Heres something better: From the ARRLs FAG:

"Did ARRL poll its members on this proposal? How was it formulated?

Because ARRL is a representative democracy, ARRL Directors listened to members
in their respective divisions while considering these issues. Directors heard
from many amateurs in their divisions, and some directors conducted their own
surveys. The final proposal represents the Board's best effort at changes to
the Amateur Radio licensing structure needed to carry us through the next 10 to
15 years."

Now this makes one wonder how many members did they get Info from. Was it 5,
10, 20, or even 100. The point being before the ARRL puts forth such a
proposal, it would be well Advised to determine what a Majority of there
MEMBERSHIP was thinking. Untill the ARRL provides actuall figures, I can no
longer see where they represent there MEMBERS WISHES.
As for me, with 25 Years as a Member, they will never get 1 more RED PENNY
from me for anything.

"WA8ULX" wrote

| Because ARRL is a representative democracy, ARRL Directors listened to
members
| in their respective divisions while considering these issues.
Directors heard
| from many amateurs in their divisions, and some directors conducted
their own
| surveys. The final proposal represents the Board's best effort at
changes to
| the Amateur Radio licensing structure needed to carry us through the
next 10 to
| 15 years."

I, for one, suggest that popularity polls and beauty contests are not a
particularly good method for influencing and guiding the evolution of
the Amateur Radio service.

This is particularly true for the National Association for Amateur
Radio, which in my not-so-humble-opinion is abdicating its
responsibility to show leadership and vision, but has cobbled together
an unimaginative proposal lacking both, and copping out by passing it
off as "listened to members"

An example of an alternative is at http://tinyurl.com/wce9

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote:

"WA8ULX" wrote

| Because ARRL is a representative democracy, ARRL Directors listened to
members
| in their respective divisions while considering these issues.
Directors heard
| from many amateurs in their divisions, and some directors conducted
their own
| surveys. The final proposal represents the Board's best effort at
changes to
| the Amateur Radio licensing structure needed to carry us through the
next 10 to
| 15 years."

I, for one, suggest that popularity polls and beauty contests are not a
particularly good method for influencing and guiding the evolution of
the Amateur Radio service.

This is particularly true for the National Association for Amateur
Radio, which in my not-so-humble-opinion is abdicating its
responsibility to show leadership and vision, but has cobbled together
an unimaginative proposal lacking both, and copping out by passing it
off as "listened to members"

Ah, but directors do listen to members. Roanoke Division Director
Bodson read my e-mail concerning the removal of "Section News" and
contest line scores from QST. He listened at Jackson's Mill during the
state ARRL convention as I outlined my views and the reasons for them.
Then he himself introduced the motion to bring the changes about.
"Listening to" is not the same as "acting on the views held by"
members.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Ah, but directors do listen to members. Roanoke Division Director
Bodson read my e-mail concerning the removal of "Section News" and
contest line scores from QST. He listened at Jackson's Mill during the
state ARRL convention as I outlined my views and the reasons for them.
Then he himself introduced the motion to bring the changes about.
"Listening to" is not the same as "acting on the views held by"
members.

Dave K8MN

So you have a history of having your views ignored.

bb