[arrl-odv:30293] Life 70+ Membership
Hi all: Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents. 73,Rick - K5UR
All the comments I have received have been negative. Some consider the terms insulting. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *_______________________________________*** ** On 5/15/20 5:05 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
Hi all:
Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it.
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership
I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents.
73, Rick - K5UR
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
No positive comments from Southeastern membership. "Insulting" was a word I've heard several times. I explained to one member that financial analysis showed this to be "revenue neutral." His response was that "that's the problem with ARRL, always looking to make a buck instead of taking care of members." Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:13 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
All the comments I have received have been negative. Some consider the terms insulting.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* On 5/15/20 5:05 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
Hi all:
Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it.
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership
I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents.
73, Rick - K5UR
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing listarrl-odv@reflector.arrl.orghttps://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
All: I certainly wasn’t here in January when the Board passed the motion that effectively made this new membership category a reality, but in my long career with the ARRL, I’ve always maintained the position that the League should not be required to take on the morality risk of it’s members like an insurance company does when it issues life insurance policies. And that’s what we do when we make policy regarding life memberships. It’s been my opinion that it’s not our job to be an insurance company. And, in context, the Board was correct in trying to make this motion “revenue neutral”. I don’t expect the membership to understand this position but they are wrong in expecting us to “take care” of the older members. What they’re really asking for is for the younger members to subsidize the risk of their outliving the mortality tables. For us, it’s not about taking care of the older members, its about taking care of ALL the members. Members always want “a deal”. They don’t understand that the $49/year term membership dues don’t cover the full cost of delivering the myriad services we offer. We need to generate non-dues revenues to do that but everyone only thinks about their cost, not the overall financial impact to the organization. Maybe that’s our fault for not explaining this better, but it is the underlying truth that most people, particularly the older, long term members, don’t understand. I look forward to discussing this tomorrow at the A&F meeting but I will argue strenuously not to change what the Board has already done. Honestly, I would have argued strenuously against it when the motion was made. 73, Barry, N1VXY From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Mickey Baker Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 6:58 PM To: Stratton, John, N5AUS (Dir, WG) <n5aus@n5aus.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30296] Re: Life 70+ Membership No positive comments from Southeastern membership. "Insulting" was a word I've heard several times. I explained to one member that financial analysis showed this to be "revenue neutral." His response was that "that's the problem with ARRL, always looking to make a buck instead of taking care of members." Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:13 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com<mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com>> wrote: All the comments I have received have been negative. Some consider the terms insulting. _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 _______________________________________ On 5/15/20 5:05 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote: Hi all: Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents. 73, Rick - K5UR _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Although I'm not an a&f committee member, I do want to respond to Barry's opinion of the Life Member issue and comment on other issues raised. I am one of only two directors who did not vote on the terms - as another board member argued, I believe that should be the purview of staff. We GIVE life membership to those who do nothing other than reach their 100th birthday. If they live to be 105, that's $250 plus the cost of a plaque! I know that the $49 dues doesn't cover the cost of running the ARRL divided by the number of members. We have also seen that demand for membership is elastic - we raise dues, we lose membership. All one needs to do is to look at the financials over the past few years. I think 2019 is the first year we had a net gain in dues revenue compared to prior to the dues increase. We need to reduce cost as well as grow membership. Read on. We've had a great bull capital market over the past few years and our treasurer has wisely built the wealth of the ARRL. It is a safe bet that it won't continue forever. *Raisbeck Issue - Coronavirus Impact* Vice President Raisbeck raises pertinent issues that we should all think about and discuss informally at least before our next general meeting. We could lose membership and revenue in all sorts of ways,and it is apparent that our membership isn't getting the services they expect without staff being in the Newington facility. *CEO - Strategic Plan, Technology Projects, IT* It is apparent to me as a long term technology management executive and consultant that the League has particular challenges with our own information technology organization. This goes well beyond the inability to keep member facing services up without failure and the ability to plan and deploy major technology projects. I believe that it falls at the feet of the Board and our musical CEOs that there is no cohesive integrated technology plan. I certainly hope that the CEO committee is searching for someone who can articulate how they are going to develop a strategic plan for ARRL that recognizes that ARRL should be a technology organization. The organization of the ARRL seems to be right out of the 1970's - it is striated, there's little cross organization responsibility. IT seems to be an operational afterthought where there should be a CIO who is a peer of the CFO. Typical of this type organization, IT does what they're told and rarely leads projects. Instead of two (three?) more programmers, there should be a project manager, either hired or contracted, to bring the AMS and LLL projects to completion. Exception projects - like AMS and LLL implementation - should not justifying hiring permanent employees. Members need to have more input into these initiatives - the VEC and remote testing is a good example. VEC is one of our products. Product marketing should do product marketing there as well! *Member Facing IT should be Member Driven* With good project planning and the willingness to involve the membership with the management of the League, projects like LoTW could be a 90% volunteer effort. For example, look at the thousands of repeaters around the US connected to the Internet and the plethora of repeater management schemes. Out of the thousands involved, we can find a dozen folks like AA6YQ who could help ARRL if properly tasked and motivated. With the current issues around NTS and ARES, we need to consider a broader approach to volunteering for amateurs - the Amateur National Service Corps, to encompass NTS, ARES, and Membership Information Technology. This organization could create and manage a replacement for ARES Connect. I believe that the ARRL should build a significant organized volunteer cadre to manage all external ARRL IT within 2 years. There are people out here who have written ARES Connect replacements and all kinds of software kit for the field. ...but a good third of Section Managers are not engaged. *Headcount, Attrition and Corona Impact Mitigation* NonprofitHR , a consulting firm, reported that the average nonprofit had 16% employee attrition in 2018. ARRL may not have attrition that high, but HR is our largest expense. I suggest that, absent a permanent CEO, that the Board freeze all hires except for the CEO - not fill any outstanding positions, until the economic impact from the pandemic can be evaluated, and a new CEO can drive the organization toward tighter member engagement. Thanks for reading. I've been told that I cannot speak tomorrow but this is what is top of my mind. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf* On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:42 PM Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) < bshelley@arrl.org> wrote:
All:
I certainly wasn’t here in January when the Board passed the motion that effectively made this new membership category a reality, but in my long career with the ARRL, I’ve always maintained the position that the League should not be required to take on the morality risk of it’s members like an insurance company does when it issues life insurance policies. And that’s what we do when we make policy regarding life memberships. It’s been my opinion that it’s not our job to be an insurance company. And, in context, the Board was correct in trying to make this motion “revenue neutral”. I don’t expect the membership to understand this position but they are wrong in expecting us to “take care” of the older members. What they’re really asking for is for the younger members to subsidize the risk of their outliving the mortality tables. For us, it’s not about taking care of the older members, its about taking care of ALL the members.
Members always want “a deal”. They don’t understand that the $49/year term membership dues don’t cover the full cost of delivering the myriad services we offer. We need to generate non-dues revenues to do that but everyone only thinks about their cost, not the overall financial impact to the organization. Maybe that’s our fault for not explaining this better, but it is the underlying truth that most people, particularly the older, long term members, don’t understand.
I look forward to discussing this tomorrow at the A&F meeting but I will argue strenuously not to change what the Board has already done. Honestly, I would have argued strenuously against it when the motion was made.
73,
Barry, N1VXY
*From:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> * On Behalf Of *Mickey Baker *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 6:58 PM *To:* Stratton, John, N5AUS (Dir, WG) <n5aus@n5aus.com> *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:30296] Re: Life 70+ Membership
No positive comments from Southeastern membership. "Insulting" was a word I've heard several times. I explained to one member that financial analysis showed this to be "revenue neutral." His response was that "that's the problem with ARRL, always looking to make a buck instead of taking care of members."
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf*
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:13 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
All the comments I have received have been negative. Some consider the terms insulting.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________*
On 5/15/20 5:05 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
Hi all:
Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it.
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership
I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents.
73,
Rick - K5UR
_______________________________________________
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
Thus far I haven’t seen anything in this discussion of the merits of a $750 Seniors Life Membership (SLM) about “inflation” or “Present Value”, “Net Present Value”, etc. As a senior citizen on a relatively fixed income, one of my greatest ongoing concerns is maintaining my family’s purchasing power and current life style in the years ahead. If I believe overall inflation of the prices for goods and services I wish to procure during my remaining years is going to be greater than what I might earn on the $750 that I can elect to apply to an ARRL Life Membership — or not — then that Life Membership is potentially a bargain. Furthermore, If I’m in a low income subset of seniors, paying out $750 now may be additionally advantageous to me because it may help reduce my total current assets and bring me in under a threshold value for state or federal assistance programs. Even the most aggressive of government agency evaluations of my Assets would be hard put to claim my non-transferrable Life Membership had a resale value for my estate once I die. If I don’t get the $750 Life Membership now, then each year going forward I have to take $50 (or whatever) from my limited income — income that may not be augmented by any of those assistance programs because I’m $600 (or whatever, again) above the threshold for that assistance. Back when I obtained my Life Membership, I didn’t think too much about that stuff. I simply assumed membership rates would stay at or above their existing level and I assumed (the folly of youth) that I would live forever; hence, a 25-year equivalence seemed like a super bargain to me. And — for those of us who purchased a Life Membership a half century ago and are still here to talk about it — it truly was and is a super bargain. But it wasn’t necessarily a super bargain for everyone. So I have a few thoughts: 1. Don’t assume that all seniors are in the same financial bucket. In fact, don’t assume that the seniors who are unhappy about this LM price understand Economics 101. One of my best friends is fond of noting that hams are the “cheapest” category of people he knows. Sometimes we have to treat the negative push-back as the same kind of “trash talk" that we overhear when hams are haggling with vendors at hamfest and convention flea markets. Barry says it this way: “Members always want a ‘deal’.” Many do. But not all. We’re hearing from the ones that do. 2. It seems to me that some of the unfavorable “push back” we’re receiving could be eliminated if we Board members had some “arrows in our quiver” (discussion points) that would help elevate the plane of the discussion with members. 3. If I find something to dislike about the Seniors Life Membership, it’s the years of prior ARRL membership it requires. In the years ahead, the incremental cost to the League for each senior it adds may or may not be $50. Most companies (both profit and not-for-profit) that I know of would love to build additional incremental product sales once they’ve gotten their basic product lines and paid services up and running and per-unit costs established. I would have structured the non-monetary requirements of this $750 SLM to bring chronic non-members into the ARRL fold during a period when these folks arguably should have more time for amateur radio and volunteering. In other words, don’t blame the members for wanting too much for their $50/year if we can’t figure out how to make the incremental cost per member to deliver existing product offerings less than the per-member cost for the existing customer base. 4. When all is said and done, the overarching “benefit” provided to members and non-members alike by ARRL has to be spectrum protection. Somehow we have to do a better job of conveying the importance — and the total scope and cost — of our efforts in that arena. That’s where ARRL shone in at least two major upheavals society has faced since the beginning of our hobby: World Wars 1 and 2. We should be showing how spectrum protection for amateur radio takes a multitude of forms — everything from the full-frontal lobbying efforts we engage in to Radiosport events that help prove band occupancy; to EmCom results that give us value and credibility at agencies that could be our biggest supporters in the years to come; to the exposure to electronics and RF that will lead our young people to careers that help maintain our technological strengths. And perhaps we need to better acquaint our members with the worldwide shift by governments toward economically based spectrum allocation rather than those governments continuing to support historical and technologically based allocations. That shift alone could be “World War 3” for amateur radio. Bud, W2RU
Pretty much the same here in the NW. One guy figured out that it's not really a discount, based what he researched on the average life expectancy of the average American male. I had to explain to him about the "revenue neutral" part, and that the rate was based on actuarial research and data. (Like Dr. Fauci says, "Follow the data!") When I explained to him that it IS a discount from the standard $1200 Lifetime membership fee, (or whatever it is now), he was somewhat satisfied with the answer. I'm just SO glad that I bought my Life Membership back in the 70's when I was young .... ;-) 73; Mike W7VO
On May 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com> wrote:
No positive comments from Southeastern membership. "Insulting" was a word I've heard several times. I explained to one member that financial analysis showed this to be "revenue neutral." His response was that "that's the problem with ARRL, always looking to make a buck instead of taking care of members."
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:13 PM John Robert Stratton < N5AUS@n5aus.com mailto:N5AUS@n5aus.com > wrote:
> > All the comments I have received have been negative. Some consider the terms insulting.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
_______________________________________ On 5/15/20 5:05 PM, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv wrote:
> > > Hi all:
Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it.
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership
I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents.
73, Rick - K5UR
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
> > _______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org mailto: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
Some of the sentiment I've received was positive but they were very few. Many have said that they would have liked to see the age lowered or tiers. Ria N2RJ On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 18:05, Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Hi all:
Just a heads up that an article about the Life 70+ Membership was posted on the web and in the ARRL Letter. Here's the link in case you missed it.
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-announces-new-life-70-membership
I've received a couple of negative comments from members saying we didn't do enough. Recall that we debated that issue and I know that A&F struggled with it as well. Just a heads up in case you hear from your constituents.
73, Rick - K5UR _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (7)
-
John Robert Stratton -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Michael Ritz -
Mickey Baker -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) -
W2RU - ARRL