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 -

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.