The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was
inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the
process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential
future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any
future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so
mired in the past that it has no future.
That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of
functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some
existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new
membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new
association from scratch?

--
----
A recent, no-code Amateur Extra

"Klystron" wrote

The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was
inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the
process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential
future members.

Morse is obsolete? Hmmm.....

N7SO

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Klystron writes:

The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was
inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the
process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential
future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any
future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so
mired in the past that it has no future.
That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of
functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some
existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new
membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new
association from scratch?

--
----
A recent, no-code Amateur Extra

This is a quite well-trodden subject. I refer you to many, many threads
on the subject in the past in the newsgroups archives. Go to Google
Groups at http://groups.google.com and search for:

ARRL "new organization"

for a start.

Many past efforts at a replacement organization have been tried, and
failed. Most notably was an organization led by "73" Magazine Editor
Wayne Green, W2NSD (the "Institute of Amateur Radio"). Sometimes the
leadership was just too controversial or confrontational. In the case
of Glenn Baxter, K1MAN (American Amateur Radio Association,
International Amateur Radio Network), it's hard to set a good example,
and encourage those to follow you, when you're constantly in trouble
with the FCC and hiding behind the alleged endorsements of many people
who want nothing to do with you, and repeatedly disavow such endorsement
(e.g., Walter Cronkite KB2GSD and Leo Meyerson W0GFQ).

Some organizations are very worthwhile, such as QCWA, AMSAT, TAPR, etc.,
but are too specialized to have very large membership rolls. Some
organizations are for the purpose of seeking specific changes or
political reforms, and lose traction once those reforms have been
achieved (e.g., NCI).

It's been pointed out that many ARRL Director and Section Manager
elections run unopposed. Why go to the trouble to build a new
organization from the ground up, if getting involved with the ARRL and
changing from within might be a better strategy?

It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the
ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such
an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid
disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical
administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a
large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation
and compromises. Organizations also have to be for things, in addition
to just being against things. Are the complainers and non-joiners up to
the task?

Part of taking the lead in any new effort, whether it be a new
newsgroup, a new local club, or a new national organization, is to step
up, introduce yourself, and try to build others' trust, such that they
would want to follow you. One good first step for such a leader or
leaders would be to step out of the shadows of anonymity and identify
themselves, IMHO.

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFGfwDy6Pj0az779o4RAt8SAKCgNHG/oV6xK09bIzcnnBCPN7026ACgh5Hm
2owUCBl4QkLRb+cgGQdU00o=
=E+Ia
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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.

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.

Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization,
Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and
change it.

I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person
can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they
from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era"
when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of
folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely
continue for several more years.

It is just about a sure thing that most members of the ARRL are a group
that is actively involved in amateur radio. So they pay their dues,
vote, and get something for their money (in their opinion)



That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of
functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some
existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new
membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new
association from scratch?


I would suggest that you start the process of forming a new organization.

I would respectfully suggest that you might think about omitting
statements about the obsolescence of Morse code. Give some consideration
to your statement:

It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and,
in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its
potential future members.

You are alienating the users of the mode - who are also more likely to
be Active Hams, IMO. As well as those of us who are presumably at least
somewhat satisfied with the ARRL's performance, witness our continued
writing of dues checks.

After all is said and done, your task is to organize a group that
includes inactive Hams, disinterested Hams, Hams who are content to
make use of the ARRL's benefits without getting involved personally, and
those who are frugally noncommittal to the whole thing.

When you do start this new organization, it might be helpful to provide
a monthly post to the newsgroups in the same manner that we have in
r.r.a.info and r.r.a.moderated.

As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going
to do for us would be helpful.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Klystron" wrote in message
...

That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of
functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some
existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new
membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new
association from scratch?

Dear "xxx",

ARRL is just one of several amateur radio clubs which I am a member of, each for
various reasons. (And I think it is important to note that ARRL is just another
amateur radio club, although larger than most.)

I belong to CADXA to associate with others who work DX.
I belong to NCCC to associate with other contesters.
I belong to SOC to associate with other hams who don't take themselves too
seriously.
I belong to ARRL because they once gave me a scholarship, and to associate with
others who read QST.
If you start a new radio club, maybe I'll find a reason to join it also.

The Man in the maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ

--
Iitoi

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
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.

Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization,
Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and change
it.

I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person can
get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they from the
group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era" when
repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of folks?
They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely continue for
several more years.


In addition, there are a significant number of people who simply are not
joiners regardless of what they may think of an organization. Of those who
are active but not members of the ARRL, I'd bet the majority of them simply
fall into the "non-joiner" class.

Dee, N8UZE

On Jun 24, 7:43 pm, Klystron wrote:

That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of
functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some
existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new
membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new
association from scratch?

Have you considered AARA, which bills itself as "your alternative to
ARRL".

Website at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/iarntra.../business.html

73,

RDW

Michael Coslo wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:20:26 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.

I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person
can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they
from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era"
when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of
folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely
continue for several more years.

I would caution you not to ask unanswerable questions. :-(

The Publisher's Sworn Statement, the only document able to yield a
direct number of ARRL members to any public individual, has been
missing from their website for over a half year. It is available only
by
surface mail...if they choose to send it to a requestor. From
elesewhere in QST one can glean an approximate membership
number of 152 thousand...which may or may not be accurate.
Assuming it is -

As of 23 June 2007 the FCC database contained 711,828 individual
amateur radio licensees (i.e., exclusive of Clubs). As a percentage
of
those, the ARRL membership is 21.4%. The ARRL's US license
totals page for 23 June 2007 indicates 654,616 individual licensees
NOT in their Grace Period for renewal. Compared to those, the ARRL
membership is 23.2%. Grace Period licensees number are apparently
57,212 total for that database date. That is inferred by subtracting
non-
grace-period individual licensee totals from the grand total of all
individual licensees.

The use of "active" versus "inactive" licensees is incorrect,
disinformative.
It should be Non-Grace-Period versus In-Grace-Period. A licensee may
or not be active in radio operation during their license Non-Grace-
Period;
there is no Poll or other data to prove their radio operation
activity. Those
licensees in their Grace Period may be ill, deceased, on active duty
with
the military, relocated for work purposes, or somewhere off-planet not
on
NASA duty. There is no data available to indicate which or what on
those.
Neither is there any data on the number of "honey-do" licensees. Such
remarks are highly subjective, hearsay, or simply specious.

It is just about a sure thing that most members of the ARRL are a group
that is actively involved in amateur radio. So they pay their dues,
vote, and get something for their money (in their opinion)

The "sure thing" cannot be proven and is merely subjective. There are
many fraternal orders active in the USA with active dues income,
voting,
and so forth but most members do not really concern themselves with
the actions of those fraternal orders.

If all your amateur radio news comes from ARRL sources (as their
origin),
are you getting news in the objective journalistic manner or are you
getting subjective news that is slanted to favor the ARRL? Recall
that
ARRL membership is LESS than a quarter of any 'popular' grouping of
US amateur radio licensees. Since the publishing side of the ARRL
'house' has to make most of the operating income for the League, the
League wants the most positive picture of US amateur radio possible...
and to convince others that League publications are the best to buy.


You are alienating the users of the mode - who are also more likely to
be Active Hams, IMO. As well as those of us who are presumably at least
somewhat satisfied with the ARRL's performance, witness our continued
writing of dues checks.

"Users of the [CW] mode are the most active hams?!? Just how do you
go about proving that? There are still over 300 thousand US amateur
radio licensees in the no-code-test Technician Class as of 24 June
2007.
Are you not considering that the pro-coders have ALIENATED the no-
coders for years?


As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going
to do for us would be helpful.

Would a Formal Business Plan with Attachments of Monetary Support for
initial start-up be sufficient help? Or have you considered that
"Klystron's"
remarks might be irritation at what the ARRL has NOT done for many or
that their 'support' for certain activities of amateur radio is NOT
there in the
abundance claimed by the League?

The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization for US amateur radio.
Only
in that sense is it logical to belong. Let me know when the ARRL has
any
national competition for US amateur radio "representation."

AF6AY (dues-paid voting member of the ARRL)

Paul W. Schleck wrote on 24 June 2007:

It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the
ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such
an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid
disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical
administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a
large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation
and compromises.

The ARRL is more Publishing House than a membership organization.
That part brings in the majority of a reported income to the IRS of
greater than $10 Million US annually. Can one "negotiate" with a
business? There is NO competitor for the ARRL to work against.

... Are the complainers and non-joiners up to the task?

I am a voting member of the ARRL. I joined via Internet a couple
days after my name and callsign appeared on the FCC database.
Indeed, at the same time of day as joining, I was in private e-mail
with Ed Hare, W1RFI.

First problem: Someone at ARRL offices added an "Apartment 33"
to my QST address. I live in a single-family residence and have for
44 years. The Fullfillment Office at the ARRL did eventually correct
that. They may not be talking to their ARRL VEC side at Newington.
Not a big problem but it amused our USPS deliverer.

Second problem: Two weeks after receiving my ARRL membership
card in the mail, a "Ham Kit" of literature was in my mailbox,
offering
"my choice of a book 'free' if I were to join." I contacted ARRL by e-
mail
and was - essentially - shined off. Since I had already joined by my
own volition, TS, the 'free offer' doesn't apply to me. Am I happy
with
that? No. Can I do anything about it? No. Did I know about this
'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL
talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not.

That's just one small sampling of one very new member of the ONLY
national amateur radio membership organization in the USA. It has
had many variations of problems with many others.

However, it would seem that one should NOT complain about the
League, am I correct? "Bad Form," yes? :-(

AF6AY