Dear Walt W0CP, Gary KI4LA and Dennis W4PWF,
Gary, thank you for posting the remarks, which I'm attaching for
completeness. Like many active operators I subscribe to several e-mail
reflectors on the Internet. Some of you heard my not-completely-dissenting
opinions regarding rumored proposed changes to QST. I write to you in that
regard now. For those of you who don't know me, I've been a League member
since 1960ish, am actively operating on HF and VHF, with a moderate to
strong interest in contesting and traffic operating. Professionally, I am
retired from a corporate management position at IBM. Any biases I have are
likely rooted in these things...
First, a very loud THANK YOU to the Board for tabling the discussion and
moving it to the July BOD meeting agenda. Given the amount and force of the
adverse input in my opinion you had no option but to listen to that part of
the membership who cared so much. But that's now old news.
We now have some time to do this right.
Yes, there is intended CRITICISM in that statement.
While we League members certainly do vote our directors and vice directors
into those positions, and to a very large extent entrust all League matters
to them, I, for one, expect, indeed demand, that on items that involve
significant change to established League constructs (be they QST content,
major changes to contest/DXCC rules, etc.) that any major proposals to be
acted upon at the BOD meeting first be aired with the membership so that you
Directors get our input.
This prior airing can easily be in the form of an electronic posting of the
proposal to the ARRL web site. In this case the Admin/Finance Committee
proposal in its entirety. W0CP's prose in the attached is an example of
what one of the biggest problems with the League is: The expressed attitude
that in this case "...the way the information got out ahead of the
explanation...[W0CP]" was part of the problem.
Excuse me? I infer from that statement that W0CP feels that, had the
proposal not gotten out ahead of the explanation, that the BOD would have
approved it and once the explanation was published, all would be well. That
is a very presumptuous, arrogant attitude, Walt. Perhaps I'm reading more
into your statement than you intended. But, the way this was handled, and
some would assert the way the restructuring was handled, in no way engenders
buy-in from the membership. Rather, alienation is a closer description of
the result.
I would like to see the Board review its process. Any changes such as the
ones being debated should have been aired in front of the membership. If the
reasons were sound and the proposals well-articulated, I'm sure the
membership would provide positive feedback. How about the Board take up an
agenda item that directly impose a decision-making process that includes the
membership? As it was, the information was informal, rumors were flying,
and the speculation was rampant. It is very understandable why there were
numerous statements of distrust thrown at the League. You do the League no
service when you manage in this manner.
This is not the way a Board should behave. Deal with the membership
honestly and openly and we will have productive, fruitful discussions. In
this instance you all got exactly what your process deserved. You were
perceived as acting without our counsel, proceeding down a path to present
to us a fait-accompli.
Please clean up your act. When can we see the actual complete proposal, in
detail, along with supporting facts? Then, armed with fact instead of
speculation, perhaps the membership can be part of the solution and we can
work with you as a team.
73,
Gary Ferdinand W2CS
LM ARRL
Apex, NC
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|