Jay,
Thank you for bringing this matter to everyone’s attention. Like you, I’ve heard rumors, and discussed privately the impact of such a decision. But it has not been acknowledged, even on this forum. It’s hard to believe that there could be a vote on an issue of such magnitude without lots of serious discussion, and far more than what could occur in an hour or two inside the actual board meeting.
Your six questions are right on point. My only disagreement with you is that these are questions for the board to reflect on and answer. Members do not interact directly with a CEO, and most have never met even one of the past CEOs. But they are impacted by the strategies and goals of the organization, which are set by the board but carried out by staff under the direction of the CEO. Those will have lasting impact on each and every member, even if most members have no opinion on the question of whether to retain or release the CEO.
While transparency is important, there is no good way to poll the membership on such an important matter. But there should be vigorous discussion among the board and officers about the impact on members, because they will feel it in many large and small ways.
Your questions about the effect of any change involve management and vision. The strategies and goals of an organization ideally are put into practice by someone who has the vision of what those mean, and the ability to manage a staff to achieve those goals. All of us understand the challenges of regulatory and technological changes to the hobby, and the equally important challenge of the ageing of membership and the need to attract new members to the hobby and to the organization. The Board has approved many changes, more are proposed. What will happen if the person tasked with those changes is removed? Will the Board then change its priorities as well as its CEO? And how long will it take to again move the organization forward?
I hope this could be just the start of an important discussion.
Tom Delaney W8WTD
We are five weeks out from the January meeting of the Board. I keep hearing rumors of an effort by a group of Directors to replace the ARRL CEO and perhaps others at the January meeting. Considering that transparency and the need to gather input from members has been the theme of several Directors for the past year or so, it is surprising there does not appear to be any public discussion of such an effort. If any Directors are planning to support a change in headquarters leadership, perhaps they would be willing to let the rest of the Board know by posting on odv their reasons, plans and the efforts they have made to discuss and secure input from members on how ARRL would benefit from such a change, to enable the Board members an opportunity to fully consider the advisability and impact of such a change.
If any Director has discussed and sought input from members regarding such a change, perhaps they should share with the Board if they discussed the following with a cross-section of members in open forums such as club meetings, hamffest talks or Division cabinet meetings and the members responses to these questions:
If any Director considering a change in HQ leadership can’t provide feedback to the Board because he or she hasn’t discussed the potential change and sought broad input from members, perhaps transparency remains a handy slogan not a reality.
Up to now requests for broader discussion beyond sub-groups within the Board have been met with stony silence. If this persists it will be necessary to ask what happened to the promise of more transparency in broader and more public forums.
There are several other Issues that are likely topics of discussion at the January Board Meeting that I will leave to a subsequent ODV.
73,
Jay, KØQB