>  I think we can
> get back to the past for the future, but that requires buy in by coordinators.  

The biggest challenge is that coordinators have moved on.  Nobody is clamoring to get back to the "old way" of doing business with the ARRL as far as the Repeater Directory and other publications go.

I don't think anyone would argue that the amateur community is best served by having coordinators publish their directories via the web for everyone to see free of charge.  Aside from the one-dollar-per-listing that the ARRL was paying them for RD data (whoop-dee-doo), there is no incentive to going back to the old way of doing things.  Maybe there are a few people out there that still like thumbing through a paper directory, or having it with them when they travel, but with all of the data available for free via the web, and with all of the modern radio programming software that's out there, everyone sharing code plugs and databases, and even sites like Repeaterbook.com which, despite being free, does a HELL of a good job of separating the wheat from the chaff (unlike RF Finder), I don't know what business model would make sense to either the League or coordinators at this point.  It needs to be thought through, and be mutually-beneficial to both sides.

I sat down with a company (can't remember their name) probably ten years ago at Dayton.  They came to talk to Dave Karr (Wisconsin coordinator) and I at our booth - it was a pre-scheduled meeting.  They had been retained by the League to investigate the possibility of redoing the League's infrastructure, database management system, publication systems, etc. associated with RD, including a back-end for coordinators to use to upload and update listings which would be pushed to the ARRL web site in real time - a national repeater directory of sorts.  This was well before RF Finder, and not associated with it either.  It was two guys, neither of which were hams as far as I can recall, who were software developers.  Presumably that never went anywhere.

> I do not know how
> to deal with the external animosity except to tell people to speak up 
> and make demands formally.

At this point, I'm not sure what interest remains from the coordinators' side.  What could/would the League offer coordinators that they don't already have, or that they need to do their jobs, or that would benefit the amateur community in general?  What might a coordinator want to demand from the League at this point?

> The old national coordinators disappeared after being truly inactive.  

Yes, I know, I was involved with NFCC from the beginning.  I avoided running for a position as I was already overloaded with keeping ARCC running.  We (ARCC) sent two of our own to the NFCC board - Vince Bardsley KB3OM and Alex Harvilchuck N3NMN (now N3NP).  I was friends with several other board members over the years including  Mark Stennett NA6M, who was one of the last to remain as NFCC disintegrated.  All who took positions were wholly underwhelmed by the support they got from the League, which only further degraded the support they got from the coordination councils they were supposed to be representing.  

The League was supposed to:

1.  Provide suitable resources and support for the NFCO.

2.  Recognize the independence of the NFCC and support and encourage the NFCC in the common goals defined herein.

3.  Communicate with the NFCC regarding regulatory and technical modifications or enhancements believed by ARRL to be necessary or desirable to the ARS, to the extent that such may impact frequency coordination, or the fair and responsible administration thereof.

4.  Disseminate to the amateur community at large the identity and contact information for NFCC-certified frequency coordinators.

5.  In areas in which the NFCC and ARRL agree on matters of Amateur regulatory, technical or operating policy, the ARRL will cooperate with the NFCC and utilize its resources to achieve common goals.

6.  At the sole discretion of its Board of Directors, the ARRL may, from time to time, make contributions to the operations of the NFCC.

At best, the ARRL did #4.  They published a list of NFCC-recognized coordinators on the arrl.org web site for a period of time, and then took it down.  They never provided any other resources to the NFCC.  There was no interaction from the League on regulatory matters, no participation on the NFCC mailing list from Newington, etc..  The NFCO never really existed.

> They likely are all burned out by League ambivalence, supported by 
> Dave Sumner and Kay Craigie.

I never had any one-on-one time with Sumner, but did with Kay.  I had multiple discussions with her during her early ARRL field position years and she was helpful and supportive when it came to coordination matters (Hugh W3ABC was decidedly NOT helpful during that timeframe, and I recall tearing him a new one in a lengthy letter during the time of ARCC's formation).  After her HQ appointment, Dave Karr and I sat down with her for a lengthy discussion over dinner one time at .... dammit...can't remember the name of the restaurant...in the Gateway shopping center at 252 and 30 next to where Staples is now.  Anyway, that was a wholly unfruitful discussion as it was apparent that she had become a "company man", not wanting to stir the pot with anyone or anything at HQ.

> BTW, do all areas actually have plans published and are legit? 

Legit in the sense that they are FCC-compliant and reflect the (nominal) utilization of frequencies/subbands in their respective areas?  Yes, I would have to say they are "legit" in that regard.  Not all have kept up with the changes in technology, such as narrowband (both analog and digital), and the ever-changing demands placed on the available spectrum for both coordination-eligible operations as well as all others - bandplans needs to be revisited, reevaluated, and revised on a recurring basis, and not everyone does that often enough.

> Change is entirely possible - some just have to stand up and give a 
> damn which, to my surprise, is happening now.

I give a damn, and have stood up, banged on the desk, pointed out problems, and was politely ignored.  This predates my involvement with frequency coordination.  I found Bob Stanhope to be particularly useless, if not illiterate and wholly unqualified for the position he held.  I am sure there are a lot like me who would LIKE to keep the faith, but that has been rather difficult in recent years.  HQ has dug a hole that they're going to have a hard time getting out of.  One of my favorite mottos is "When you've realized that you've dug yourself a hole...STOP DIGGING!"  The League didn't do that.  Rather than addressing the concerns of existing members, including the bulk who were long-time members and long-time hams, they concentrated on getting more hams licensed, getting more new members, and turning what at one time was a national resource into a revenue-driven publishing firm.  That's not to say that publishing is bad, but it shouldn't be the focus, which is what I perceive it has become.

"The purposes for which our corporation is formed are the following: the promotion of interest in Amateur Radio communication and experimentation; the establishment of Amateur Radio networks to provide electronic communications in the event of disasters or other emergencies; the furtherance of the public welfare; the advancement of the radio art; the fostering and promotion of noncommercial intercommunication by electronic means throughout the world; the fostering of education in the field of electronic communication; the promotion and conduct of research and development to further the development of electronic communication; the dissemination of technical, educational and scientific information relating to electronic communication; and the printing and publishing of documents, books, magazines, newspapers and pamphlets necessary or incidental to any of the above purposes."

Publishing is listed last in the League's Articles of Association, and should be only "necessary or incidental to any of the above purposes".  That's not what it is today.  In my view anyway.  Chris Imlay was a joke.  Regulatory matters are probably the most critical challenge we're going to be facing in the upcoming years.  Education is lacking among new hams, and the ham population in general.  Experimentation is done by a teeny tiny minority of license holders today due to a combination of lack of education and appliance-operator mentality.  Have you read any recent QST "technical" articles?  There are some really good people that write for QST, with Ward Silver being high on the list, but then you have stupid "technical" articles for things that you should already know in order to pass the tech test.  Not long ago, there was a product review of a Ringo antenna.  "I put the antenna up and could hit repeaters 20 miles away, it's a fantastic!"  Really?  This is what my dues are going toward?

Sorry...don't mean to dump all of this on you.  I know you're trying to right the ship, but the sea ain't gettin' any calmer over time...