From: stevew@netcom.com (Steven Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: ARRL Bulletin 68  ARLB068
Summary: ARRL representation
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:29:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article<1517e1INNhvq@network.ucsd.edu>, brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
> Election of directors is a binary thing - either the dude gets
> re-elected or he doesn't.  There's no space on the ballot to say to him
> "get in your time machine and go back six months and change your vote
> on XXX or I'll vote against you."  It is the responsibility of ARRL
> directors to pay attention to what all of the ham community wants, not
> just ARRL members.

First off, it isn't binary if someone runs against him.  I'll grant
that mostly due to apathy there are several races that run un-contested.
As for the time machine angle...that is a function of the decay time
of the electorates collective memory.  Consider that some people
are still pissed of about incentive licensing!  As for the director's
responsibility...he is only responsible to the people that elect him.
No-one else has any real sway(read non-league members).

> Remember, the ARRL claims to represent ALL hams, not just those who send
> them money.  Or are they just lying about this too?
> 
> So, the only way to influence a League director's position is to fail to
> re-elect him after the damage is done?  No, if the directors aren't
> listening between elections, the system's already bankrupt.  At some
> point it becomes impossible to work within a system, and the system
> has to be replaced.

No..that isn't what I wrote.  What I said was that they listen to  
league members AND the directors listen best to the ones that actually tell
them what they think!  I haven't met a league official yet who
could do a reasonable mind-reading act ;-)   

I can't accept your statements about the system being bankrupt, or that
it is impossible to work within the system because I have personal
experience where I've succeeded in getting my point presented to the
board and gotten board action approving same.  I've achieved this
more than once...mind you the stuff I was pursuing were pretty small
potatoes when put up against issues like no-code, or the current
HF STA stuff.  However, I have made the system work....and with nothing
more than calling my director occassionally and TALKING to him.
Merely the price of a phone call to make the system work.

Also...sometimes you don't win!  That's what can happen with a 
democratic system.  So goes the war.

> As it stands, I believe that the ARRL has failed in its duty to ham
> radio.  I don't believe it can change enough to repair that failure, so
> I'm voting against it by not supporting it.  I'd like to see it
> replaced with an organization that is more responsive, and I've
> supported a few of those fledgling attempts.  Unfortunately, they've
> all failed - the ARRL is too deeply entrenched.  But I can hope.
> 	- Brian

I disagree 100% with this.  Mind you I don't always agree with what
ARRL does...the current STA issue is a good example.  On the other
hand I know that 1) My director voted against it, 2) He did so
due to input from myself and others.  The league is like any other
organization...flawed.  The only way to make it better is to work
from within to improve it.  Throwing in the towl serves no useful
purpose.

Steve KA6S