amateur radio
Call to action
The recent email storm over the ARRL ex-parte presentation on RM11306 serves only to bring focus to the general distrust between the amateur community in general and the ARRL. The end result is that many amateurs have quit or refused to renew in disgust and frustration. I'm going out on a limb here, but I contend that this is exactly the wrong approach to take. Here's why.
The League is, at least for the present, the only high profile representation the amateur radio community has in Washington. Based on past performance, it is likely to be the only one for the forseeable future. Every other attempt to form a national representative group has failed, either because that group never achieved critical mass or because the founder was representative of a very small (non-existent?) minority.
I disagree with the 'evil leadership' attitude I see on many forums. I agree completely that many of their actions of late are evil. Part of this is because of the law of unintended consequence, part because the leadership has obviously lost touch with the membership. This communications disconnect is made abundantly clear with the most recent activity that has come to light - their secret meeting with the FCC over a month ago to propose changes to RM11306 after the close of the comment period.
I'm not going to rehash the details here, suffice it to say that the original proposal did not have the support of the majority to start with, and the revisions only served to highlight the discontent.
It is time we, as a community, call the League leadership on the carpet. Not once. Not once in a while. Every time they cross the line. Keep it clean, keep the discussion well-thought out and in clear, plain English. Leave no room for interpretation. The leadership will respond. Perhaps the answer is not what we want to hear, but if pressed, they will respond.
If we say it often enough and loud enough, the message will get through. My email thread with Dave Sumner, K1ZZ makes this point very clearly. I copied him along with the other officers and directors who were named in the ex-parte presentation record. He apparently drew the short straw - it appears he spent the better part of Thursday and Friday responding to various email reflectors as well as to individuals such as myself who took them to task over the issue.
My reaction at first was similar to many posters on the forums - frustration because only part of the issue was addressed in the response. And at first, I considered just dropping the discussion. But then it occurred to me that dropping the issue was just exactly what has been happening all too frequently. Somebody complains, they are given a half-answer, they give up in frustration and the issue is dropped.
Dave's early responses did not address all of the issues I raised. I did not drop the issue, but continued the discussion, reiterating and expanding upon the points I considered important. I acknowledged the points he made. Some of his explanation was completely resonable - they saw unintended consequences were probable because of changes that occurred between the time of filing and the time that the rules were likely to be amended. They made a mistake and were trying to correct it. But I did not let an answer to one issue serve to end the discussion if there were unanswered questions or if I did not feel that his answer adequately addressed the issue. It took patience and determination, but he did speak to each issue I raised. He did not necessarily agree with me, but he did present a reasonable response.
Blasting them on the various forums won't work either. We have no guarantee that League leadership will see the post. Most probably do not, simple because there are too many forums and blogs to monitor effectively. There also a great many abusive trolls on these forums that are simply attempting to pick a fight. If we want to be heard, we need to speak directly to the target audience. If a post to one of the Internet forums is warranted, summarize the exchange and post that. And above all, refuse to be drawn into the abusive exchanges that are so common there. That element thrives on such behavior while damaging our perception in the eyes of the public.
Leaving the ARRL is not the right answer either. Here's why.
One membership figure I saw during the recent discussions is that 23% of the amateur licensees in the US are ARRL members. If only 23% of the licensed amateurs in the US are members, then only those 23% have the right to insist that the ARRL elected officials follow their direction. A good analogy is found pretty close to home. I live in the greater Houston metropolitan area. What the City of Houston leadership does directly affects me. But I do not get to vote in Houston elections because I do not live within the city limits.
Instead of quitting and blasting them from the outside, I propose that as a group, we amateurs try to turn the percentage over (23% who do NOT belong), then exercise our collective democratic right and insist that the leadership truly represent a consensus opinion from a majority of the amateur licensees. If the representative does not respond, replace them with one who will.
If even half of the 77% who are not currently members joined and we assume that all of the current members support the current ARRL attitude (which they do not), there would still be a majority vote strong enough to put representative amateurs in place who do not owe their soul to some commercial interest or are not currying favor with one of the numerous three-letter groups in Washington. We can keep fighting among ourselves and watch as we get sold down the river or unite, take back the ARRL, and make the hobby what we want it to be.
Denying the League our membership dues is not to our advantage from another perspective. It takes money to keep the League running. If they cannot get it from membership dues, they will be forced to turn to other sources for funding. The obvious answer is to seek grants in return for support to served agencies. But these funds come with a price - why do you think ARRL so fervently supports Winlink 2000 and PACTOR? Without these to offer, there would not be as much interest from DHS and the EMCOMM community in providing funding.
Our ranks include some very independent clear-thinking people. If amateur radio operators want to the League to return to the founder's ideals, we must quit the non-productive complaining on the internet forums and put that energy into taking back the direction of the ARRL. I think we are up to the task. How about you?