Why do we assume that the questions asked by CQ werent asked in good faith? And for that matter what difference does it make? Rich Moseson has looked at our actions regarding RM11306 and the ARC background checks, taken facts most of which as Joel notes are correct and has concluded that ARRL is hiding the ball or acting like a Secret Society in his June editorial. There is some merit to the claim that we didnt fully inform members of our actions in RM11306 on a real time basis. It seems to me that if we exercise a confidential approach there ought to be a good reason for doing so and we should be able to articulate those reasons if not contemporaneously with our dealings with FCC at least after the fact. With regard to the ARC again Joel is correct, Moseson just doesnt have the facts right. ARC has been trying to spin the issue while stonewalling us. What is wrong with stating the fact that any delay has been at the request of ARC and they havent moved an inch in 6 months? I fully agree with Joel, the issue Rich is trying to raise with these two specific topics is secrecy. I do communicate with the ARRL members in the Dakota Division. While it is for other to judge I think I do it pretty well. I am afraid that I have to disagree with Joel when he says; all too many of dont know this is utter nonsense. It may just be a sign of the times, but all too few members understand the Board process and all to many are disposed to believe we are up to something. In a real sense Moseson was articulating that feeling. My suggestion was to ask Moseson for an opportunity to answer the questions posed in his editorial. The idea wasnt that Rich is a moron for not understanding, but that we ought to be able to explain what we did and why we did it. I for one think it can be done. Frankly, if we cant provide such an explanation, perhaps Moseson is right. As far as the ARC is concerned, to quote Rhett Butler frankly, my dear I dont give a damn. They havent moved an inch. They havent shown any willingness to move an inch. We should simply state that fact and leave it up to amateurs to decide whether to be an ARC volunteer. We have been telling ourselves that we need to do a better job of informing our members and pressing our case. It has been said that this is not something that is really important to amateur radio and ARRL and we should husband our resources for a later date and deal with this offline. It seems to me the dealing with this offline is what created this issue; this is a question of integrity and credibility, two essential elements of a viable organization. Reasonable minds can differ on these points and it seems the decision has been made. Still it seemed to be a discussion worth having. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Re the Secret Society I mentioned I disagreed with Jays position regarding the CQ editorial, and heres why. Does anyone remember Wayne Green? If you do you apparently have forgotten that he slashed ARRL every month in his editorial. If we had spent the time responding to his accusations and considerable lack of facts we would never have been able to accomplish anything other than monthly responses to Wayne Green and that would have help him achieve his goal of exactly what he was trying to do; draw attention to himself. Fast forward to today when there is no 73 Magazine and only CQ. This is not the first time Rich has taken a slap at ARRL, there have been several. The most recent one prior to this was when he took us to task and slammed us for printing a book for new hams that was oriented toward HF operating. He obviously thought that was the popular thing for him to do at the time but look at CQ now .trying to catch up because they totally missed the mark! If you look at CQs subscription numbers, theyre nothing to brag about. Last year their average subscriptions were 20,750, however recent numbers suggest their subscriptions have declined to around 20,600 our so. Im sure they will receive a boost with the recent interest in HF operating, but the magazine and articles are aimed mostly toward the seasoned operator and really have nothing of substance (my opinion). They do publish another 11,000 copies of the magazine that are distributed to dealers and news stands, some of which are returned in accordance with the no-sale return clause with many news stand distributors. I imagine it is pretty touch for Rich being CQ Editor and having to stare at a blank editorial page every month with the task of filling it up. If you dont think it is, just ask Dave who has the same task on our side. Dave, of course, chooses to take the high road and address pertinent topics to hams rather than take cheep shots at other amateur radio organizations and thats a hard job ..its very easy to fill up a page with rants, attacks and personal opinions. Rich has generally been supportive of our efforts, however Im convinced he (and CQ) is feeling the sting of no growth and stagnation in the current market while we are not only growing in just about all areas but the atmosphere and environment at HQ of how much fun amateur radio and operating on the air are is being funneled out into the amateur community and stirring up interest and excitement there as well. Our staff has been doing things with blogs and UTube videos that have generated over 40,000 viewings (more than CQs subscriber base!) with exciting, positive things about amateur radio that hams are excited about. This current situation reminds me of the Alltel commercials on TV (some of you may not see them) where things are really great at Alltel, lots of great services that people are excited about that the others (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile) cant stand so all they can come up with are bad things to say about and do to Alltel. So, why not respond to Rich most recent editorial? First, most of his facts are correct but his conclusions are totally wrong and a matter of opinion based on his incorrect conclusions. Formally responding to him does nothing but fuel the fire he is trying to start and give him the fight he is looking for to promote his own cause to generate support for his opinion. A formal response from ARRL to CQ would give his opinion considerable support. The Red Cross issue is the more unfortunate of the two issues. As you know, there was good reason why we did not publish an update concerning background checks for almost four weeks after the March 20 meeting. The reason is we were waiting for a response to an action item from the Red Cross. Sadly, Rich as no day-to-day experience with meetings of this nature in todays times. He works mostly from home and just doesnt understand that today you very seldom walk out of meetings with agreements. You walk out of most meetings today with action items that are resolved and then final agreement comes at that time. If we formally confront Rich on these points we either say bad things publicly about the Red Cross (not a good idea at all) or we say Rich is a moron for not understanding how meetings are handled today. Either way, we make matters worse. Quite frankly, the matter of RM-11306 and the ex-parte filing is old news now. We have addressed our actions via ARRLWeb and literally thousands of personal emails to individual members and non-members alike who asked us, not CQ, and we gave them straight answers. We have been timely and upfront about Red Cross background checks and we have received nothing but praise for keeping our members informed on the issue. Of course, the issue Rich is trying to raise with these two specific topics is secrecy. Aside from what we publish on the web and in our periodicals if you communicate well with the ARRL members in your division, and most of you do very well, then they know this is utter nonsense. This specific matter is one that is best dealt with offline. Dave sees Rich occasionally and usually meets with the CQ folks once a year or so and this matter is a topic to discuss at that time if it so warrants. In fact, CQ had a booth this past weekend at the Rochester Convention and I had hoped Rich would be there so I could chat with him. Unfortunately, he wasnt there (nor were very many others at their booth either). I want each of you to know that I hear you and fully understand your concern about perception, especially negative perception among the amateur community toward ARRL. If you dont believe it bothers me and causes me to lose some sleep at nights you just dont know me very well. But I have to step back and look at things as a whole right now. Sure, we get a few specific complaints that are immediately addressed and resolved but overall the League is held in high regard and things are going very well for us. I have not had one person .not one come up to me at a hamfest (including our very large ARRL Expo at Dayton) this year to tell me how bad we are. Quite the contrary .they come up to tell me how pleased they are with ARRL and the direction we are taking, how great our publications are, how responsive the staff is and most important, how many are getting back on the air after a long period of inactivity. Dave can tell you I am very, very sensitive toward any action on our part that might disrupt this current trend. Did I like Richs editorial? Nope to be blunt, it pissed me off to no end. Given the above, though, I dont believe a formal response to fuel a fire he is trying to start is a good idea in this case and I prefer to save our fights for ones that are really important to amateur radio and ARRL. This one is not and can be adequately dealt with off-line at an appropriate time ...sooner if future action on their part warrants. 73 Joe W5ZN p.s. I am a member of a secret society .The Royal Order of the Wouff Hong and I do know the secret hand shake and the secret password!