[arrl-odv:31922] And while we're on the topic of voting ...
Folks, It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries. Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members. At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them). QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair? QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable? QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it? If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss. So, what ARE we going to do about it ?? MikeK1TWF1st VP
Hi Mike, Good topic. It's been on my mind. I have also felt that it is an awkward situation for divisions that share states with others. There are really only three states that have this situation - NY, NJ and CA. Additionally, members have told me (unsolicited) that they don't think that Hawaii has a lot in common with CA, or that PR/VI has a lot in common with Florida. In fact, one potential candidate a few years ago was discouraged from running for SE Division as he lived in PR and the travel would nearly always involve a flight. One proposal was to have an "external territories" division comprising those not in CONUS. That is one idea. There are others. So I would like to throw in to the pot: Hudson should cover all of NY and NJ. This would offer several benefits: - The Director of a division has freedom to travel to both state houses and state agency headquarters for meetings with state legislators and heads of state agencies. (I've done it, and they appreciate it). In NJ the state capital is in the Atlantic Division. In NY the state capital is in the Hudson Division. - If NNY, WNY and SNJ become part of Hudson the difference would be 2609 members. The member totals for Atlantic and Hudson would now be 8210 and 9008 respectively, or pretty much even. - State issues would be handled by one division, as is the case with the current issue surrounding ham radio in NY Parks. The history of Hudson was early in the League, and the boundaries haven't shifted much, if at all since it was formed. This would be a good opportunity to consolidate and unify. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Folks,
It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries.
Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members.
At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them).
QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair?
QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable?
QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it?
If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss.
So, what ARE we going to do about it ??
Mike K1TWF 1st VP _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Alabama could move to Delta, balancing the Southeastern number. What do you think, David? Mickey From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:40 AM To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31923] Re: And while we're on the topic of voting ... Hi Mike, Good topic. It's been on my mind. I have also felt that it is an awkward situation for divisions that share states with others. There are really only three states that have this situation - NY, NJ and CA. Additionally, members have told me (unsolicited) that they don't think that Hawaii has a lot in common with CA, or that PR/VI has a lot in common with Florida. In fact, one potential candidate a few years ago was discouraged from running for SE Division as he lived in PR and the travel would nearly always involve a flight. One proposal was to have an "external territories" division comprising those not in CONUS. That is one idea. There are others. So I would like to throw in to the pot: Hudson should cover all of NY and NJ. This would offer several benefits: - The Director of a division has freedom to travel to both state houses and state agency headquarters for meetings with state legislators and heads of state agencies. (I've done it, and they appreciate it). In NJ the state capital is in the Atlantic Division. In NY the state capital is in the Hudson Division. - If NNY, WNY and SNJ become part of Hudson the difference would be 2609 members. The member totals for Atlantic and Hudson would now be 8210 and 9008 respectively, or pretty much even. - State issues would be handled by one division, as is the case with the current issue surrounding ham radio in NY Parks. The history of Hudson was early in the League, and the boundaries haven't shifted much, if at all since it was formed. This would be a good opportunity to consolidate and unify. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Folks,
It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries.
Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members.
At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them).
QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair?
QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable?
QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it?
If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss.
So, what ARE we going to do about it ??
Mike K1TWF 1st VP _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
We have 156,000 (more or less) members, or roughly 10, 400 per ARRL Division, on average. If we were to have the Dakota Divison annex contiguous states until it got to a total of 10,400 members, it would probably encompass one-third of the land mass of the Lower 48 states. There are some alternatives: 1. Use proportional voting; Dakota Divison votes on Board matters would be weighted as 0.3; Southeastern Division would be weighted as 1.4. Etc. That has the added advantage that it might encourage Dakota Division members to recruit harder. 2. Recognize that Dakota Division members are “good folk”, and thus not be concerned that their votes are worth more than mine. 3. Recognize that life is not always fair. There are other issues (travel times, distances, and costs; shared propagation characteristics; sense of community; etc.) that should factor into determining division boundaries. Directors should base their decisions and their votes on the quality of the arguments presented during our deliberations; since we share those arguments here on ODV and in our Board and Committee meetings, I don’t see why or how strict proportional representation is a big deal. Speaking as a League member (not as a Board member), I’m not bothered by this. Answers to K1TWF’s three questions: 1. Fair? Perhaps not, numerically. Important? Not. 2. Yep. 3. Poor survey question; it presupposes the current dividing lines need fixing. Instead, I have the vital-body-part to contend it’s not a big issue. Bud, W2RU From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31922] And while we're on the topic of voting ... Folks, It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries. Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members. At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them). QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair? QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable? QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it? If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss. So, what ARE we going to do about it ?? Mike K1TWF 1st VP
The NW Division has just over 12,300 members Even if we gave up Montana to the Dakota Division (as I heard was under consideration a while ago), that would only raise Dakota by about 700 members. I guess we need to look at it more like the US Senate, where "size doesn't matter", and less like the House of Representatives. I personally don't have a problem with that. 73; Mike W7VO
On 02/05/2021 9:31 AM Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) <w2ru@arrl.org> wrote:
We have 156,000 (more or less) members, or roughly 10, 400 per ARRL Division, on average.
If we were to have the Dakota Divison annex contiguous states until it got to a total of 10,400 members, it would probably encompass one-third of the land mass of the Lower 48 states.
There are some alternatives:
1. Use proportional voting; Dakota Divison votes on Board matters would be weighted as 0.3; Southeastern Division would be weighted as 1.4. Etc. That has the added advantage that it might encourage Dakota Division members to recruit harder. 2. Recognize that Dakota Division members are “good folk”, and thus not be concerned that their votes are worth more than mine. 3. Recognize that life is not always fair. There are other issues (travel times, distances, and costs; shared propagation characteristics; sense of community; etc.) that should factor into determining division boundaries.
Directors should base their decisions and their votes on the quality of the arguments presented during our deliberations; since we share those arguments here on ODV and in our Board and Committee meetings, I don’t see why or how strict proportional representation is a big deal.
Speaking as a League member (not as a Board member), I’m not bothered by this.
Answers to K1TWF’s three questions:
1. Fair? Perhaps not, numerically. Important? Not. 2. Yep. 3. Poor survey question; it presupposes the current dividing lines need fixing. Instead, I have the vital-body-part to contend it’s not a big issue.
Bud, W2RU
From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31922] And while we're on the topic of voting ...
Folks,
It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries.
Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members.
At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them).
QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair?
QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable?
QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it?
If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss.
So, what ARE we going to do about it ??
Mike
K1TWF
1st VP
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hi Bud, Fair points. Of course, our boundless respect for each other's impeccable good sense and flawless judgement means, I suppose, that it doesn't matter how many votes correspond to any one director's voting base. But then, if we all had boundless good judgement, I suppose we would all be reaching the same conclusions. That, in turn, would mean that all but one Director would be irrelevant. Given, however, that we have a system that is based on membership voting, some degree of fairness and balance does seem to be in order. We could use a proportional system, as you suggest. That would make every Board vote a roll call. Seems highly inconvenient. Of course, we are never going to get perfect uniformity. But at the moment the mean voting membership count is about 9700 per Division, and we have 4 Divisions whose deviation from the mean exceeds 3000. Surely we can do better than that. And there are other reasons, as Ria has suggested, that we have another look at the Division boundaries. As for life not being fair, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the unfairness is either desirable or necessary. And I commend you for having the [vital-body-part]s necessary to reveal your opinion on this matter ! MikeK1TWF PS - here are some extra semicolons, in case I missed any ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; -----Original Message----- From: Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) <w2ru@arrl.org> To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Fri, Feb 5, 2021 12:31 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:31927] Re: And while we're on the topic of voting ... #yiv0361336674 #yiv0361336674 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv0361336674 #yiv0361336674 p.yiv0361336674MsoNormal, #yiv0361336674 li.yiv0361336674MsoNormal, #yiv0361336674 div.yiv0361336674MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0361336674 p.yiv0361336674MsoListParagraph, #yiv0361336674 li.yiv0361336674MsoListParagraph, #yiv0361336674 div.yiv0361336674MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv0361336674 span.yiv0361336674EmailStyle18 {font-family:sans-serif;font-variant:normal !important;color:windowtext;text-transform:none;text-decoration:none none;vertical-align:baseline;}#yiv0361336674 .yiv0361336674MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv0361336674 div.yiv0361336674WordSection1 {}#yiv0361336674 _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv0361336674 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0361336674 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv0361336674 We have 156,000 (more or less) members, or roughly 10, 400 per ARRL Division, on average. If we were to have the Dakota Divison annex contiguous states until it got to a total of 10,400 members, it would probably encompass one-third of the land mass of the Lower 48 states. There are some alternatives: - Use proportional voting; Dakota Divison votes on Board matters would be weighted as 0.3; Southeastern Division would be weighted as 1.4. Etc. That has the added advantage that it might encourage Dakota Division members to recruit harder. - Recognize that Dakota Division members are “good folk”, and thus not be concerned that their votes are worth more than mine. - Recognize that life is not always fair. There are other issues (travel times, distances, and costs; shared propagation characteristics; sense of community; etc.) that should factor into determining division boundaries. Directors should base their decisions and their votes on thequality of the arguments presented during our deliberations; since we share those arguments here on ODV and in our Board and Committee meetings, I don’t see why or how strict proportional representation is a big deal. Speaking as a League member (not as a Board member), I’m not bothered by this. Answers to K1TWF’s three questions: - Fair? Perhaps not, numerically. Important? Not. - Yep. - Poor survey question; it presupposes the current dividing lines need fixing. Instead, I have the vital-body-part to contend it’s not a big issue. Bud, W2RU From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Mike Raisbeck via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Reply-To: Mike Raisbeck <vze18vwgu@verizon.net> Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:21 AM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:31922] And while we're on the topic of voting ... Folks, It's been some time since we have discussed the matter of redefining some division boundaries. Yes, I know just how unpopular this is as a Board topic; it has bubbled up several times during my tenure. No one wants to do it but to ignore it is to condone a very substantial unfairness in the value of the individual vote of our members. At the moment, the individual votes in the Dakota Division (all 3241 of them) have 4.6 times the clout of individual votes in the Southeastern Division (all 14,943 of them). QUESTION 1 - is there anyone on this Board that feels this is fair? QUESTION 2 - is there anyone on this Board who believes this is acceptable? QUESTION 3 - is there anyone on this Board willing to admit that s/he doesn't have the [name-your-favorite-vital-body-part]'s to do anything about it? If anyone answers "yes" to any of these, please present your opinion and arguments to the Board so we can discuss. So, what ARE we going to do about it ?? Mike K1TWF 1st VP _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Mike – Yeah, I understand the ratio the involves the Dakota Division does seem a bit “lopsided”. But, as the other Mike just commented, I think we should consider ourselves to be a Senate rather than a strictly numerical bunch of representatives. I haven’t had a single gripe from members in the Roanoke Division about this. Instead, today’s gripe, forwarded by HQ for me to respond or not, is that we are allowing Amazon to advertise on our web site. (The specific complaint seems to be related to national politics, which I had hoped to avoid.) Bud
participants (6)
-
Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE) -
Bud Hippisley -
Hippisley, George (Bud), W2RU, (Dir, RK) -
Michael Ritz -
Mike Raisbeck -
rjairam＠gmail.com