It seems to me the system is working and Board policies are being followed. A. Staff followed up on the decision to try telemarketing as a membership recruitment/retention tool. Building on a trial run that wasn’t as successful as hoped, staff made revisions in preparation for a more extensive effort. B. After Chris was made aware of the vendor proposed agreement it was sent to him for review. He identified shortcomings in the proposal and is addressing them with the proposed vendor and staff.(i.e., either they get fixed or we don’t enter the agreement) C. There is a clear chain of operational responsibility in this activity. Bob Inderbitzen has day to day responsibility, presumably he reports to Harold as COO and the ultimate responsibility is Dave’s as CEO. D. Board members have clearly indicated a concern that care, common sense and caution is necessary in any direct member telemarketing effort. E. As noted by Grant, Chris has considerable experience in reviewing and negotiating agreements on behalf of ARRL. To put it another way, he knows what he is doing and didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. Staff and Chris understand the concerns of the Board and know how to proceed. We ought to let them do just that. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Grant Hopper [mailto:ghopper@eskimo.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19315] Re:RE: RE: ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing Chris' comment about the agreement's initial nature gives me far more than a little pause. I review (and draft) lots of these sorts of agreements. Probably not nearly as many as Chris, but plenty to have developed a sort of sense about these things. Every party that offered an agreement that over-reached or was so one-sided against my client's interests, even when they were willing to negotiate to what seemed a more balanced and neutral position (and so many were), went on to abuse my client's trust and take advantage. The contract never stopped them. For the most part they realized that the cost of going after them would render them Teflon coated as it didn't make economic sense to go after them based on the size of the recoverable loss (versus the actual harm to the client's situation/reputation.) Worse yet, even if we decided to bring an action, their lack of ability to pay a meaningful money judgment rendered them judgment proof. The conclusion I have reached about these things is that the nature of what you see first is what's in the other party's mind and no amount of negotiation and redrafting will change the character of someone (company or individual) who is looking to make a (dis)honest buck or take advantage. I think this is true of even the most well intentioned people who end up in industries where 'cheating' (what ever that constitutes) is the only way to compete with the other businesses. Real Estate, Car Sales, and telemarketing all come to mind. Those one-sided agreements don't just 'happen'. The were drafted that way for a reason. The reason doesn't go away when the words change. I had an experience years ago where I was telemarketed by a fellow who claimed he represented the very law enforcement fraternal organization I was a member of. I didn't let on that I was a member and asked a lot of questions before I was finally forced to hang up on him. Not only did the guy have the gall to lie about facts that were easily checkable, but implied that I didn't care about my community (and therefore I was a criminal) if I wasn't willing to donate. Not the sort of message that cops want to be sending out to the communities they serve in. I called a board member I knew and he was surprised by what I related. The short of the long story was that 1) the board had not told the membership because they thought we would object (and we would have) but 2) as to the company, not only had the company exceeded the scope of the telemarketing agreement (it was chocked up to a 'well intentioned' effort by the company to bring in more money for the organization (of course they got a percentage of the additional money too)) but the employee had far exceeded the scope of the script, and his instructions. He did so because he would get better ratings when he had more success, and because (as we later found out) he would not be disciplined for doing what he did. The company was supposedly a highly ethical organization and had "good ratings" from whomever keeps tabs on such things. That is why the board had selected this firm. Obviously the board's plan worked out badly. The entire operation was out of their control from the moment the papers were signed and things didn't go so well either from a monetary or a PR standpoint. We can't guard against these sorts of problems with a company and staff we can't supervise. We all know how one bad event can (and will) blossom into something of epic proportions once a group of hams gets a hold of it. They won't call HQ (if at all) before they tell every one they know, somebody from amateur radio news line, CQ magazine and maybe even Wayne Green. We're in a rough spot right now from a PR standpoint with the web site. Regardless of what any statistics say, people are still pretty angry (or at least upset) about how difficult it is to find stuff on the new web site. I got an earful from a walk-up ham this weekend when I was operating at an International Lighthouse and Lightship Weekend site. He was reasonable, articulate and clear, and I had to agree with him that this far along things should be much better than they are. He was younger and more computer literate than me (and I'm 44 and have experience in web and content management systems.) When we do something that represents a significant change from how we were doing business and it doesn't go well, we use up credibility and good-will. When we make another change (that they didn't ask for), people start wondering what else are we changing that they didn't know about and they start looking for some place else that isn't changing so much. I don't want to loose more members. Telemarketing has a bad reputation. Even when it is done well, it still has negative connotations. When we associate ourselves with something like that, we take a big risk. A risk that we don't NEED to take, at a time when we need to be careful how much good-will we have left. Taking this project in house under the label of 'polling member opinion and attitude' may yield a far greater bounty and certainly will be far less objectionable (especially since we can point to the fact that we are soliciting member opinion.) I would strongly encourage exploration of an idea like this rather than take what seems to me like a large risk for not so large a gain. Hopefully that wasn't too much of a rant. 73, Grant Grant Hopper, KB7WSD ARRL Northwestern Division, Vice Director -----Original Message----- From: G.P. Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:18 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19312] Re: RE: ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing At the risk of being pedantic, I note that we do have a privacy policy. I have attached it so no one needs to go hunting for it (fortunately it is easy to find).

From my reading of some of the attached correspondence, it appears to me that aspects of the "trial run" may pay less than full attention to our stated policy. It takes years to build trust, only a second and a single incident to break it down. So, let's be "squeeky clean" on this kind of stuff, even if it's only a trial. Where does the responsibility for ensuring this lie? is it with Harold? Dave? Of course the Board has responsibility too, but clearly this is delegated on a day to day basis. -- 73, Greg, KØGW Director, Dakota Division

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Imlay" <w3kd@aol.com> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:44:55 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:19311] Re: RE: ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing Right, Jim, I share your concern based on the rather one-sided agreement that they initially sent over. I don't know anything about this company other than what showed up in that draft contract, and will leave that to Bob I. and Harold K. to address. Looking only to the contract issue, I think we can get it into a form that will be safe enough for us to sign as a "trial run" agreement. We could see how the experience goes. But it was not a confidence-inspiring draft agreement they initially sent over, that is sure. Harold and I are fixing it up now, unless you folks want to go a different way. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Jim Weaver K8JE <K8JE@ARRL.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Aug 23, 2010 4:04 pm Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:19300] RE: [arrl-odv:19297] ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing I appreciate Chris' comment about the legal quality of the agreement offered ARRL by the telemarketing firm we appear to plan to use in the member recruitment test. Knowing how Chris viewed this document makes me feel quite uneasy over the quality of the firm, itself. I would have expected that a well-established, high-quality firm would have the legal sense to have dotted the proverbial i's and crossed the proverbial t's in their contracts without having the need for this called to their attention by a potential customer. Are we certain we want to employ this organization? (Rhetoric question.) 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040; Tel. 513-459-1661 ARRL, The national organization for Amateur Radio _____ From: Chris Imlay [ <mailto:w3kd@aol.com?> mailto:w3kd@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:21 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:19300] RE: [arrl-odv:19297] ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing I am constrained to note that the draft agreement that this telemarketing firm provided to ARRL initially was clearly not in acceptable form when first delivered to us, but it is apparently in the process of (re)negotiation now, so we will see what an edited version looks like. The issues include not only the Do Not Call List compliance, appropriately mentioned by Jim Weaver, but also their plans for handling credit card numbers in the course of relaying them to ARRL for processing, and their methods of compliance with our privacy obligations. There is no doubt but that the telemarketing firm is acting as our agent, and therefore we are liable for any of their foibles, so some care is called for here. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile <mailto:W3KD@ARRL.ORG> W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Kramer, Harold, WJ1B < <mailto:wj1b@arrl.org> wj1b@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv < <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Cc: <mailto:arrl-odv@arrl.org> arrl-odv@arrl.org Sent: Fri, Aug 20, 2010 2:40 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:19300] RE: [arrl-odv:19297] ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing Bob Inderbitzen is on vacation starting today. But to answer some of your questions here is what I know: 1. This is a limited test to between 1800 and 2000 lapsed members. 2. The company that we will contract with specializes in Association Telemarketing and is sensitive to member association issues. 3. As an organization that does strictly telemarketing, I would hope that they comply with all applicable regulations However, we have not signed the agreement yet. Chris Imlay and I have been discussing it we will make sure that it is correct and complies with applicable regulations and our internal policies. Harold Harold Kramer, WJ1B Chief Operating Officer ARRL -the national association for Amateur Radio 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 (860) 594 -0220 From: Jim Weaver K8JE [ <mailto:K8JE@ARRL.org?> mailto:K8JE@ARRL.org] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:19 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:19297] ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing Bob, Inasmuch as Dick expressed concerns over telemarketing by ARRL, I wonder if we take adequate steps to ensure any telemarketer we use observes existing No Call legislation? Based upon the relatively few telemarketing calls I have received after putting my phone numbers on the federal No Call list I estimate that over 50% of the calls made to me appear to be in willful violation of the these laws. Most of the illegal callers are sufficiently crafty as to avoid identification. I don't believe ARRL should be put in a similar position by a telemarketer. I suspect you've taken care of such possibilities, but would like to know what is done. Tnx, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040; Tel. 513-459-1661 ARRL, The national organization for Amateur Radio _____ From: <mailto:dick@pobox.com> dick@pobox.com [ <mailto:dick@pobox.com?> mailto:dick@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:50 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: Bob Inderbitzen NQ1R Subject: [arrl-odv:19297] ARRL Member Recruitment Telemarketing 20 AUG 2010 - 1249 CDT I support proactive ARRL member recruitment except when it generates poor results and potentially angers some amateur radio licensees receiving the phone call. I do not know the detailed results of our first telemarketing trial (see IN-Newsletter excerpt below), but the general assessment of this trial leads me to believe that telemarketing will be counter-productive; it will not be worth the expense. I receive a small, but continuing, number of negative comments about our affinity partners' marketing activities. I know of nobody who welcomes junk U.S. mail, but at least we are not forced to read it. However, virtually everybody hates telephone sales calls because they are intrusive and disrupt the recipient's activities. I support four non-amateur radio charitable (501-3c) tax-exempt organizations and I have "trained" them to not call me. Two tax-exempts would not put me on a no-call list. They no longer receive any support from me. I don't want the ARRL to be put in the position of having to filter (at extra cost) it's potential member market because this would mean we would have permanently lost a percentage of this market. - Dick Isely, W9GIG ======================================================================== == IN-Newsletter Vol. 33, No. 33 August 18, 2010 -- Covers the period August 8-14. Upcoming Meetings and Events United States Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI) September 27-October 1 – ARRL HQ Executive Committee Meeting October 23 @ 9:00am in St. Louis, MO Ballot Counting for Director/Vice Director Elections November 19 in Newington, CT <SNIP> Sales and Marketing Reported by Bob Inderbitzen, NQ1R A large membership campaign is being prepared for mailing in September. Diane Petrilli is exploring a second telemarketing trial (one was conducted last year with mixed/poor results)­involving a telemarketing firm that has experience making outbound calls for membership organizations. We are pleased with the high response rate to an on-line Membership Benefits Survey. The survey invitation was sent by email to a sample group. The survey was also mailed to members that did not respond, and to another sample of members without known email addresses. Results will be analyzed and reported in late September. Our affinity benefit partners are all gearing-up for program mailings during the next 2 months: ARRL Visa credit card (US Bank), ARRL Equipment Insurance Program (Marsh), and group-rate home and auto insurance (MetLife). <SNIP> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/> www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3082 - Release Date: 08/20/10 02:35:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/> www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/22/10 14:35:00