, May 2024: 9). He just puts those letters into the recycle bin. The reader can evaluate the context of the CEO’s comments. It could well be than many who take issue with League actions (or lack thereof) actually care about the hobby, the organizing group leading it, and their ham radio friends. But, make no mistake, the choice to publicly redress those who disagree with your management comes from the insular bubble of a CEO that does not face election directly by the membership.

Up to that point, the office was League Secretary. But now, with the CEO title, it’s become a boondoggle of struggles over who has the power to actually make policy and procedures enacted by staff at HQ.

The CEO has a Chief Financial Officer (with an assistant) but this person does not have the usual and customary stated requirements to be an accountant by training or a CPA. This is another surprise in the organizational chart. Anyone, say a history teacher, could become CFO of the ARRL. This person is compensated $200,734 plus $36,017 (or $236,751 total) in additional monies, coming in as the second highest paid employee by the ARRL according to the latest IRS filing. One doesn’t have to be a CPA to run a good spreadsheet but there are usual and customary practices in financial management for a reason. Knowing the fiduciary responsibility to keep secure backups of League finances instead of just relying on a single company laptop is a mere example. One never knows when a hack attack will occur. There is, however, an outside auditor to examine the books for the Annual Report to stay out of trouble with the IRS tax-exempt designation.

Readers should be aware of these formal organizational lines of position and authority. After all, dues are paid and civic engagement to the National Association is warranted, right? But let’s turn to those power relationships that go beyond the boxes-and-lines themselves in the “back stage” arena of the ARRL.

Informal League Power Relationships

Let’s see the voting and power relationships in diagrammatic terms from insider reports and my perspective as a sociologist. (Bear in mind that this is an educated interpretation.) Some of the narrative from above feeds into this articulation of what power relationships factor into this chart. Confidential Board member comments tell me that I have the gist of it.

I’ve put a legend for where members vote and for what position in blue, as well as the voting ability of those elected by members. From those positions, I’ve identified reported power relationships in red. Where there appears to be formal, but weak, authority, I’ve labeled those links in pink.

From just a moment’s study, the reader can quickly see that the two positions that members currently vote for have little to no power to unilaterally affect actions, operations and service at Headquarters! Individually, they can ask but they cannot tell. Members, both current and former, have posted legions of stories on social media and the major amateur radio websites about their frustrations over this. But do not look at the man behind the curtain for it is the okey doke of the CEO’s power rather than authority. Publicly criticize what’s going on behind the curtain and you’re an irrational detractor out for your own fame and glory, says the CEO! (“Second Century,” QST, May 2024: 9). Could it also be an amateur who loves the hobby and the dominant organizing association who sees poor service and is actively commenting to help change it for the better? For many such “detractors,” I believe that it is.

Every two years, members elect a local area official to manage the ARRL Section, or a Section Manager (SM). Most members think that the SM represents their interests and can “go fight City Hall” on their behalf. Wrong! As I noted above, many (like mine) may try but, in practice, SMs themselves are managed by the Field Services Manager in Newington who reports to the CEO. A recent internal battle has resulted in there being a weak line of authority from the Division Director (and BoD member) and each SM in the Division. In practice, most SMs just answer to the Field Services Manager. My SM, Malcolm W5XX, is the longest serving SM in the League but he is largely told, in essence, to “shut up and dribble” on most matters. (My words based on his comments, not his.) The CEO says Section Managers live in different worlds of governance than the Division Directors (see his October 2023 QST column) so they should report to “his” Field Services manager. He makes the claim that the “law” makes them corporately loyal to the ARRL Inc., even though they are directly elected by dues-paying members. Finally, he says they are the “leaders” of the Field Organization, even though he has a Field Services Manager to “manage” them. Okey Doke.

From just a moment’s study, the reader can quickly see that the two positions that members can vote for have little to no power to unilaterally affect actions, operations and service at Headquarters! But do not look at the man behind the curtain for it is the okey doke of the CEO’s power rather than authority.

Likewise, every two years, members elect a Division Director (DD) who sits on the Board of Directors. Each DD has an associated Vice Director who is also elected, often as a slate for a given Division. In practice, this authority is met with weak power to get things done at Headquarters. Why? The CEO has placed an administrative “firewall” between Board members and staff at HQ. See the barrier in the chart above in orange. The Board used to meet in Newington which necessitated communication with staffers on constituent matters by Division Directors but the CEO moved the meetings to posher locales, like Hartford. Don’t worry about your Director’s out-of-pocket expense. It’s covered by his or her travel budget from ARRL. That helped short-circuit face-to-face communication with staff except via the CEO. A Division Director can go through the Standing Committee structure to influence some change. A little lobbying by the CEO, who is a non-voting member of each Committee, and things sort of go how he wants, I’m told by multiple people in the room. Power, rather than authority, the key to the okey doke.

Even if a program is passed through the Standing Committee(s), the CEO can just slow-walk it to death on staff implementation. I’ve watched an approved proposal for club-library map on the League website as well as an ongoing national survey program that I got my Division Director to work through the Standing Committee(s) get to the CEO when he put them in the recycle bin (see his May 2024 QST column on this). The Board did nothing to “direct” the CEO otherwise and they have simply gone into the CEO’s infamous recycle bin. So I’ve witnessed this power relationship myself as well as had it confirmed by Board members and staff. There are numerous other examples but the point is illustrated for the reader.

Even if a program is passed through the Standing Committee(s), the CEO can just slow-walk it to death on staff implementation.

This communications firewall, I’m told, has placed the CEO into an insular bubble allowing him to ignore any requests from a single Board Member should he wish as long as he has enough Board cronies who will not buck his wishes. This prevents any single Director from getting the necessary vote for a given issue to be approved. The CEO may ignore any detractors as he described in his May 2024 QST article and encourage staff members to just ignore members who criticize a policy or action. There is no recourse for members, except to not renew their membership. The recourse for Board members is to go along to get along. For, one day, they too might become President.

These are some of the mechanisms by which the CEO position wields power that outstrips the official lines of authority. There are several. Effectively, the ARRL HQ is a status-dispensing vending machine. Become a public detractor and there will be informal sanctions emanating from the CEO’s power relationships. Appointments to positions in the field services or committees, requests to HQ, and other matters may be delayed or denied for detractors who get on the CEO’s naughty list. All these have been said to me to be true, as a few examples. I am only a direct party to one of them. Did he threaten a detracting blogger with contacting his employer, ostensibly to get him fired? Is there an informal “do not publish” list for QST, managed by the “Four Horsemen” as a member of the review team calls them, for detractors of the League? Did the CEO or his subordinate direct the ARRL VM program to not send a letter of Part 97 noncompliance to an explicitly offending Youtuber for hawking products in his online store while on the air because he helps raise money for the League? Are other services made unavailable to those who offer up nattering nabobs of negativism toward the League? I am only directly privy to one of these events but some people who are do not like this unethical behavior although they feel powerless to prevent it without repercussions. These are some of the informal power mechanisms that stretch beyond the formal organizational chart of authority. The status-dispensing machine will be out-of-order for detractors of the League.

Effectively, the ARRL HQ is a status-dispensing vending machine…The status-dispensing machine will be out-of-order for detractors of the League.

As readers who have been hams for awhile have witnessed since the retirement of David Sumner K1ZZ as (then newly titled) CEO, the Board-CEO relationship has continued to be stymied with this okey doke organizational structure as have (former) member experiences with some staff at HQ. However, I do not see it as only “bad people” at work. (Well, maybe in a few instances.) It is the organizational structure and process that hires individuals from career paths that are ill-suited to non-profit leadership where member service is the prime directive. With this structure, member service was not the prime directive, although there are indeed hard-working individuals at HQ who do render great service to the membership. (I’ve had the privilege of interacting with several of them.) This chart that I’ve created is the embodiment of that ill-fitting organizational structure with power dynamics that serve “executive” worldviews rather than “non-profit management” viewpoints toward service.

I do not see it as “bad people” at work. (Well, maybe in a few instances.) It is the organizational structure and process that hires individuals from career paths that are ill-suited to non-profit leadership where member service is the prime directive.

Note that the President, elected not by members but by the Board, is mainly an emissary to the CEO with Board directives. S/he has no power to require their execution but largely the ability to pass them along. The ARRL is in the clear minority among peer national hobby associations in that members do not directly elect their Presidents. Societies in the UK, Germany, Greece, South Africa, and one of two in Australia all elect their Presidents. RAC and WIA do not, along with the ARRL. The League is very out of step with their peers in this critical aspect of governance.

The Executive Committee has direct bearing in an authority relationship with the CEO. The multi-year contract still protects the almost unilateral authority, and even greater power, over HQ staff and operations. It would still take larger Board action to compel the CEO on any matter to which he objects. This begs the question of how effective and efficient is this organization structure? If market share in memberships has anything to do with it, not very effective and getting worse each year.

Regaining Membership by Changing the Organizational Script

Many ARRL members have just not renewed and walked away. I believe that this alienation is a direct result of having the CEO position and the corporate vision that it perpetuates. Individuals hired from a commensurate candidate pool will behave similarly, although some more than others. Neither of the two positions that members can vote for have sole authority, and little individual power, to effect change that serves the membership. Social scientists have studied the withdrawal effects that alienation from individual agency has on volunteers and the ARRL’s work is driven by volunteers. The “executive washroom” conception of one executive to “run” amateur radio in the U.S. is way out-of-step with the market and present-and-recent membership. For many years, the ARRL HQ was managed by a League Secretary, then General Manager, from which David Sumner K1ZZ was up-titled to CEO. The legacy Secretary position remains as a title-appendage.

How can this dramatic membership decline be changed? I think by changing the fundamental governance mechanisms that produce it. With changes like this, the decline will most likely continue.

One key change would involve the relationship of who is elected by the membership and what power, vested through authority, that these positions have. This would increase the “say” that the membership at large would have over League matters because these individuals would face standing for re-election.

Does the League actually need a Chief Executive Officer? Or, would a Chief Operations Officer, hired from a pool of candidates with experience in the non-profit, membership-driven sector be a superior fit to the ARRL’s needs for service?

The second key change is to undo the gratuitous up-titling that was given to long-serving David Sumner K1ZZ by naming him Chief Executive Officer. Perhaps done in compassion by the Board of Directors to reward Sumner, it has been an organizational yoke around the necks of membership experience. The three successive replacements for Sumner were all hired from what I call the “executive washroom” pool of candidates who focused on being the chief executive from a for-profit corporate career path. They have all failed to lead this non-profit, membership-focused organization as witnessed in the dramatic and continuing decline in absolute membership numbers as well as market share. To continue down this path would not reflect a solid fiduciary relationship to the corporation, to parrot the legelese that is being fed to the Board. To the market of members and potential members, it’s just bad business management.

Does the League actually need a Chief Executive Officer? Or, would a Chief Operations Officer, hired from a pool of candidates with experience in the non-profit, membership-driven sector be a superior fit to the ARRL’s needs for effective service delivery? Note that the current expense for both a CEO and an Operations Manager is $494,055 in the latest IRS Filing. A half million dollars. To put it in perspective, this is what about 8,373 members would pay for membership in the League in a single year (divide $494,055 by $59 annual dues = 8,372.8).

The revised organizational chart with voting and authority lines would accomplish the objectives of giving members significantly more “say” in League matters, issues, and operation. It would also substantially nullify the insular bubble by the top person at HQ.

Here’s the gist of the new script.

• Replace the CEO with a COO hired from the non-profit sector.
• The President and other Officers would be elected directly by the membership.
• The Executive Committee would stagger three Division Directors into the mix, a new one and one departing each year, producing a three-year term for each, with the President as Chair.
• Division Directors would continue to be directly elected by their constituent membership every two years.
• Section Managers in the Division would continue to be directly elected every two years but would now report to Division Directors but be served by Field Services at HQ.
• Institute Streaming of Board Meetings (excluding employment or legal matters) with non-sanitized Board meeting minutes available to every member within one week after each meeting.
• Institute an annual “bottoms-up” evaluation survey of the membership on their interactions with ARRL Headquarters, conducted by an outside party.

Replace the CEO with a COO hired from the non-profit sector. This person does not have to be a licensed amateur radio operator but could become licensed after employment. There is precedent for this (current Director of Publications & Editorial Department, Becky W1BXY, and others). This person would not have “executive” authority but would be a manager of the HQ staff and operation. The key here would be making the President as the executive officer, who would chair the Executive Committee. The COO would report directly to this Executive Committee but would work with each Board member as needed to solve problems for members in each division or Section. The COO would serve on consecutive one-year contracts, hired by the Board. This would facilitate change in the membership service mission of the HQ staff and the COO. While the current CEO just says ignore the complainers, that is simply ignoring what the membership is trying to say, even if it is done in a less than civil fashion. It is the key issue driving membership loss today.

The President and other Officers would be elected directly by the membership, similar to the majority of peer associations, for a two-year term. The President would have succession ability upon re-election for one additional term. The lifetime length of service would be a maximum of four years (or two terms). Other Officers would also stand for direct election by the membership, with parallel service limits, as is the case with many other volunteer membership societies. This would produce movement through this singular executive leadership position, making it open to any member who could stand for election. This will also have the effect of greatly reducing the internal jockeying and political intrigue of the Board of Directors.

The Executive Committee would stagger three Division Directors into the mix, a new one and one departing each year, producing a three-year term for each, with the President as chair. A simple random selection of those eligible could initiate it from the current Board members, staggering the terms appropriately. Should a Division Director serving on the EC not be reelected, another would be appointed by the President to finish that DD’s unfilled term. This committee, chaired by the President, would oversee the COO and the HQ operations on a continuous basis. I could foresee weekly meetings by Zoom of this group. It would, indeed, be more work but this would keep it from being a “title collection” to hang on the wall in the shack. (I’ll simply ask the reader if there’s anyone like this among their local club’s officers.)

Division Directors would continue to be directly elected by their constituent membership every two years. Section Managers in the Division would continue to be directly elected every two years but would now report to Directors and be served by Field Services at HQ. No need for Newington to “manage” SMs other than the routine flow of information. The latter would not have any authority (or power) over Section Managers as it is today. This would increase the interest by rank-and-file members of the League in Section service. Division Directors would work directly with the COO and HQ staff on constituent issues, monitored by the Executive Committee. This does not have to be like the Rules Committee in the U.S. Congress.

Institute Streaming of Board Meetings (excluding employment or legal matters) with non-sanitized Board meeting minutes available to every member within one week after each meeting. Part of the pay no attention to the man behind the curtain charade currently in existence is the highly sanitized Board Agenda and minutes available to the membership. There is no reason for Board meetings to not be live-streamed to members-only except to hide from voting constituents how Division Directors vote and other pertinent officials participate in the meetings. One cannot be transparent by being opaque.

Institute an annual “bottoms-up” evaluation survey of the membership on their interactions with ARRL Headquarters, conducted by an outside party. As a Professor, even after I received tenure, every class I taught was evaluated by enrolled students. I didn’t always like it but it made me a better teacher. An annual evaluation survey of the membership is not difficult to institute through a third party. It is a standard part of formative evaluation research to provide an ongoing tool to improve service delivery to customers, which in this case, is members for the most part. It is common in non-profit settings as well as in many corporate environments. They are usually conducted by outside parties for the same reasons of integrity that independent auditors check the books for the annual report. The results will be professionally summarized with performance metrics and available to members within one month after the evaluation period ends.This will be an instrumental means of helping the ARRL better serve its members. It would be a necessary change along with direct membership voting on the President, other Officers, Division Directors, and Section Managers.

Conclusions

This article is a good faith effort by a professional who has been a consultant to organizations with management issues serving their members, customers, and their market. There would be kinks to work out but my point here is that the long-standing organization of the American Radio Relay League is the problem. I hold no animus to those occupying the positions of authority. They are put there by the system in place. But it is past time to change that organizational chart and how things work in Newington. The canard of “corporate loyalty” to ARRL Inc. as required by Connecticut law is a key part of this okey doke to prevent Division Directors, Section Managers, and Officers of the League from representing the membership. I’m told by other lawyers that this is a misreading of the financial fiduciary elements of the corporate law in that State which is being used as a power relationship by a cabal in office now. The Ethics & Elections Committee, which the President appoints, is the bureaucratic instrument through which that canard is implemented. A straightforward solution IF this interpretation were true would be to move the ARRL Inc. out of Connecticut to another state without such asinine loyalty oaths. But cutting the head off of the organizational snake that is the Chief Executive Officer position is the critical start.

Do I believe that the ARRL Board would even entertain this proposal? Not a chance in Hades. I’m not writing this article to the Board or Officers of the League. It’s written to the marketplace of members (of which I am a Life Member), former members, and potential members. I believe that this outlines the crux of why former members have left in droves and why many are so irate about it. Leaving is clearly their option which I endorse. I also advocate those who choose to stay and demand change in the organizational structure. It’s unclear how best to do that. I’ll explore some options in future articles.

Those employed in Newington are not the only ones who care about the hobby we share or the idea of the American Radio Relay League…League employees are not the League itself as their public relationship system likes to say to us. I hope readers who share those beliefs will work to change what we are getting from the ARRL. That may require drastic steps, including more shrinkage in membership, and competition in the services they provide to members, to push reasonable Directors to see the road ahead.

Let me conclude with the admonition that my writing is far from based upon being irate with any person in the ARRL management, as the CEO has publicly stated most detractors are. Board members will, likely behind closed doors (and email systems), berate and ignore what I’m saying here. Some may even quote things in Latin! There are peers among them who do not like that behavior. To use a frequent phrase by attorneys in letters on behalf of their clients, I am neither “shocked” or “amazed” by the Board, Officers or Staff at HQ calling me names and such. One even called me up and cursed me out a couple of years ago because I asked a simple question on the ARRL Youtube Channel. Nothing was done for that behavior toward a Life Member and volunteer staff, except he got a raise.

Those employed in Newington are not the only ones who care about the hobby we share or the idea of the American Radio Relay League. I became a Life Member and have spent over ten years volunteering for the League’s activities because of that sentiment. League employees are not the League itself as their public relations system likes to imply. I hope readers who share those beliefs will work to change what we are getting from the ARRL. That may require drastic steps, including more shrinkage in membership, and competition in the services they provide to members, to push reasonable Directors to see the road ahead.

One Response to “Many ARRL members couldn’t get there from here…So they left. Here’s how to get them back”