Why do we assume that the questions asked by CQ weren’t 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
didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 haven’t 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 don’t
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 wasn’t
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 can’t provide such an explanation, perhaps Moseson is right.
As far as the ARC is concerned, to quote Rhett Butler “frankly,
my dear I don’t give a damn.”
They haven’t moved an inch. They haven’t 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:
To: arrl-odv
Subject: RE: Re the Secret Society
I mentioned I disagreed with Jay’s position
regarding the CQ editorial, and here’s 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 CQ’s subscription numbers,
they’re 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. I’m 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 don’t 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 that’s a hard job…..it’s very easy to fill
up a page with rants, attacks and personal opinions.
Rich has generally been supportive of our efforts,
however I’m 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 CQ’s 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) can’t 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
today’s times. He works mostly from home and just doesn’t
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
wasn’t 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 don’t believe it bothers me and
causes me to lose some sleep at nights you just don’t 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
Did I like Rich’s editorial? Nope…to be
blunt, it pissed me off to no end. Given the above, though, I don’t
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!