Before we decide to reallocate $200K to recruiting new hams and members I would like to see us commit to the following: 1. Assign the task of oversight of Membership retention and recruitment to a Board Committee. At present this crucial task is an orphan. We say every ham is responsible, but we haven’t committed to an ongoing effort by assigning it to a committee. 2. Finding a successful approach to attracting new hams to the ARRL. The only growth in Amateur Radio has been among Technician Class Amateurs. For the most part changes in the HF ranks have resulted from movement to broader privilege licenses by Amateurs who already have HF privileges. Our efforts to attract members for Technicians without HF privileges have not been very successful so far. We need to know why. What would motivate them to become members? Are they passing on joining the ARRL because they don’t know or understand the benefits and resources of membership or because they don’t see value in what we offer and do? If we need to change in order to attract these new Amateurs can we do so without so changing the ARRL as to significantly impact current membership? We need to answer these questions. As noted by VP Craigie the pending survey “ is a step in the right direction, as long as we turn the resulting data into information and turn that information into strategies for increasing membership.” I would like to have a reasonably solid idea of what would be a successful message and approach before committing to such a re-allocation of funds. A significant part of the problem has been that new Amateurs have not joined ARRL in the same percentages as in the past. If we focus on new recruiting new Amateurs without figuring out how to attract them to join ARRL we will have fewer and fewer dollars to spend on the matters of interest to our members. If we don’t address member needs we are going to lose members. If we are considering reducing the amounts allocated in the Budget Plan to Governance by 20%, to Membership Services by 10%, and to Executive Management and General Administrative Support by 5%, it is important to know those are real dollars. The 2003/2004 Budget Plan allocates funds to Governance based upon ACTUAL AMOUNTS expended in 2002 not the budget numbers used in the past. For example most Divisions have expended about 50% of the amount budgeted for that purpose. The impact in the 2003/2004 Plan of a 20% reduction in a Division that has traditionally used about 50% of the budgeted amount for that Division would be that the 2003 Division Budget would be 30% of the 2002 Division allocation.(100-50=50 and 50-20=30) Depending upon whether or not a Director has used the entire Division Budget in the past the impact of a 20% reduction could be between 20% and 40% of the amounts actually used. If we as a board feel that a reallocation of resources is for Board directed activities appropriate, we need to have a clear idea of what we want to accomplish and how we intend to accomplish that goal. Additionally, if we are going to reallocate resources we need to make some hard choices about our priorities. If Membership Services and Administrative Budgets are to be cut, we ought to be deciding which programs or activities to eliminate rather than making an “across the board cut.” The 2003/2004 Budget Plan is not carved in stone it is a proposal to the Board for its consideration. It should is fair to say the 2003/2004 Budget Plan is the product of a considerable amount of thought and effort by those Staff and Board members tasked with this responsibility and that it is consistent with our Board directed priorities and the three year plan to bring the budget into balance. 73, Jay, KØQB Tom Frenaye wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After some digging into the plan/budget document, and some conversations with a couple of Board members, I've come to the conclusion that we're still not putting enough effort (time and money) into promoting ham radio to non-hams. I believe that the 2003/2004 Plan/Budget has not given that critical task enough funding. In particular, I'm thinking about two things: 1) educating the general public about Amateur Radio 2) promoting ham radio to potential licensees There are two parts of HQ that seem to be involved - Public Relations and the Support Team within Field and Educational Services. Surprising (to me) is that the Marketing Department (p.31) apparently has little to do with promoting to external audiences - their focus is on getting existing hams to become members and to anyone who might buy our publications (mostly hams). The Public Relations area (p.66) has one staff member and a budget of $84K. The focus is on media relations, support of the PR reflector (for F&ES PIOs and PIAs), and HQ support for the Board's Public Relations Committee. The Field & Education Services Support Team (p.94) has a budget of $216K. I can't tell how many staff members are in that area, and not all of their work supports educating the general public or promoting ham radio to potential licensees. The work that does support those two functions is responsible for the support of affiliated clubs, volunteer instructors, new ham recruitment (via clubs and the Field Organization), and scout/youth programs - maybe 50-75% of their focus. In talking to Dave Sumner and Art Goddard (Industry Advisory Council liaison), one of the key ingredients for a successful drive on the two goals noted above has to be industry involvement. That was the case 5-10-15-20-25 years ago and is apparently still the "missing" ingredient today. I suspect industry will never get itself organized, though I know AARE is making an effort, after several similar groups failed in previous years (and decades). Is that our only option? Can we do more ourselves? If we don't, Amateur Radio will be history in 20 years. I'm not satisfied with the funding we have allocated in the past (or plan for this next year), nor the way HQ is organized to accomplish those goals. New hams are our only lifeblood. We can't last forever on existing hams (who average about 50 years old) or members (who average about 60 years old). We have a $14M organization and only about $200K is being directly spent on the recruitment of new hams and public education (external marketing). Isn't spending 1.5% a bit too small? Can't we double that amount for this year? How about increasing it by $200K for each of the next five years? Yes, it would certainly hurt in the short term because some programs would have to be cut. We "only" plan to have about $3.6M in discretionary spending ($2.4M from Net Available Income; $1.2M from charitable donations) - why not take 5% of it to increase our external education and promotion efforts? (If the Siebel/accounting/DXCC/LOTW systems are ever finally installed and working, we ought to see some efficiency improvements from them that should increase the NAV...) Anyhow, I'm interested in whether anyone else feels strongly about this subject. Maybe there are better ideas or suggestions out there. Obviously what I've left out is how we might use that extra $200K (and what would be cut to get it). Room for lots of discussion... -- Tom PS: As an example: Moved, that the motion to approve the 2002 budget be amended to say: "Moved that the 2002 budget is approved with a reduction of the net amounts allocated to Governance by 20%, to Membership Services by 10%, and to Executive Management and General Administrative Support by 5%, and that same amount be applied to programs for educating the general public about Amateur Radio and promoting ham radio to target groups of potential licensees." Cost: None - but $205K would be reallocated within the current budget. The amount of reductions could be offset by contributions from external sources - donations from individuals, grants, or contributions from industry...