AmateurRadio.com

If you’re a workbench ham, you like to measure things. Some like to just get a rough cut while others like to be “nuts” about it. There are groups, like Volt-Nuts and Time-Nuts, who focus more on what’s formally called Metrology. Me? I’m somewhere in the middle but tending toward more precise and reliable measurements, although I do get the Cal Lab magazine each month. Perhaps it’s because I taught classical measurement theory to PhD students for over 30 years and understand true-score theory (e.g., every observed measurement is determined by the “true score” plus some error). Adding multiple observed scores and modeling the errors is something I taught and used for a few decades. Reading Bob Witte’s books from HP as well as Joe Carr’s various texts helped me transfer over the statistical base into electronic measurement issues although clearly I have a lot to learn in this realm.

Building out a good test workbench has been one of my priorities over the past few years. I’ve been inspired by many others, mostly on Youtube, but the IMSAI Guy channel is one of my favorites.

The Soldersmoke Blog says his identity is Michael Cassidy W6UAB in Oakland California. He doesn’t exactly say on his Youtube Channel. Whether this is his real name or not, he is very educational in his videos. I have learned a lot but he’s cost me money! He is a clear workbench Elmer to me. I’ve acquired a couple of professional lab-grade test pieces on the used market for far, far less than what they cost new because he first went through them thoroughly on his Youtube Channel. The first was the HP 4735a LCR meter. Here’s my latest one.

The HP 8714ET VNA is a two port VNA. Yes, I have a few NanoVNAs. In addition, the SDR-KITS VNWA 3SE Automatic 2 Port Model with their MagiCal calibration device. Plus, I picked up a LibreVNA with their LibreCAL device. I recommend R&L Electronics for LibreVNA products. Why would I need another VNA? If you are seriously asking this question, my friend the Smoking Ape has some Cat Videos for you to watch. Because I wanted it is the simple answer, LOL.

Shown above is the 8714ET connected to the eight-port test set with an old Barker & Williamson Model 425 Low Pass Filter as the DUT. I purchased it at a hamfest for $5 to use the case but have not yet.The larger monitor on the right serves dually as a second screen to my PC (HDMI port) and as the VGA output with customizable color from the VNA. This is the conversion loss measurement shown. Note the USB floppy drive under the monitor.

Plus, it’s a device with a lot of features that raise the bar for bench testing. It is monochrome green in the internal display but customizable colorized in the VGA output. It’s remotely reachable by HP-IB (I use an HPIB-to-USB adapter), LAN (internal web server), and via a 3.5″ floppy disk. I purchased an inexpensive USB-based floppy drive for the Dell Precision 1700 PC that runs my workbench. And, yes, the 8714ET will indeed format a 3.5″ floppy to DOS. I suspect that I will retrieve screen images, the underlying data, and Touchstone files via the web interface but, heck, I’m kinda digging having a floppy disk in my Lab. In time, I will use some of the many IBASIC programs written for this line of VNAs. The PS/2 keyboard that I just ordered plugs into the rear of the VNA, making editing or writing IBASIC scripts much easier as well as entry for some features on the VNA.

I’ll let IMSAI Guy’s video playlist on his earlier model (HP 8711C upgraded to an 8712) give you the fuller run down on all the things it will do, especially with IBASIC programs that automatic a lot of testing, storage of calibration data, and so forth. But I added something to mine, the Agilent multiport test set, 8-port, 50-ohm model. I found it for $200 on eBay and it is pristine, almost as much as the 8714ET that I found there from a “junk shop” vendor. Very lucky it seems on this set of purchases.

An engineer friend (N5WDG) gave me some high quality test cables when he built a new house and cleared out some extras from his workbench. Good ones can cost almost as much as the used test gear scored online so I’m grateful for the crate of “stuff” that Thomas N5WDG, a WAN Engineer for AT&T, handed to me a couple of years ago. The connections between the VNA and the multiport test set require a standard DB25 male parallel port cable plus two specific firm metal connector jumpers. I found these new-in-box on eBay for $25 each. So with the $1500 price of the 8714ET VNA added to the multiport test set and cables I purchased, I have about $1,750 in this “like new” lab grade VNA from the 1990s.

One thing that the multiport test set provides is a much easier way to tune filters like repeater duplexers and such. The reference materials for the device lay out the wiring diagrams and how to tell the multiport device to configure the ports remotely from the VNA itself. The 100 db dynamic range will help a lot for tuning the standard 2M and 70cm duplexers that are in common use. Covering 300 khz to 3 Ghz, the 8714ET has up to 1600 data points which allows a more thorough sweep for a given frequency span. Nice.

There are always multiple documents to study on new “old” test gear. Each one has a design theory to the things it claims to measure. There are always quirks that support communities (e.g., HP Test Equipment Groups.io; EEVBlog Forum; Youtube) can education you on to more fully utilize gear like this. I also read the archived HP Journal for articles published announcing the release of gear like this. It’s very instructive to have one or more of the design engineers to outline the theory of the device, detailing how they approached the critical aspects of implementing the instrument. Lots of reading and study ahead!

The “goose and the gander” idiom is well-integrated into American culture. It means, of course, that what applies to one person should also apply to another, essentially stating that everyone should be treated equally. This article uses that metaphor with respect to how the ethics of consistent Bylaw adherence play out at the American Radio Relay League. The goose reflects the hoopla over elections of Board members at the ARRL. The gander is Bylaw 35 and its application to the League employment rules for the Chief Executive Officer.

I received an email from one of my blog readers of the CEO compensation analysis I recently published on this blog. He was really up in arms about the results of an online search. This was done after a local group of hams was heatedly discussing how the League headquarters is managed and Division Directors are selected. This included the proposed changes to that mechanism which some think will result in Directors just being appointed by the CEO. I’ll note that this person has been involved with the ARRL for many years now so he is no stranger to the ARRL’s actions over a long period of time. He sent me two online links that caught my attention as well as his repeating Bylaw 35 from the League website. Let me share what he discovered and why it matters to the membership.

To preface what he found, nonprofit Board members have several fiduciary obligations. We hear a lot about this from the League’s legal counsel and the President explaining various actions by the Board of Directors: the duties of Board members require some action, and so forth. In other words, we “must” take this action because our lawyer says it is legally required of us to do so. Well, that’s a sound argument, if it’s true and not just a cover for intended action otherwise.

One is the Duty of Obedience. This means that Board members must:

• Ensure the organization complies with laws and regulations
• Ensure the organization acts in accordance with its policies
• Ensure the organization carries out its mission
• Avoid unauthorized activities

Thus, Board members must make sure that all Bylaws are followed by the organization and that unauthorized activities are avoided. Sounds simple enough, right? But is the Bylaw policy emphasis involving elections the same as for the others? Is it, as my reader pointed out to me, the same emphasis and due diligence as for the stated employment rules for the Chief Executive Officer? This reader doesn’t think so but decide for yourself after reading below.

It seems clear that the two sets of Corporate Bylaws should be treated as equally important for the governance of the ARRL. The Duty of Obedience seems indeed to fit the goose-and-gander principle specifically. If not, are the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Directors being breached? If they do not ensure that the corporation operates in accordance with the policies (Bylaws) — especially given all of the heat on Division Director elections — are they not allowing unauthorized activities? To “look the other way” is a breach of this, no? Well, it would be up to the IRS or a court to officially decide but it surely appears so to any common sense reading.

Should not the legal counsel for the League respond to this inconsistency, if asked? Perhaps the League attorney hasn’t been asked as I am told by a sitting Board member when I inquired about the inconsistency. I am also told that Board members are not allowed to seek counsel from the paid-for attorney for the ARRL but must go through the CEO or President. Hmm. Is that really the best practice for situations like this? What does the whistleblower policy stipulate for an employee to report this violation of the League’s legal Bylaws? Well, we don’t know since that policy isn’t available to the membership.

Should the two sets of Corporate Bylaws be treated as equally important for the governance of the ARRL? If not, are the fiduciary responsibilities of the Board of Directors being breached?

Regarding the goose, there has been a great deal of consternation about electing of Board of Directors in recent years. It has been very heated, indeed. The League has a committee to pass judgment on the existing standards for election to the Board and how each candidate passes muster in their nomination and campaign. They have been busy in recent years, with one Board member exiting the position after a quandary over ethics rules and the practice of them by staff at HQ and by Board members.

The League Bylaws are available at their website. The current Ethics & Elections Committee, appointed by the President, consists of:

• Scott Yonally, N8SY, Great Lakes Division Director (Chair)
• Brent Walls, N9BA, Central Division Director
• Tom Frenaye, K1KI, New England Division Director

There is no need here to repeat the details but the reader may well be fully aware of many of these ethics issues regarding election candidates. (If not, check the embedded links I’ve provided or just do an online search.) The point I raise here is that with all of the heat, and only modest light, over how to operate ethically just to get Division Directors elected through a democratic voting process, shouldn’t similar emphasis be placed on the remaining Bylaws? Is it legitimate for the Board to ignore some Bylaws without formal action taken on the Bylaws themselves?

Turning to the gander, the reader of my blog pointed out some specific Internet search results regarding the CEO. He read through the publicly available information on the ARRL website and on the Internet to see that the CEO’s previous company, Talentrian Partners, was still in business, or so he thought. Here’s the website he sent me:

I checked the State of New Jersey’s corporate database but there is no mention of this company. Perhaps it’s just a stale website that, after three years, has just slipped Mr. Minster’s mind about taking it down. Easy enough to clean up very quickly. if the Board directs him to do so. It does give a clear misimpression that he’s still in the “talent training” business. But, that’s just an oversight as long as there is no further business being conducted there. Nonetheless, it should concern the Board that this public impression isn’t a good look for the League, especially with all of the ethical nuances being established for Division Director candidates.

Why would it be important if there is a side-business operated by the ARRL CEO? With all of the thunder-and-lightning over electing Division Directors, the Bylaws of the Corporation must be followed, no? Let’s look at the one pointed out to me by my blog reader.

I have put a red block around the key sentence in Bylaw 35, pages 9-10, in the Bylaw document as amended through January 2025. It shows a fairly standard employment statement that the CEO shall spend his or her “entire time” devoted to the duties of the office as paid for by the ARRL. In other words, the corporation wants this person’s full-time attention and focus on the job! That’s reasonable and appropriate, isn’t it? If Directors have to run such an ethics gauntlet to make certain that they do not gain any undue advantage with respect to any competing candidates, shouldn’t members expect that the Chief Executive Office follow the Bylaws that are plainly stated? As a former Vice President used to say, You Betcha!

The email from one of my readers, however, went on to point out that he also found a current business that the CEO operates, as a realtor for the famous Berkshire Hathaway firm. I’ve placed a screenshot below from the website address the reader sent to me. Yep, that seems to be the same name and cell number as listed on the Talentrian Partners website, now a defunct former business according to the State of New Jersey.

Moreover, the State of Connecticut shows that he is indeed an active licensed real estate salesperson with a broker he works for in Connecticut. Seems like a “real” real estate salesperson from all public appearances.

It is also very clear that being employed elsewhere is at variance with ARRL Bylaw 35 where he is supposed to devote all of his time to his duties there.

I asked a couple of current Board of Directors about this. They both gave awkward answers to what this blog reader sent me. They said they were never told about this outside employment of the CEO in terms of it happening. It was all after the fact and not anything formal. “Rumors in the hallway,” it was described as being. An associated rumor was that he was simply providing security to his spouse who is also a real estate salesperson. I get that as a husband, for assaults on real estate agents during open houses or other private showings are a known risk. The NY Times (paywall) published a story highlighting the risk, especially for female agents. There is a real estate safety education program, too. It is understandable that someone would have significant concerns about a spouse’s safety in a job setting.

It is also very clear that being employed elsewhere is at variance with ARRL Bylaw 35 where he is supposed to devote all of his time to his duties there.

It is thoroughly confusing, however, as to why the CEO needed to get an agent’s license and be listed as a paid sales agent for Berkshire Hathaway just to accompany his spouse to showings out of safety concerns. Has he been paid sales commissions? Has his wife handled real estate transactions for ARRL HQ members? I don’t know but, if so, it would represent a clear ethical issue, would it not? The Board members I asked about this say it has come up after the fact with the argument by the CEO that “everyone knew about it.” OK, so what? Did the Board modify the Bylaw to allow this? It does not seem so in the January 2025 version on the ARRL website.

The Board members I communicated with on this also mentioned that previous CEO Howard Michel was given permission by the Board to retain his consulting job with an Asian technology company. This was mentioned such that the Board had precedent for giving such permission. But the Bylaw has remained in force! Such “look the other way” actions by the Board do seem at variance with the Duty of Obedience that is legally required for them. There’s little “looking the other way” in some of the Division Director races in recent years with social media being searched for negative comments about the League or the other candidate. Hear that goose honking? This is what it’s about.

Well, is it ethical or not? Can the Board just waive Bylaws without formal action? Since the League and its lawyers have pushed such clear and explicit concerns over the elections process Bylaws, why hasn’t there been a similar concern over Bylaws governing the employment policies of other Officers, like the CEO? Does the CFO also hold a side-gig? We do not know.

This appears to have been an open secret to the Board, the facts of which though are fully public (a blog reader found them in a simple Internet search). Is the Board of Directors failing their fiduciary duty to the corporation by effectively rendering Bylaw 35 null and void if and when they wish to by just looking the other way? Why is there such a different emphasis on election ethics while allowing a clear and specific violation of Bylaw 35 to go unchecked? I believe that inquiring minds would want to know. If you are an ARRL member, let your Division Director know your sentiments. But thus far they have looked the other way.

SUMMARY: The roiling of the membership over the recent dues increase and annulments of multi-year subscriptions is significant, causing a substantial share of the membership to reach a Howard Beale moment. They are mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore by just not renewing their memberships. These defections have reduced League membership to only 18 percent or less of the full licensed ham radio market. It was little known, however, that in the two-year run-up to the July 2023 dues increase were significant compensation adjustments to the CEO and CFO of the League. These amounted to some $150,000 over the two budget cycles, as reported to the IRS. Some on the Board say privately they were not aware that these raises were bundled into the full budgets when they were put forth for a vote. This procedure is clearly not consistent with IRS guidance to non-profits receiving tax exemptions under the 501c3 code. An arms-length assessment of CEO compensation reported here shows little to no evidence supporting the pay increases. The practices of the League in how these matters are conducted are not consistent with best practices in the non-profit industry.

There has been almost no issue that has raised the hackles of the ARRL membership like the July 2023 Board decision to raise dues. They also decided not to honor existing two- or three-year memberships that members had bargained for and paid their money. The often-used phrase, a rising tide lifts all boats, comes to mind here but in a rather perverse way. While President Kennedy used the phrase to great political benefit, it doesn’t translate well to all budgetary situations. Raising dues for the League might to some sitting around a Boardroom table be a means to cover shortfalls that the main attraction, QST, has accrued due to rising glossy color paper costs. But it won’t if that dues increase causes members to simply not renew! In fact, it might be a very poor fiduciary decision by the Board that is detrimental to the best interests of the non-profit corporation.

It is a bit more than that, it seems to me. The broken promise made to those with existing two- or three-year ARRL subscriptions was just downright unethical. It made many feel like the character Howard Beale in the movie Network who famously yelled at the top of his voice: I’m mad as hell and I’m just not going to take it any more! And, they haven’t, to the tune of over 1,000 per month a current Board member tells me in confidence. (The League typically doesn’t publicly speak of such things.) Another Board member says that it’s closer to 2,000 per month. Either way, it’s a lot of former members who decided to not take it anymore. It certainly appears to be moving in that direction.

In essence, rising dues lifted the CEO and CFO’s boats. Let me explain the sequence of actions that leads to that conclusion. It’s detailed so bear with me as it is something that most members may well not be aware of since the League considers such matters corporate secrets (but they shouldn’t, according to the IRS Guidance for non-profits).

In essence, rising dues lifted the CEO and CFO’s boats. 

The Salt in the Wound of the Dues Increase

I’ve written a bit about those who are not renewing their ARRL memberships. This article focuses on the salt in the wound. Because the League publicized how “hard” the decision was to increase the dues burden on members, I want to reproduce what the President, Rick K5UR, said on the League website here:

Yesterday [author’s note: July 22, 2023], the ARRL Board of Directors completed their second annual meeting. I’m writing to let you know that they made the tough, but necessary, decision to increase the regular membership dues rate to $59 a year starting January 1, 2024 (see 2024 Dues Rates). Additionally, we have chosen to separate the printed, mailed magazine from regular membership. Members will be able to choose whether they want to add-on a print subscription to any of our magazines including QST, On the Air, QEX, and NCJ. All members will continue to have online, digital access to each of these four magazines and the digital archive as part of their regular membership benefits.

Since it was financial pressure that the League used to justify the dues increase, they referred to a survey conducted by them of over 20,000 members who opted-in to the online survey. I’ve included the main slide below for reference, under the Fair Use copyright clause. I will note in passing that this is very under-analyzed as a survey. I requested a copy of the raw survey data at my annual ARRL Delta Division Convention in January 2025 held by Director Norris K5UZ at the Capital City Hamfest. He publicly said he would obtain it for me. I sent a follow-up e-mail to David and President Roderick K5UR officially requesting the raw data and documentation. I’ve yet to receive any reply from this request.

Only 18 percent said they would pay more to get a print edition of QST…The Board as a group largely ignored these results in their final decision.

Only 18 percent said they would pay more to get a print edition of QST. Almost half (43%) said they wanted the printed magazine as part of their membership dues. Over one-third (39%) said they’d just go digital. (Personally, I go digital in everything I read if I can.) But this was the membership speaking through this survey. The Board as a group largely ignored these results in their final decision. I’m told that it was a contentious discussion, with one Board member having “run the numbers” to say they wouldn’t lose many members but claiming his work was “proprietary” when another Board member asked to see how he computed that result. (Try telling your math teacher that your work is “proprietary” on your math test.) That is no way to manage a non-profit organization, especially as it is at variance with the IRS guidance to non-profit Boards regarding transparency in business dealings.

Here is the ARRL’s statement by President Roderick K5UR on the Board decision, speaking as Chair of that Board of Directors.

The cost of doing business goes up every year. During the last couple of years, the costs associated with printing and postage have increased significantly. We’ve cut and delayed hiring for some positions on our professional staff – one of the smallest teams we’ve had staffing our headquarters in Newington, Connecticut, in years. We are also continuing to examine other cost-saving measures, but we cannot go further without reducing or eliminating benefits and programs which our members have told us are important to them. I can assure you that the ARRL Board exercises due diligence and oversight in making sure your association is a good steward of your membership dollars. The reality is that ARRL does a lot – in fact much more than dues cover. President Roderick, July 23, 2023, ARRL Bulletin.

It rises to a Howard Beale moment, however, that the League was not under such financial pressure the previous two years that they could not give their CEO a $100,000 raise in total compensation. They also gave their CFO a $50,000 raise. Please go back and reread the previous sentence to let that sink in a bit. Let me put it in the context of dues-paying members. The $150,000 raises for the CEO and CFO is what 2,542 members pay per year for dues. How much of those raises would have offset the increase of $49 to continue receiving the printed edition of QST? OK, it’s 3,061 members. That would not have covered all of it so I want to be clear about that. It just comes to a subjective, ethical viewpoint, it seems to me. It’s the principle of the thing that tends to make members mad as Hell and not take it anymore.

It rises to a Howard Beale moment, however, that the League was not under such financial pressure the previous two years that they could not give their CEO a $100,000 raise in total compensation. They also gave their CFO a $50,000 raise. 

Trends in ARRL Executive Compensation

Maybe I’m wrong. So let’s look at the numbers. The League must file Form 990 each year to the IRS to maintain their non-profit status under the 501c3 regulations. They file a version of the form here. I also get the same forms of data directly from the IRS as I’ve used 501c3 data in my research on social movements for a couple of decades now so I’m familiar with it.

Here are the trends in annual compensation for three ARRL executive positions, the CEO, CFO and the COO/Director of Operations. With the turnover in the CEO position, there are partial years of salary and fringe benefits which I’ve indicated by expressing “partial years” in fractions (e.g., 2018, 2018.3, 2018.6). This presents some challenge for the reader to follow explicitly but I’ll add a simpler summary chart below. I wanted to present the data as accurately as I can from the declarations that the ARRL has made to the IRS through the annual Form 990.

The CEO’s compensation has moved from about $150,000 a year to over $350,000 a year during the past 13 years. The spikes with each CEO’s name (or CFO, etc.) reflect the “full year” salary but I’ve also shown those in a follow-up set of charts, too. The timeline taken from the League’s website is also shown in the chart’s legend. The clear changes in this set of trends are the escalation in both the CEO and CFO’s compensation package since Mr. Minster’s arrival at League HQ. The CEO’s raises are two consecutive $50,000 increases which were just prior to the July 2023 Board decision on the dues increase. I’ve added a vertical line to illustrate the official Board decision date for the dues increase and change in subscription terms. This illustrates the Board actions taken in the run-up to the controversial dues increase and regeging on multi-year subscriptions.

It’s difficult for the average member to understand President Roderick’s published statement, “We’ve cut and delayed hiring for some positions on our professional staff – one of the smallest teams we’ve had staffing our headquarters in Newington, Connecticut, in years,” when they’ve given the CEO a 40 percent raise and 18 percent for the CFO. Let’s put it into a clearer picture by compiling the “full year” of service and compensation levels for the League’s CEO position.

The bar chart gives the “full year” equivalency to each CEO’s compensation since 2010 and ignores the partial years in the line graph above. After Sumner retired, the hiring of Gallagher for three years reflected an 18 percent increase. It was stable in the transition from Gallagher to Michel at about $230,000 per year for each. Shelley was already on staff and functioned as both CFO and CEO during 2020 at a lower salary as Interim CEO. The hiring of Minster initially represented a raise of just over 5 percent compared to the previous CEO (Michel). At that time, however, the League increased CEO Minster’s compensation from some $249,000 to $305,000 to $348,000, a full one hundred thousand dollar enhancement.

The other main executive, the Chief Financial Officer, was not left out of this pay enhancement package. For the CFO position, it is clear that when Middleton replaced Shelley in 2018, she received a lower entry salary of about $30,000 less. However, it was increased by about $50,000 in 2019 and subsequently to about $237,000 for 2023. This reflects an approximate 18 percent increase, over $50,000 since she was hired into the position. We are not told what qualifications that Mr. Shelley or Ms Middleton hold for the CFO position or what precipitated these dramatic raises, especially at a time of supposed financial exigency over the flagship product to the membership, the QST magazine.

Were the Executive Raises Justified?

How is such a decision about executive compensation reached? We’ve all read about scandals involving some non-profits who pay exorbitant compensation to the top executive and do little to benefit the common good claimed to the IRS in exchange for a tax exemption. This is why the IRS provides specific rules for guiding non-profit charities in these matters. The IRS requires that 501c3 non-profits tell them the method used for executive compensation. This is a mechanism to keep “good faith” principles in play for corporations receiving non-profit charity status, relieving them of paying taxes on revenues received during the year. This statement is contained in Schedule O of Form 990 filed for tax year 2023. I’ve reproduced the League’s legal statement to this effect below:

The ARRL’s official filing with the IRS in 2023 says that the CEO is compensated as determined by the Board of Directors based on the recommendation of the Administration and Finance Committee. This committee is appointed by the President. This official committee of the full Board bases this recommendation on their assessment of the performance of the CEO in comparison to a set of goals and objectives for the organization and the individual. There is no definition of these goals and objectives in the document or anywhere on the League’s website. Members thus have no idea what the specific directions for the League are as established by their Board of Directors. Is this sufficiently transparent vis-a-vis the IRS guidance for non-profit charities?

 The ARRL has stated to the IRS that there have been NO changes in the method used to determine CEO compensation since 2008. There was no mention of any external salary survey conducted by a consultant (see below)…It smacks of boiler-plating narrative that has little relevance to the operational activities of the organization. And it does not follow best practices for the non-profit industry. Not by a long shot!

I’ve reviewed all of the ARRL Form 990 filings back to 2001. This statement on CEO compensation is constant verbatim from 2008, the first year the IRS added the Schedule O declaration, to the present filing. The ARRL has stated to the IRS that there have been NO changes in the method used to determine CEO compensation since 2008. There was no mention of any external salary survey conducted by a consultant (see below). Frankly, it reads like an attorney wordsmithed the narrative so that the Board could just act on a current whim of the person in the CEO position rather than on external criteria that retain objective job performance assessments. I’ve seen this before. It smacks of boiler-plating narrative that has little relevance to the operational activities of the organization. And it does not follow best practices for the non-profit industry. Not by a long shot!

Here’s where the story gets very squirrely indeed. Several of the current Board members have told me that they never saw this recommended compensation increase from the Administration and Finance Committee. Yet, it is clearly and specifically part of the IRS guidance for the full Board to officially adjudicate such raises as part of their fiduciary responsibilities. When the A&F Committee was questioned about this afterwards, I’m told that the reply was it was bundled into the full annual budget for the League which the full Board voted to approve. Since the CEO’s raises occurred over two budget years, it is puzzling how the full Board would vote in the affirmative the second year after being hoodwinked during the first year’s budget approval process. Very puzzling. From what the average person can read from the IRS website for guidance to 501c3 charities, this is at variance with those guidelines and does not maintain high fiduciary standards required of the Board of Directors. Remember: the Directors can’t talk about “company” work with the members who elected them but they can’t seem to talk to one another either.

Moreover, one Board member told me something even stranger. He said that he was told by the A&F Committee that a salary survey was conducted by an external company as hired by the League at the behest of the current CEO. The actual report was not shown to the Board member even though he demanded a copy as part of his fiduciary obligation to the corporation. The external company they hired is, I’m told, out of business as of shortly after the report was tendered. That report was not shared with Board members outside of the Administration & Finance Committee although it was requested by several of them. My source on the current Board said he was told that there were no “comparable” non-profit charities in the Newington area so for-profit corporations were used to establish the comparable worth of the CEO and the CFO. If so, this is an egregious departure from best practices to establish objectively-based CEO compensation standards by a non-profit 501c3 charity.

Best Practices on Determining CEO Compensation for Non-Profit Charities

The best practices for non-profit corporations are rather clear. But the ARRL does not seem to have had staff who are experienced in the non-profit world and few Board members’ biographies seem to indicate such management experience either. The apparent culture of the organization is to have “ham operators” run the corporation, regardless of their background, training or experience. So let’s briefly review what are the relevant non-profit guidelines used as best practices in the industry.

The IRS issued a guidance document some years ago regarding non-profits who qualify as charities.

I encourage the reader to take the time to review this document if you are concerned about the ARRL and what it does for the hobby. It is part of the bargain made by a corporation to receive an exemption from paying federal taxes on revenues and to give donors protection that their own declarations to the IRS are valid charity donations. Here are some pertinent excerpts [emphasis added]:

• A charity may not pay more than reasonable compensation for services rendered. Although the Internal Revenue Code does not require charities to follow a particular process in determining the amount of compensation to pay, the compensation of officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and others in a position to exercise substantial influence over the affairs of the charity should be determined by persons who are knowledgeable in compensation matters and who have no financial interest in the determination.
• The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity to rely on the rebuttable presumption test of section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation section 53.4958-6 when determining compensation of its executives. Under this test, compensation payments are presumed to be reasonable if the compensation arrangement is approved in advance by an authorized body composed entirely of individuals who do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the arrangement, the authorized body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability prior to making its determination, and the authorized body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination.
• Comparability data generally involves looking to compensation levels paid by similarly situated organizations for functionally comparable positions. One method is to obtain compensation surveys or studies from outside compensation consultants for this purpose. The Internal Revenue Service will look to the independence of any compensation consultant used, and the quality of any study, survey, or other data, used to establish executive compensation. Once that test is met, the Internal Revenue Service may rebut the presumption that an amount of compensation is reasonable only if it develops sufficient contrary evidence to rebut the probative value of the comparability data relied upon by the authorized governing body.

Thus, there should be an independent review by knowledgeable and independent persons on executive compensation based on “rebuttable” comparable data. This comparability date involves examining the compensation levels for comparable positions in other non-profit charities.

The Foundation Group suggests using “arms-length” procedures when assigning salaries. “You can do all the due diligence you want, and come up with the nation’s most reasonable compensation package, but if your compensated executives effectively decide their own pay, then trouble awaits you.” I have to wonder about the supposed outside company who did the salary assessment. Was that company hired by the CEO? We just do not know. And neither do members of the Board who are not on the Administrative and Finance Committee!

The Council for Nonprofits says this. “The independent body should take a look at “comparable” salary and benefits data, such as that available from salary and benefit surveys, to learn what nonprofit employers with similar missions, and of a similar budget size, that are located in the same or a similar geographic region, pay their senior leaders. Example: it would not be comparable to compare the compensation of a CEO of a large urban hospital or university to that of a rural day care center’s CEO.“

The key part of these best practices for executive compensation is: “The independent body that is conducting the review should document who was involved and the process used to conduct the review, as well as document the full board’s decision to approve the executive director’s compensation (minutes of a meeting are fine for this). The  documentation should demonstrate that the board considered the comparable data when it approved the compensation.“

To follow best practices for non-profit charitable corporations, the ARRL would have to share a document of how the A&F Committee used comparable external data to inform them about the very large raises given to the League’s CEO and CFO in the past couple of years. (Here is a sample cover policy from the Council for Nonprofits.) No review of the minutes would document this process. If what I’m told by current Board members not on the A&F Committee is true, they were never shown the report but only told that for-profit corporate executive compensation data “had” to be used. My reading is that this approach, to hide the increases in the full budget without clear and explicit consideration by the full Board of Directors, is very much at variance with both the IRS guidance and best practices in the non-profit charity arena.

To illustrate how a comparable non-profit charity classified in the same NTEE category as the ARRL handles this, I’ve extracted the Schedule O statement from Form 990 filed by Chicago Public Media Inc. Notice how this non-profit follows a close compliance with the IRS Guidance on external, arms-length data to determine benchmarks and performance with which to compensate their Chief Executive Officer. They, too, have a compensation committee. But unlike the ARRL, what their committee does and how it goes about recommended executive compensation is shared with the full Board in official minutes. This is far afield from what I’m told by current and former Board members as to how this works in the ARRL.

So we are left to conclude from what the League has told the membership and most of the Board that we simply do not know if the significant compensation increases are justified or not or even how they were derived by the Committee. But we can do that analysis our self so the reader can make a determination of that justification themselves.

Establishing Comparable Worth for the ARRL CEO Position

What are comparable non-profit charities with which the ARRL should be compared? There are several factors that shape CEO compensation. Size of the organization in terms of employees and expenses; geographical area of the labor market, and mission of the non-profit charity. I have taken the IRS non-profit charity dataset for 2022 for the employees and annual expenses, geocoded each corporation’s address to a location and identified the Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Market Area for Newington CT, and used the IRS taxonomy on the mission of 501c3 corporations, the NTEE code. The ARRL is classified as A34-Radio as its mission classification.

Here is a representation of all non-profit charities with 501c3 status in the Newington CT area. The BLS Labor Market Area is outlined in tan with points in blue used for the charitable organizations. The NTEE classification for ARRL (A34) is shaded in red for reference. The reader can see the number of non-profits located within the Labor Market Area containing Newington. I’ve not shown the entire State of Connecticut but I will use that geography as well as the U.S. as a whole in my analysis of comparable worth for the CEO position.

The following chart is from Statistica, a leading data company who compiles data on many social and economic topics. This graphic shows average CEO compensation by fiscal size of the non-profit (annual expenses). The ARRL reported $13,744,234 to the IRS in 2022 for total expenses. The reader can see that for the nation as a whole, the average CEO compensation for this size non-profit was $244,690. To reach the current ARRL CEO salary and fringe benefits package of $352,793, the League would need to have more than four times more expenditures to be commensurate with national norms.

If we compare just Connecticut non-profits, the CEO salary is substantially above the median compensation of $158,000. In fact, it’s over twice the median compensation for Connecticut non-profit CEOs.

The mission focus of a non-profit charity also shapes CEO compensation. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) used by the IRS to classify these non-profits is how comparable charities are evaluated. I’ve taken the NTEE A34-Radio class for the ARRL and compared it nationally with all other classes in the chart below. On the first view, ARRL-class charities have CEO compensation far less than do others. This is largely because of some very large health-related charities whose CEOs are compensated in the millions of dollars. (These include entities like the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., Santa Fe Healthcare Inc., and so forth.) There are no similarly compensated Chief Executives in the ARRL-class of charities.

In general, A34-Radio class charities have a higher median CEO compensation per year ($160,000) than others ($97,000). The range is very large for the other class but runs to $667,835 as the highest for those in A34-Radio. The aspect of note is that the ARRL CEO compensation, at $352,793, is the third highest paid CEO in the class. The highest is at Chicago Public Media Inc., at $667,835. For the A34-Radio class of charities, the ARRL’s CEO compensation ranks at the very top of the scale.

Another factor that is said to be related to CEO compensation is the size of the charity. Mainly, this is the number of employees and the total expenditures during the year. I’ve analyzed the relationship between what CEO’s make and the employee size of the charity in a scatterplot below. The data were used to fit a cubic model so as to capture a relationship since a linear model is virtually flat (e.g., no relationship). There’s a statistical reason for this. Unlike the statements in the overall literature on non-profits, the key result using actual data reported to the IRS is that it takes 1,000 or more total employees for the compensation to become larger. The ARRL has reported somewhere around 100 total employees for a decade or more but only 89 during 2022. Thus, the scope of the data wherein the ARRL’s employment lies is not related to higher CEO compensation.

A very similar result is obtained for comparing CEO compensation by total non-profit expenses. The scatterplot below used the logged form of expenses for clarity and also fit a cubic regression model to capture the effect of scale of expenses on compensation. The increase in compensation only begins when the total charity expenses reach $10M. The total expenses reported by the ARRL to the IRS in 2022 is slightly more than that threshold: $13,744,234. While very small overall, the League’s total expenses ranks second among the A34-Radio NTEE class of non-profit charities.

It is important to note that for both of these scatterplots, the compensation scale is what gets the non-profit literature’s attention. What I find is that it is only at the extremes of the scale of employees and expenses does CEO compensation begin to have any relationship at all. It is therefore not a sound justification for determining CEO compensation at the scale of employment or expenses reported by the ARRL to the IRS.

To examine the Labor Market Area where the ARRL is located, there are a total of 55 non-profit charities under 501c3 status with the IRS in the 2022 dataset. These are listed in the table below. Among these non-profits, the ARRL is ranked 5th in CEO compensation. It is 7th in total employees and 13th in total expenses. To compare with other non-profits in the same labor market area, the ARRL’s CEO compensation appears high versus others with more employees and the same or more annual expenditures.

• Hartford Public Library annually spends about the same amount ($14,329,983) but pays its CEO less than one-half that of the ARRL ($164,764). (They staff the library with volunteers, a total of 73 in their 2022 Form 990 filing.)
• United Way of Connecticut Inc has three times the number of employees (387) and almost three times the annual expenditures ($37,754,386) but pays their CEO almost a hundred thousand dollars less ($261,445).
• Connecticut Science Center Inc pays their CEO about $50,000 more ($404,370) with 50% more employees (122) and less expenditures ($11,984,629). Areas of core science tend to have higher scales for CEO compensation, says the Nonprofit Quarterly.

These examples as well as the others in the table below demonstrate in the Newington CT Labor Market Area what I observed in the national data for non-profit CEO compensation and organization size. It is at the extremes of numbers of employees and annual expenditures that CEO pay escalates. The ARRL as a mid-capitalized non-profit charity is not at those levels of size or complexity either on a national, state or local area for the current compensation levels of the CEO to be consistent through comparison to the comparable non-profits I’ve studied here. There is no reasonable justification for the CEO compensation reported by the ARRl to the IRS.

What have we learned?

There are several results here that seem very clear.

The ARRL does not use best practices for establishing or monitoring CEO compensation. They pale in comparison to others in their NTEE mission class. They may misrepresent these practices in their IRS Form 990 filings if what some Board members have revealed to me is true. This is a direct consequence of the lack of corporate transparency in the routine practices of the League.

The substantial compensation increases given to the CEO and the CFO in the two years prior to the highly controversial dues hike and subscription agreement annulments were not handled in either an ethical or consistent manner as instructed by IRS Guidance for non-profits benefiting from tax relief under the 501c3 code. It is doubtful that the membership was even aware of these compensation enhancements since some Board members state privately that the Administration & Finance Committee did not bring it directly to them, instead bundling them into the full budget put before the Board for approval. How the IRS would evaluate such behavior is unknown but it seems very clear that the practice is tantamount to a serious violation of stated IRS Guidance.

The internal assessments of membership loss that might occur from the dues hike are problematic. When one Board member prepares some data analytic estimate for the benefit of the corporation, it is simply an unethical practice to claim it is “proprietary” to the Board member himself. Such actions are fiduciary. They must be shared completely with the full Board or the latter are seriously hampered from acting in the best interests of the corporation and the membership to which they serve. For whatever unknown reason, these estimates of membership loss were simply in error, reflective of either a serious lack of judgment or competence in doing such assessments.

The compensation levels for the Chief Executive are not consistent with arms-length data on comparable non-profits, either within the ARRL’s mission class or outside of it. They are higher than comparable non-profits in the State of Connecticut and in the official BLS Labor Market Area where the ARRL is located (Newington CT). In fact, the current CEO compensation figure is almost exactly what Connecticut CEO staff in the for-profit sector make each year. This is consistent with what one Board source told me about the outside consulting study which could not find any comparable non-profits in the area so comparisons with for-profit corporate CEOs were substituted. This is not how the process should be done by professionals working in the non-profit sector.

It is very difficult for members to take the “hard” choices that President Roderick said had to be made after these largely unknown $150,000 of compensation enhancements were awarded in the two years just prior to the dues increase. It was no surprise that a dues increase was likely all the while any executive compensation was quietly being considered by members of the Administration & Finance Committee, appointed by the ARRL President.

Crocodile tears come to mind in the pleadings made by the ARRL Officers to the membership when they do business in this manner. I pointed out to my Director, David K5UZ, at the recent 2025 Delta Division Convention in Jackson (MS) that it is not too late to make amends to those members whose two- or three-year subscriptions were rescinded. The ARRL knows who they are and how to contact them. Norris did state that the League has over-print copies of QST such that they could indeed be shipped to those affected members, whether they are current in their membership or not. The loss of trust and goodwill will ultimately be greater than any Boardroom math of cost-savings (whether the Board member reveals his work or not) might save in the short-term. To learn that $150,000 of executive compensation increases had just occurred under the cover of Board confusion is just a lot of salt in the wound that the dues hike incurred.

Think about how you got enthusiastic toward amateur radio. For me, I was eight years old and it was through a cheap transistor AM radio. This passion has been unabated since that time, albeit not always top priority in the broader scheme of life. It’s my belief that most hams have a “burning love” of the activity embedded in the amateur radio hobby. But, alas, it’s a social activity for the most part. We operate in groups of two or more and sometimes, like Hamvention, thousands! To get engaged and reap the benefits of a national organizing association, there is the National Association for Amateur Radio with over a hundred thousand. This should be an amplifier of that passion that took root with the hobby. Like Johnny Cash crooned, it is now a burning ring of fire for U.S. hams as well as those international members. And it’s going down, down, down. That burning ring is what puts a damper on the passion that drives us on in so many ways. Many hams have just hit the trail, I’m told, moving on from membership to the tune of about 1,000 non-renewals per month.

Johnny Cash’s famous song, Ring of Fire, symbolizes the League’s operation right now, at least to so many current and previous members. Even though, I’m told, the routine defense mechanism by a few Division Directors and the CEO is that there is only three percent of the members who are “haters” and should be ignored. Arrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic anyone? The flames are getting higher in the ring of fire that the power grab by the “shadow Board” and CEO has put the League in. Let’s look at the glowing embers, shall we?

The news is burning hot if you’ve wanted things to get better in Newington. It burns higher with the unmitigated lack of transparency that the IRS tax-exempt status says the ARRL should have toward its membership.

I’ve now had three independent sources confirm a provisional number of ARRL members as of November 2024 which I’ll use as the End-of-Year total in my charts. I’ve also used the League’s number of amateur radio licenses as the total market. The news is burning hot if you’ve wanted things to get better in Newington. It burns higher with the unmitigated lack of transparency that the IRS tax-exempt status says the ARRL should have toward its membership.

The chart below shows that 2024 reflects the lowest membership this century for the National Association for Amateur Radio. One can view “members” in several ways. For instance, I am a member of the RSGB and RAC. But I don’t live in England or Canada. I am a Life Member of the ARRL (and AMSAT, but who’s counting?). Am I “more” of a member in the League than the ones in other countries? However the reader views it, I’m also told that there are some 9,493 associate members and 6,000 or so international members. Full members total some 121,725 according to my sources. Some would call these members as the essential and core members but that’s simply a choice of the reader. All told, it adds up to around 137,218 total “members” in the ARRL but 121,725 core members. I have listed both the provisional total and the Full membership numbers in this chart.

The interactive chart above uses the “full” member number as the figure for the lowest membership number since 2000. It would still be that even with the foreign and associates were added, totalling some 137,218 as of November 2024. (Internal word is that the “ransomware” attack prevents the League’s HQ from having firm membership numbers, although my sources say they can count about 1,000 members each month who do not renew.) The chart illustrates on whose executive watch this debacle has occurred.

The chart .. shows that 2024 reflects the lowest membership this century for the National Association for Amateur Radio…All told, it adds up to around 137,218 total “members” in the ARRL but 121,725 core members…[It] illustrates on whose executive watch this debacle has occurred.

The biannual Board of Directors meeting of the ARRL was held recently with, I’m told, much division over Bylaw changes. One of the Directors who tends to be candid, whether the CEO or other Board members want him to or not, is Dick Norton N6AA. He gave his annual stump speech at Quartzfest last week. It tells the story with the authority of someone “in the room” of the meetings. That’s a helluva lot more transparency that the membership gets from the sanitized Agenda and post-mortem meeting summary! It’s worth a watch:

It is not difficult to read online and in conversations on the ground with fellow hams that the QST subscription to charge extra for the print version while not honoring the three-year subscription members with the promise of that duration is driving the “ring of fire.” But that’s not all of it, I’m told by others “in the room” who do not like what the “shadow” Board (a subset of about 10 Directors) is trying to do.

This would effectively allow the CEO and “shadow” Board to appoint Division Directors without an election. This is the accelerant for the Ring of Fire surrounding the ARRL right now.

The Bylaw changes proposed would, if fully passed, allow the Ethics & Elections Committee to vet the entire social media history of a submitted candidate as to their “loyalty” to the corporation known to the State of Connecticut as the American Radio Relay League, Inc. (EIN 06-6000004). Say something negative, like I’m doing here, and the E&E Committee would report: Nein, he is not of sufficient ethical material to stand for election. Or something like that. As I understand it, this would effectively allow the CEO and “shadow” Board to appoint Division Directors without an election. This is the accelerant for the Ring of Fire surrounding the ARRL right now.

The additional defense mechanism bandied about by the CEO is that most hams who hold licenses, especially Technicians who are about 50 percent of the license pool, are not “active” enough for the League to be concerned with their needs. I recall the CEO’s words were that the “Lion’s share” of these active hams were ARRL members and this has been known in Newington for a long time. See my analysis here which lays that to rest. It’s a common ploy by management to reduce the burden of service through downplaying the market so I am not surprised by this demonstrably incorrect rhetoric out of Newington. It merely fuels the fire and does not reflect professionalism in leadership.

As the chart above shows, the market share using the Full membership number is now down to 16 percent of the total number of ham licenses posted on the ARRL website for the end of 2024.

If you love amateur radio, this is nearing a catastrophic level, 16 to 18 percent of all licensed hams are members of the National Association for Amateur Radio. It’s a burning thing, this Ring of Fire….

But it is not too late. There is beaucoup narrative by the CEO, the League’s counsel, and some Directors about the fiduciary duty that officers and Board members have to the corporation of ARRL Inc. Don’t self-deal, lie about the finances, but do things in the best interests of the organization. This must be the individual Board member’s sensibilities of “best interests,” not the CEO or the legal counsel. (Remember: a lawyer’s statement is an opinion. A judge’s is the law, for the moment.) The QST debacle could still be reversed for those who purchased a three-year membership option. Make amends! That is in the best interests of the corporation.

Next to not lying about the finances, I’m unsure what else is more important than the membership of a tax-exempt non-profit corporation. It is the causa existere for the organization. (I understand that one of the Officers likes to use Latin to poke fun at my columns.) The membership should be the reason for the existence of the ARRL, not providing an executive stop at the end of someone’s career.

If you are so inclined, contact your Division Director to express your thoughts on the “Shadow” Board and the Bylaws that represent the CEO’s power grab in Newington. It’s their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of this membership-driven non-profit corporation. To aid in your outreach, here is the list from the ARRL website. Maybe doing so will relieve some of the burning…

Is amateur radio in the United States dying? The short answer is NO. But it is CHANGING. Here is why and how.

Author's note: Several months ago, I was contacted by a corporate sales broker to prepare a brief assessment of the ham radio market. This article is a version of that work. It is based upon best available evidence rather than a well-funded deep-dive study of the commercial market for amateur radio.

Those who read online sites devoted to amateur radio, listen to or contribute to on-air rag chews, attend hamfests, or read published media devoted to amateur radio have heard many, many times: amateur radio is “dying”.

But what does the term “dying” mean in this context? The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition:

Dying: Adjective. 1. That is at the point of death; in a dying state, close to collapse; 2. That is ceasing to exist, function, or be in use; 3. Esp. of a period of time: final, concluding, closing.

It is clear that the connotation is “ceasing to exist, function, or be in use” by the many hams who claim this.

I address this belief as to whether there is any actual evidence supporting it. Short answer? No. But the hobby itself is changing.

The problem is that there is a disjuncture between the “knower” and the “known,” a well-known philosophical issue in epistemology, going back to Descartes. What these hams “know” is based on several factors, none of which lead to an accurate reading of the larger ham radio “room.” To start, it is based on selective information about the hobby as a whole. I explain why this “information silo” yields an incorrect inference to rank-and-file hams. The elements of how the hobby is changing are described with “best available data.” Conclusions on how these changes are shaping the commercial market for the amateur radio hobby are discussed. In the end, the reader may disagree with my conclusions. I would welcome objective, observable evidence to the contrary as my motivation is simply to better understand the hobby but here is my assessment for my recent consultancy.

Is amateur radio dying? Short answer? No. But the hobby itself is changing.

Selective Information

The widely held perception of the pending “death” of amateur radio comes from a selective set of observations that focus almost entirely on the Baby Boomer generation. This is the bias of one’s “personal windshield” as the basis of knowing.

Here’s what I mean. Driving an automobile to and from a work location, for instance, gives a clear sense of the immediate area of residence, the place of work and the typical route(s) from one to the other. But only during specific times of day when that travel is routine. It rarely gives a complete picture of the communities themselves. For example, freeways cut through neighborhoods without any visibility of them or any inclusion in one’s recollection of what is there, except what is visible via the windshield of the automobile. Contrast this with the use of an aerial view through, say, Google Earth, which allows one to visualize far beyond what the daily drive can allow. This personal windshield view is largely taken-for-granted as observable fact, based on personal observation. This is difficult to challenge by independent facts. But they should be. I do that now.

Collectively, we hams look at hamfests and formal print/digital publications and see mostly elderly hams, members of the Greatest Generation or the Baby Boom. Some, but few, young people. These sources of information largely sample elderly hams since these are festivals organized and managed for the most part by Boomers themselves. (This is what statisticians call a “convenience sample” which doesn’t generalize to a wider population but is valid within the limits of the observations themselves.) The post-Boomer generation participants are geared toward digital media, especially Youtube and such, and are not likely to be nearly as present in conventional print media. Or at a hamfest. (The ARRL has recently been waving its arms editorially to balance this. It has not had much effect in my personal windshield. Has it yours?) Hence, the “personal windshield” suggests that the hobby must be in the process of expiring as is the Baby Boomer generation itself. And that view is powerful at a personal level.

Why This Interpretation is Wrong

This perception is patently false based on independent data, while it is likely very accurate for hamfests. How can a hobby be dying when there are more licensed hams than ever before, some 780,000, according to the FCC? Annual FCC amateur radio license growth is generally 1-2% per year. This out-paces overall population growth in the U.S at 0.5 percent. There are also over 20,000 “repeaters” (think cell towers for ham operators) in the U.S. today (21, 611 as shown on RepeaterBook.com as of a recent check). Each one is installed and maintained at considerable expense by the individual ham or group owning the repeater system. This expense is not trivial. Thus, ham radio numbers are continuing to increase in absolute terms and exceed the rate of general population growth. See Figures 1 and 2 shown below. But why is there the perception of a “dying” hobby in the face of these objectively counter-intuitive indicators? It’s the power of the personal windshield in operation.

There are other social forces at work here, too. The political scientist, Robert Putnam (see Bowling Alone), characterized the social fabric of the U.S. in recent times as declining in social capital, our social connections with each other, promoting the ability to make collective decisions for the benefit of the group. From his group’s website:

Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century to show that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We’re even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. Putnam shows how changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women’s roles and other factors have contributed to this decline.

The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all “social networks” [who people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [“norms of reciprocity”].

Social capital works through multiple channels:
– Information flows (e.g. learning about jobs, learning about candidates running for office, exchanging ideas at college, etc.) depend on social capital.
– Norms of reciprocity (mutual aid) rely on social networks. Bonding networks that connect folks who are similar sustain particularized (in-group) reciprocity. Bridging networks that connect individuals who are diverse sustain generalized reciprocity.
– Collective action depends upon social networks although collective action also can foster new networks.
– Broader identities and solidarity are encouraged by social networks that help translate an “I” mentality into a “we” mentality.

How does this matter? Here are some factoids from the Bowling Alone website, as trends over the past 25 years:

• Attending Club Meetings: 58% drop
• Family dinners: 43% drop
• Having friends over: 35% drop

Have anything to do with the hobby? Uh, have you been an officer in a local club or attended a meeting lately? Indeed, it does!

For the U.S., membership in the largest organization purporting to represent amateur radio exhibits a clear “bowling alone” pattern: there are more ham operators than ever but also a sharp and continuing decline in the American Radio Relay Leagues’ membership as expressed as market-share. See Figures 3 and 4 (see the footnote about latest provisional numbers). Looking only at ARRL membership numbers, for instance, would suggest that the hobby is not doing well. This would be a false reading of the actual strength of the hobby and the market it represents. While there has been a significant growth in the number of FCC-granted amateur licenses, the market share of the ARRL has dropped like a stone since the long-time executive leader Dave K1ZZ was named Chief Executive Officer. (These data do not include the past two years in which there is a significant additional drop in League membership after the controversial print QST cost increase.) Looking only at the market share of the ARRL alone would seriously under-estimate the strength of the market for commercial equipment and services to licensed ham operators. I’ll add that only listening to largely inactive repeaters is another brick in the “bowling alone” wall. Thus, the hobby is far more than ARRL membership or repeater use but these are clear indicants of the change afoot in the hobby itself.

[Author's note: the latest provisional membership number I've been given is 137,000, some 15,000 of which are international members. These charts have been updated in recent articles on this blog.]

Any objective reading of the public sphere of ham radio would suggest that at times the League itself represents a dumpster fire of poor organizational performance (just peruse the voluminous posts in various Forums at QRZ.com). (Note: I am a Life Member and an Assistant Director under two Delta Division Directors.) But what is behind this decline in market-share? Could it be the decline in social capital in general, but exacerbated in the hobby by ineffective League operations? This factor affects local, regional and national clubs, too. Here are some thoughts about it and they complement my recent article which goes deeper into the organizational issues.

More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. There are more licensed hams than ever before but so few of them are members of another league: the ARRL, National Association for Amateur Radio.

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

The long time question of ARRL’s lack of transparency, except to “insiders,” contributes a restricted information flow about the hobby. From the Headquarters outward, I liken this communication style to a general message of: We are the ARRL…and You’re Not. It reduces social bonds with the League and shuts off bridges that build consensus toward collective action. The MyARRL Voice organization is a direct repercussion of this abrasive communication style by League headquarters.

This stance by leadership and some staff reduces norms of reciprocity, such as when the League calls on members (and non-members at times) for assistance. It reduces the capability in the hobby of effective collective action towards any change heralded as positive by large groups of amateur operators. Examples: when dues are raised and publication prices are changed; for lobbying activities; for recruitment; and other key social actions. The lack of mutual aid in the form of bonding networks (the lack of actually facilitating hams with similar interests in formal ARRL activities) or bridging networks (those who volunteer but are routinely ignored because they are not “known” by HQ staff or have criticized the ARRL in the past). The lack of women or persons of color in many groups is a reflection of this lack of bridging networks to bring them into the information flow that feeds the collective culture of the hobby.

The OMIK organization is an historical example of an independent group formed when active bridging networks by the ARRL could have supplanted the need for it. From the OMIK website, the organization’s own story:

The OMIK Amateur Radio Association, Inc. was founded on August 17, 1952, as the OMIK Electronic Communications Association by Black amateur radio operators from the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Kentucky to deal with discrimination in the dominant culture and to assist Black travelers with information on places where they could safely eat and lodge. Many ham organizations denied membership to Blacks. Therefore, black amateur radio operators needed a Black Amateur Radio organization with its own nets and other activities.

There are many examples of the lack of both bonding and bridging networks created by the ARRL, whose official description is: “the national association for amateur radio, connecting hams around the U.S. with news, information and resources.” The ARRL is the only organization that claims to represent all of amateur radio in the U.S. (Note that it largely controls the IARU so there is also an international influence by the League.) AMSAT, an international organization, suffers from similar organizational effectiveness issues here in the U.S. (internal strife that often spills over into the public sphere). There are others but these two suffice to illustrate my point.

Clearly, social capital in the hobby is at a low ebb, with the group claiming to represent the hobby at large being a critical actor in this decline. 

Clearly, social capital in the hobby is at a low ebb, with the group claiming to represent the hobby at large being a critical actor in this decline. For a national non-profit with a paid staff who relies heavily on unpaid volunteers, these actions reducing social capital appear to be related to their market share decline. As Putnam described in his highly praised work, the decline of social capital reflects an important social change. But not “death” of the hobby itself.

To further illustrate how the view of U.S. amateur radio as “dying” continues to be perpetuated, we consider who dominates the hobby. By this, I mean who has power to influence what goes on, what major decisions are made, and how are federal regulations that proscribe the hobby’s being shaped? Is any “change” readily confused with a sign of “death” because it is different from this dominant group’s preferences? I wrote earlier about the “secret storm” approaching amateur radio contesting in the U.S., a sign of a cultural change riding alongside the generational demographic shift in the decline of Baby Boomers. If a dominant group is aging out, then that view carries significant weight in perceptions. Let’s try to describe who they are.

The population comparisons for current ham operators and national organizational membership does, in fact, show this Baby Boomer dominance in League membership. We do not know the age of licensees themselves, only those who hold membership in the ARRL. We do know age patterns of licensees in the UK, courtesy of Ofcom. This age pattern is present in both the US and in the United Kingdom. See Figure 5. Membership in the ARRL has been concentrated in age groups over age 50. Most of the leadership falls into this age group as well. This presents another element giving credence to the personal windshields of hams who fill in the blanks when relevant data are not publicly available. The League’s resistance to release any data that they may have to the public merely exacerbates this dependence on merely personal observations alone.

To examine those who are in key positions to influence the League’s actions, consider two elements. Both are available in the Annual Reports of the ARRL. 2022 is the most recent report available on the ARRL.org website, although 2023 has been released during the writing of this article. One, look at the picture of the Board of Directors and other officers (see page 21). Based on subjective appearances, there appear to be very few under age 50. Only three who present themselves pictorially as women. Only one is a person of color and she is no longer a Board member. Two, the major donors are in the Maxim Society Donors group (see page 23). These individuals, couples or organizations have given $10,000 or more over their lifetime. I have not tried to identify the ages of these individuals. A best guess is that the vast majority of the individuals or couples are also over age 50. But I could be wrong. It is safe to say that members of the Baby Boomer (or perhaps Greatest) generation(s) have more political clout in League matters than any other group.

With Baby Boomer dominance in the League, and likely in local clubs and other positions of power, viewing the changes associated with age tend to be interpreted as “death” rather than simply social change. The organization and ways of doing things (culture) is slipping away in noticeable ways. While we need to know much more about the spatial demography of amateur licensees, this pattern itself suggests that what we see in society overall, we see in ham radio. In other words, the dominant group’s view is proffered to be the correct one. At least, in the group promoting itself as the national association for the hobby in the U.S.

But, not so fast! Let’s further examine strategic activity spaces where this decline is already appearing in the hobby. Activity spaces are the concept that describes the collective actions of routine behavior that effectively define the fabric of the hobby itself. Contesting is one specialized activity that is prevalent by Board of Director members and Maxim Society donors. Individual contest (and DX) clubs can be major political actors with donations and other means to sway the ARRL. Changes there could be a canary in the coal mine of cultural change in the hobby. Changing generational demographics is a pressure toward change in the hobby’s organization and market segmentation, but not necessarily death. It just seems like it to those whose activity space is changing out from under them.

Baby Boomers have an expected 10-15 years left in the hobby as of this writing. The participation by hams in contesting illustrates this pattern. See Figure 7 for where the past two decades of contest participants are located, near most population centers in the U.S. and Canada. Based on 20 years of ARRL Sweepstakes data on individual participants (log-submitters), the map below tends to follow the license distribution across North America.

The results are not positive for typical CW contest participants, perhaps the most traditional activity space in the hobby. There are about 10-15 years left in the viability of this market segment.

Using these data on individual participants in the ARRL Sweepstakes Contests, I’ve estimated their age-based mortality schedule. The results are not positive for typical CW contest participants, perhaps the most traditional activity space in the hobby. There are about 10-15 years left in the viability of this market segment. Participants in the elite ARRL contests exhibit a decided pattern toward nearing their end of life or departure from the market due to infirmities. See Figures 8 and 9. The red line in these graphs are the average age at death for members of that birth cohort. About one half live less with the remainder living beyond this age. The aging pattern—the caterpillar’s hump—is moving past the benchmark of 65 in each subpanel. This is moreso for CW operators than phone. In Figure 9, the expected years until Silent Key status demonstrates the “secret storm” of CW operators substantially declining in the near future.

This is a signal event in this cultural change. It is one that the QST Editor declined to publish for it presented a “too negative of a tone,” although there were no technical limitations to the study. This intentional lack of transparency in objective research using the ARRL’s own data further degrades the social capital in the hobby.

Phone operators, while aging, are where newcomers to this ARRL Contest are entering. Thus, the importance of CW operators in the hobby, to the extent that this pattern generalizes to other contests, will shift toward phone operators. This is a signal event in this cultural change. It is one that the QST Editor declined to publish for it presented a “too negative of a tone,” although there were no technical limitations to the study. This intentional lack of transparency in objective research using the ARRL’s own data further degrades the social capital in the hobby.

No Caption

No Caption

The knee-jerk response to this “demography is destiny” impression is to chase children as the recruitment answer. This is because the origins of the hobby itself was based almost wholly on young teens and adults (see Howell, “Amateur Radio’s Lost Tribe: The ‘Blue-Collar Scholars’ Who Started It All.” The Spectrum Monitor, February 2022; available at FoxMikeHotel.com). Many Boomers got involved as teens but many of them did not. (For evidence on this from a national survey of Canadian hams, see this article.) The fastest growing segment of amateurs is comprised of “late-in-life” hams. See Figure 10. While ham licenses grow about 1+ percent per year, However, growth in the “late-in-life” ham category (those who are at least 50 years of age but only licensed 10 years or less) was an annual 2.5 percent.  (see Howell 2013). Late-in-life hams have several very desirable market aspects: peak earnings, empty nest (fewer household obligations), and disposable income. Thus, chasing children is not the only marketing strategy for amateur radio as a hobby and the Boomer segment should not be written off for well over a decade. (Note that Boomers also have grandchildren.)

Late-in-life hams have several very desirable market aspects: peak earnings, empty nest (fewer household obligations), and disposable income. Thus, chasing children is not the only marketing strategy for amateur radio as a hobby and the Boomer segment should not be written off for well over a decade.

Changing Organization Due to Demographic Shifts

As noted above, the emergent market for amateur radio lies in HOW ham radio’s activity space is changing. In social science, the activity space designates the “set of places individuals encounter as a result of their routine activities in everyday life.” (see Cagney et al.) Hams writ large do not consider how much the technology is driven by the organization of activities. Ever wonder why one’s CQ call is not answered even though propagation conditions are good? Contests are perhaps the purest example, containing dates, times, frequencies, and rules of competition. EmComm via ARES is another example with rule books, exams, meetings, and random meetings during times of emergencies. Satellite communications depend on the relative passing of particular satellites over locations on the Earth. There are others but the “activity space” concept is a central one to the hobby of amateur radio, much more than is formally recognized in ham radio publications and books. Getting an answer to one’s call of CQ is very different when there is a contest on the calendar, regardless of the propagation conditions.

Hams writ large do not consider how much the technology is driven by the organization of activities. Ever wonder why one’s CQ call is not answered even though propagation conditions are good? Contests are perhaps the purest example, containing dates, times, frequencies, and rules of competition.

For amateur radio, the highest status activity has been “contesting” and “DX chasing.” Compare the publication and website space devoted to these two activities, a sign of status-allocation. The ARRL and numerous other groups organize competition—which are part of a purported “radio sport”— where operators compete for the most contacts. Certain contacts with other participants are worth more than others with elaborate rule-sets for scoring. These are contests. Chasing DX (distant stations) is hunting but for stations in geographic locations that are challenging to contact (not unlike some fishing competitions, for instance). This activity space has been the dominant high-status arena in the hobby for decades, generating its own label of the “contesting mafia.”

Consequently, wealthy hams have spent upwards of $1M or more to guarantee their success through the construction of “super stations” and very elite teams of contesters. Or, send expeditions to faraway places to get on the air so that DXers can try to contact them and therefore “work” the rare location. These activities tend to cost increasing amounts, much more than most hams spend in their career on personal equipment. But as the technology required for being successful to accrue to status symbols of winning major contests has made it possible for fewer hams to accrue these status symbols, it has made it especially difficult for those who are members of younger generations to compete on any type of equal footing. Contest organizers have tried to “handicap” this structural inequality through classes of competition so as to maintain participation levels. But, contesters also know which porch the Big Dog sits upon. Just listen. You’ll hear them barking.

The Cheese Has Moved

Migration and housing patterns have land-use restrictions constraining traditional “high status” activities (e.g., contesting and DXing) requiring towers, high RF power, space, and time to operate. Because of the relatively small number of relatively well-to-do amateur operators who can build (or get access to) super stations, there has been a radical shift in activity space from high-cost, relaxed land-use restrictions, to portable, QRP, and modest satellite operations. These can be conducted in backyard patios, nearby parks, and in temporary vacation or other locations without many issues if the activity space to support them is organized. This organization is fundamentally no different from contesting or DXpeditions.

The cheese in ham radio’s activity spaces has moved intergenerationally…

The activity space of operating in parks began in 2016, by the ARRL I hasten to add, and has continued with phenomenal growth by a third-party after the League washed it’s hands of the NPOTA activity sponsorship. As of June 2019, “parks on the air” (POTA) operators had recorded more than 538,000 contacts. Started by a small group of U.S. volunteers in 2016, POTA now boasts 1,500-plus registered users and has continued to grow at an unprecedented rate. Why? Because it is an activity space in which any licensed ham operator can succeed.

A second activity space that is rapidly growing is satellite communications. The AMSAT organization says that there are at least 20 satellites in orbit that facilitate amateur radio communication. Almost all US astronauts on the International Space Station are licensed hams, since it is a “social media” for them during their off-times which in space. In 2019, there were over 130,000 members of the AMSAT organization. (I am an AMSAT Life Member.) The growth in satellite use by hams is a second activity space that is seeing increased market focus by manufacturers and hobbyists. Why? Because a wide variety of amateurs can participate successfully in working Sats!

Using data from a national survey of Canadian hams by the Radio Amateurs of Canada, Figures 11 and 12 illustrate this path of how the “cheese” has moved generationally in certain patterns of activities. We do not have similar data for the U.S. Canadian Boomers are more frequently using traditional activities while younger hams engage in new ones. This does not directly represent “death” of the hobby that Baby Boomers practice but the emergence of the operational style that younger hams enjoy.

No Caption

No Caption

As a youngster in the 1960s, I vividly recall the AM operators on 75 meter phone grousing about the “mush mouths” using the new-fangled SSB. Many AM ops didn’t have a BFO on their receivers; hence, the name. What’s the latest canary in the coal mine?

The explosion of computer-assisted digital data modes may well be a similar social change rather than “death” of the hobby. As noted in my full survey report and in a previous article on this blog, contesting in Canada ranks 15th whereas portable operating is 9th in a list of activities pursued in a given month. Interested readers can see where CW operating ranks in this list. The results are not inconsistent at all in the ARRL Sweepstakes results that Dr. Scott Wright and I obtained. They are prescient indicators of cultural change on the back of demographic shifts but had “too negative of a tone” to warrant publication in the flagship magazine of the League, QST (also noted above). Somehow, an ostrich comes to mind here.

These are behavioral measures of age-graded (and generational) change in how the hobby is being pursued. Boomer hams are following traditional activity space activities while younger amateurs are helping define newer activity spaces. Boomers see death while hobbyists of a younger generation see excitement in different modes of operating. This is change afoot rather than death-and-dying as perceived by those with the most tenure and influence in the hobby.

Boomers see death while hobbyists of a younger generation see excitement in different modes of operating. This is change afoot rather than death-and-dying as perceived by those with the most tenure and influence in the hobby.

Market Presence of Monetized Youtube Channels Focusing on Amateur Radio

If the hobby were dying, would there be an online monetized media segment developing around it? Would some hams claim that this is their sole source of earnings? Not likely. Certainly, those hams do not see evidence of the hobby’s passing. Rather, it is a new, innovative venue for the creation of entertainment content for the ham community and the commercial sector, the latter of which often invests donated equipment for review to these hams. A sampling of popular video channels on Youtube reveals that younger content creators are surpassing the estimated subscriber base versus those in the Boomer generation. See Figure 13.

Two of the most popular channels produced by members of the Baby Boom generation — Jim Heath W6LG and Dave Casler (who is a contract employee of the ARRL) — have subscriber levels and views much lower than many younger content creators. Two of the largest ones, Ham Radio Crash Course at 300,000 subscribers and Ham Radio 2.0 at 153,000, far exceed those produced by Boomer-age creators. The largest one is mostly technically-oriented: Mr. Carlson’s Lab at 371,000 subscribers. (One can debate my allocating him to the “young” group.) These revenue data are estimates and are used for illustration. The fact that the revenue numbers are estimates based on the source’s use of the Youtube algorithm for monetization does not change this group’s presence in making money off of content creation in the hobby. The monetized Youtube arena demonstrates a clear and strong presence that is a more effective way to reach younger amateur radio operators and those who wish to become licensed than print media like QST and the recently defunct CQ Magazine. It seems to be growing whereas print media is not. It would be inconsistent with a hobby space that is in the throes of imminent demise.

General Public Interest in Amateur Radio

What is the interest by the general public in amateur radio? Would a substantial decline in measure of this interest suggest the demise of ham radio? Possibly. But amateur radio has long been out of the public’s eye except during widespread emergencies. Nonetheless, examining these patterns would be useful for any dramatic patterns in this aspect of the health of the hobby. I use a form of Google’s search engine to examine amateur radio’s search patterns.

The trend in Google Searches for the term “amateur radio” (see Figure 14) currently remains fairly flat and not in decline, once the period post-Hurricane Katrina is ignored. The decline from the period beginning in 2004 arises from the central role that amateur radio played in the emergency response operations involving Hurricane Katrina and the high level of news media coverage of those activities.

The relative number of searches—a common mode for determining general public interest in a topic—has remained fairly flat since 2009, a sign that there is no reduction in general interest by the public in amateur radio. Thus, while this form of measured public interest among Internet users does not show an increase in information-seeking over time, it does not show much of a decrease either.

Conclusions on death-and-dying and living all at the same time

How is it that the hobby can be dying and living all at the same time? Schrodinger’s cat may be in the box but there’s a simpler explanation.

Baby boomers have dominated the amateur radio hobby for some decades now, obtaining positions of power in the major organizing associations, the ARRL, AMSAT, and others. The death-and-dying view of the hobby is rooted well within this dominant generation. The definition-of-the-situation, as the social psychologist W.I. Thomas famously said, is real in it’s consequences if men define them as real. Boomers have largely been the group defining the hobby for a long time. From their personal windshields, this is what they see. But it appears largely incorrect today.

We have shown that there is no empirical evidence that the amateur radio in the U.S. is dying. Far from ceasing to exist, the hobby is merely changing, and in line to change significantly over the next decade or so. These changes will cause the market to realign to new elements of activity emphasis and new activity spaces while some traditional practices in the hobby may well fade away.

The often-heard claim that any organized activity is dying is usually a sign that it is merely changing in significant ways that do not fit the definitions promoted by power brokers whose voice defines the situation. The scheduled exit of the Baby Boomer generation gives this appearance because members of this generation are in the positions of power and control in the organized aspects of the hobby. See the Board of Directors for the American Radio Relay League or the AMSAT organization as examples. Younger generation ham operators participate in the hobby differently and are engaging in a break from the activity spaces ensconced in the hands of Baby Boomers. For instance, the new World Radio League and its associated learning company, HamRadioPrep.com, tell me that they have a tremendous youth market for both companies. It is largely in the approach to the youth market. The market for amateur radio products and services is far from being in rapid decline. Astute targeted marketing using data such as these presented here, as well as new professional data collections, can guide the production and profitable sales regimes through the next several decades.

This has consequences in the hobby in several ways. More rancor and conflict, clearly present on certain common websites and social media groups, and dramatic losses in paid membership in the ARRL are two of them. One can see in the common watering-holes that post-Boomer hams and Boomers frequent are largely segregated into difference locations. The age-graded patterns of operator behavior, coupled with a serious lack of younger operators joining the gray beards in the League, is the instrumental canary in the coal mine of this generational shift. The institutional decline in Boomer-dominated groups will foster change at a faster rate.

This means that major manufacturers and resellers of gear for the amateur radio hobby will undergo some repositioning of products. For instance, take a look at the past five or so years in products for portable operating. It is substantial, fostering the emergence of many cottage industries of small portable radios and accessories specifically designed for outdoor operating. The rise of the premium transceiver has focused on the market segment willing to spend several thousands of dollars for a prized, well-featured transceiver. As the Baby Boomer market declines, this market segment may well change, too.

Should the number of FCC granted amateur licenses go into significant decline, would that then mean the hobby is dying? Was it viewed as dying some 20-30 years ago when there were far fewer hams? From the 1970s onward, the number of licenses grow at a fast pace (see table from the Clear Sky Institute above). Should they plateau to the population adoption rates of, say, 1980, that would not mean death of the hobby. It would mean change and perhaps in ways that younger amateurs would see as positive and beneficial. (“OK, Boomer. Time to move over…”)

Perhaps ham operators should recognize that their personal windshields are comfortable and useful but not very good for grand generalizations like the hobby is dying. Yes, an activity space that is well known as “hamfests” are attended mostly by Baby Boomers. Some will die off due to both lack of attendance, sales by vendors who do not get their needed return-on-investment for attending, the aging of hams who organize and operate them, and fewer in the market to go to them. Some already have. Hanging out on Discord servers, Youtube interactions, Zoom group gatherings, and online ordering will likely replace them as well as make them not “periodic” but in near real-time. Print media will evaporate due to cost, storage and lack of interest but interactive digital media will offer more and better information to readers. Remember those aggravating “mush-mouth” SSB operators? They rule today. Who will define-the-situation tomorrow?

There was a time that the American Radio Relay League was the dominant organizer of amateur radio in the United States. In fact, at their 50th Anniversary, the ARRL General Manager John Huntoon made this statement:

“In May, 1914, a small band of radio amateurs led by the late Hiram Percy Maxim, of [Maxim] Silencer fame, and Clarence Tuska, started a national organization and named it the American Radio Relay League. Since that time the story of amateur radio has been the history of the League, the chronicle of amateurs working together for the public welfare and for their common good.” (Huntoon 1965).

John Huntoon. 1965. “Forward.” Fifty Years of ARRL. Newington, Connecticut: American Radio Relay League.

They may still be as this is written. But with the dramatic and continuing drop in market share in the League’s membership over the past decade, corresponding to when the long-time administrator at ARRL Headquarters David Sumner was named Chief Executive Officer, coupled with the palpable and escalating displeasure of a significant majority of licensed amateurs with the National Association, it is hardly the case that the modern story of ham radio in the U.S. solely belongs to the League’s public relations department. This decline also contributes to the Baby Boomer impression of the hobby’s death: wasn’t it largely invented by Maxim and the League in Newington, CT?

Indeed, as I documented in my 2021 article, “Amateur Radio’s Lost Tribe,” it was Clarence Tuska who actually taught the “novice class” Hiram Maxim and his son about the wireless (for an audio version of my article, listen to Episode 363 of the ICQ Podcast). Tuska did it with the parts purchased from Hugo Gernsback’s Electro Imports company in New York City. But the League has no coverage of the first person, Hugo Gernsback, to nationally organize operating wireless enthusiasts in these United States in any of their publications, for it diminishes their claims that amateur radio is what they say it is. This precipitous decline in market share is coupled with the current ARRL CEO’s claim that there are only about 250,000 “active” U.S. hams so their 175,000 137,000 or so members contain the vast majority of them. The Emperor’s Clothes could well be vanishing.

This is change afoot, not the hobby’s demise, for that history will be written by the generations coming after the Baby Boomers. That may not involve the American Radio Relay League.

Progress involves change. Those vested in the status quo rarely see these changes as progress but death. It rarely is. I can find no evidence that ham radio is dying. So, I will return to the beginning.

Amateur radio is not:

• at the point of death
• in a dying state
• close to collapse
• ceasing to exist, function, or be in use
• in a final, concluding, or closing state

The change is largely institutional. There are more activity spaces in the hobby now, organized outside the auspices of the ARRL, leading to other groups shaping and defining what the “history” of amateur radio will be in the future. The demographic decline in the Baby Boomer generation will fuel this transfer of stakeholdership from the National Association for Amateur Radio to a number of others. The emergence of so many cottage companies who offer exciting products into the market is likely to grow. The largest manufacturers may well continue their success but in the market segment who will invest thousands of dollars into equipment that they are able to fit into their residential constraints. This is change afoot, not the hobby’s demise, that that history will be written by the generations coming after the Baby Boomers.

The only thing that would mean the death of the hobby of amateur radio would be if Congress and the FCC abolished the legal service.

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.“

Wizard of Oz (1939)

This line from the classic movie, Wizard of Oz (1939), largely tells the tale of this article. The sidebar statement to the audience revealed that what was actually going on if the audience was astute enough to see it was not what was being presented to the audience in the play itself. Social scientists use this metaphor to describe organizational behavior as “front stage” (intended to be seen by the audience) versus “back stage” (not intended for the audience).

It is this distinction that I focus on in this article. I illustrate how the current voting options for League members just don’t elect hams to positions with the power (rather than authority) to effectively represent them in ARRL actions, policies, and service. I suggest one approach to resolving this problem by arguing that it’s the organization rather than “bad” hires. I outline a significant change in voting options that will force the League’s leadership to be responsive to members for they will then actually elect leaders with the authority and power to serve them. Or face shortly being unelected as part of the political process of a constituency voting. Finally, term limits would keep new blood in leadership positions which will reduce the estrangement between the League’s service and those they say they serve.

“In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.” Now-retired ARRL HQ Staff Member over lunch at a Five Guys restaurant to Frank K4FMH

My belief is that members left partly because of changes in QST, both in content and the disputed contract of printed copies associated with pre-paid multi-year memberships, and partly due to the frustration of their concerns just falling on deaf ears for a long period of time. A thorough reading of social media and website Forums will clearly make this case to all but those who have their heads in the sand. My sense is that the QST debacle was the proverbial straw and camel issue.

I’ve characterized this stance by the ARRL toward the marketplace in years past by using a paraphrase of the old Saturday Night Live news anchor, Chevy Chase, as Newington’s collective message to the members. All too often it’s: We’re the ARRL and you’re not. As I noted in a previous article, I had a now-retired League staff member haughtily say in my presence that, “In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.” That perspective, unfortunately, has been present in the culture of the ARRL’s Headquarters at least since their 50th anniversary. Chickens have to roost somewhere. They may well be coming home now.

Current ARRL Status in the Marketplace

In the past several blog articles, I documented how the membership of the League has dropped like a stone. If we accept what the ARRL’s CEO says are the reasons, it’s that hams who are not members just aren’t “active” hams. Unless you think that Canada is another planet instead of a previous Section of the ARRL, evidence from our friends north of the border shows that just is not supported by national survey data. Read the 2023 Annual Report and we are told that 75% of all new Technician licenses are “inactive” within 12 months. Assuming they joined the League upon licensure, is that the cause? (I show that it’s not very likely that they did but I’m just giving them the best possible scenario.) But, alas, they can’t or won’t produce the study cited in their Annual Report. Unless the reader, like many in ARRL management, have their heads in the sand on observable data, the ham radio market is doing just fine, thank you. But the League is simply not serving them as so, so many licensed hams want and need them to. After all, their slogan is the National Association for Amateur Radio.

After interviewing a number of American Radio Relay League staff at HQ as well as current and sitting Board members over the past few years now, I learned quite a bit about the lines of power being played out behind the curtain of the official organizational (authority) chart in the public-facing page at ARRL.org. As we will see below, these are the power relationships that stretch behind the “front stage” lines of authority, although it’s the latter that precipitates the fundamental sources of the today’s mess. I’ll explain in detail below.

None were willing to go on record for quotation right now because of reprisal fears for them (or their partners). Some did commit to a public interview in the future should leadership change. The reader would be highly surprised if they knew who in the organization talked frankly about the "inside baseball" of League management in recent years as some publicly appear friendly to the current regime at ARRL. They all say they just do not approve of how the main office, and the venerable League itself, is being managed.

If you’re a reader who can’t deal with investigative journalism ethics like this, turn your browser to another website. (As The Smoking Ape says on his Youtube Channel, go watch some cat videos, lol.)

We will need to cover the “front stage” of what the League presents as the organization and lines of authority before we get to the “back stage” of informal power relationships. I know, boring, right? But important nonetheless. I then produce a sociological assessment of what I see based on my decade experience as a volunteer “flunky” in the Delta Division, fleshed out by my discussions with key actors, frequently “in the room” when power relationships actually determine what the League does. Many of the existing Board, Officers, and key staff will do backflips to show how this analysis is wrong. But my perspective is from the member’s view and their vested interests, not those of the Board, Officers or HQ staff. This nearly always puts those in positions of authority on the defensive. You decide from your experience how accurate my analysis is. Some Board members who privately do not like the autocracy have said it’s spot on…but don’t quote them (yet).

The ARRL Okey Doke In the Organizational Chart

There is a key difference between authority and power. The League officials will focus on authority in the organization chart they make public whereas I will emphasize power relationships:

“Authority is commonly understood as the legitimate power of a person or group over other people…the terms authority and power are inaccurate synonyms. The term authority identifies the political legitimacy, which grants and justifies rulers’ right to exercise the power of government; and the term power identifies the ability to accomplish an authorized goal, either by compliance or by obedience; hence, authority is the power to make decisions and the legitimacy to make such legal decisions and order their execution.” Wikipedia

There is a wide gap in how the official organizational chart says the League operates relative to members and the power relationships that actually make decisions affecting the membership.

To a sociologist, organizations have formal (organization chart) and informal (routine behavior) lines of power, authority and processes for entry into official offices, such as President. Note that the power to control activities may or not be legitimately authorized by the organization itself. There is a wide gap in how the official organizational chart says the League operates relative to members and the power relationships that actually make decisions affecting the membership. Now, this is based on information I’ve gathered through interviews, whether completely reliable or not, but they paint a consistent picture. My professional analysis of a organization as a member has put this into a schematic framework that fits that picture. Bear that in mind. As I noted above, how good of a fit is it for what you have experienced?

My focus is on how members fit into the chart to have an adequate “say” over League matters as reflected in the “back stage” arena. The official organizational charts, narrative text about positions, and such will stand on their own as the “front stage” of the ARRL. The reader will largely see why so many former members just gave up in frustration in recent years. The old saying, “you can’t get there from here,” seems to apply in that what members can vote on leads to little or no authority to enact policies, practices, or actions desired by the members. It’s because the “man behind the curtain” is insulated from any short-term actions by those elected to represent members and their desires for League action.

The old saying, “you can’t get there from here,” seems to apply in that what members can vote on leads to little or no authority to enact policies, practices, or actions desired by the members.

Formal League Organization

Bear with me for a moment on this section as it is important to see what the front-stage in the play is presented to the audience of members.

The ARRL website has a listing of the “organizational structure” of the League. It also has a page for Officers in ARRL. There’s a Field Organization page as well. If you’ve not done so, it’s worth reading. Carefully. Just don’t assume you know what the authority and duties of a position name entails without careful reading, such as the President.

Here’s an excerpt from the Officers page:

Note that the President mainly presides over Board of Directors meetings and is the “face” of the ARRL to several external audiences. Members have no direct say in who the President is because, unlike most other associations, they do not get to vote for this position. This person does make Standing Committee appointments. These Committees are the bowels of the League’s bureaucratic machinery. Issues can move quickly or stay for years, backed-up in Committees. We will see how this movement is shaped below through informal power of the CEO. The President has a cascade of Vice Presidents who manage various tasks. Most come back to the Board for consideration rather than direct action. At times, the CEO just does things without formal Board authorization. The reader might think that the President of an organization is the proverbial Big Kahuna: the boss, leader, chieftain, or top-ranking person in an organization. Not so fast! S/he is not. This is very different from a majority of peer national associations leading amateur radio.

Let’s continue exploring the issue but it has been this way since 1926 (see this PDF file). Remember, the basic organization of the ARRL was established to facilitate regional message-passing (the “relay” in the ARRL), not to be an optimal organizational structure for a national hobby association (international when Canada was an additional Section). If anything, the ARRL is culture-bound, fossilized as some of it may be for today’s amateur radio, and continues myths to promote its importance.

Here’s where the okey doke begins. The CEO rules the headquarters staff and, by this, has the greatest direct effect on the membership experience. Members vote for their individual Division Director who has a seat on the Board of Directors. However, Board members can’t individually change anything except in unison. And they are stymied by infighting coalitions and a desire to become President one day. Remember, a member does not vote on all Division Directors, just one!

The Board selects the President and other Officers, including the Treasurer. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is technically “elected” as a formality (after actually going through the hiring process) to be a paid full-time employee of the Corporation. It’s typically for a multi-year contractual period, currently remunerated at $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721 per annum) according to the latest IRS Filing. Here’s where the okey doke begins. The CEO rules the headquarters staff and, by this, has the greatest direct effect on the membership. It’s technically under the “direction” of the Board.

But let’s work through that power relationship between the CEO and the Board of Directors. There’s usually a multi-year contract so unless a Division Director elected by constituent members can get enough other Board members to agree, the CEO can literally thumb his nose at a given Board member’s directions or suggestions. But they aren’t actual “directions” unless the Board officially acts on them. A Division Director can just spin and spin while pushing some policy but unless the full Board decides to act, it’s just that: arm-waving motion. And constituent members just wait. Remember the old phrase, when all is said and done, much more is said than done? Little comes out of it in terms of rapid action to solve some membership problem. There are some nominal exceptions, of course, but this is the routine pattern of behaviors. The Section Manager can just email the Field Services Manager. If an SM goes public with criticism of HQ, I’m told by one or more Board members that the CEO starts discussions with the Division Director about the need to replace that SM. Either way, the Section Manager volunteers for the corporation, with almost no power to do anything but simply ask Newington and reference the Division Director.

I want to emphasize that this narrative should not be interpreted to mean that I do not think that Division Directors or Section Managers do much. Officially, DDs are booked with the IRS at 10 hours per week on the average. Section Managers are not listed in the IRS filing for average effort on the corporation’s behalf. From my experience in the Delta Division, both of the DDs I have served as an Assistant Director spent many hours in meetings, phone calls, working emails, and on the road attending hamfests. My SM has served decades in that elected office with a similar workload. While each gets a travel and operation budget, I do not get the sense that it’s very large, certainly not enough to cover actual expenses. They do a lot! But they just do not have the authority, and certainly not the power, to directly effect change at the League HQ except by request. And this is part of the okey doke in the ARRL organization itself. It’s not necessarily the fault of the individuals serving in either of these elected positions! It’s the organization.

I want to emphasize that this narrative should not be interpreted to mean that I do not think that Division Directors or Section Managers do much...They do a lot!

Recall that the President and other Officers are elected by their peers on the Board. I’ll wager that every Division Director at least thinks about becoming ARRL President. Playing the long-game of “being nice” to competitive peers may provide that opportunity but it doesn’t bode well for quick change to benefit members. Moreover, as identified below, each single Board member has no direct power over HQ policy or actions. None. (Show me the money if I’m wrong.) Please note that some HQ staff do work hard to serve members but not all of them. If they are on the naughty list of the CEO, they may leave when they retire and not a single person speak to them as they exit the building because of the informal power relations at work at Headquarters.

I’m told by Board members “in the room” (Zoom included) that the CEO has argued for a change such that new Board members would be just appointed at the behest of the CEO. Afterwards, Section Managers would simply be appointed, too. This all on the predicate of getting individuals with the “best fit” of credentials and skillset. There is an Ethics & Elections Committee that “vets” candidates for fitness-to-serve in an elected position. Corporate loyalty, not representing the interests of members who elect them, is the political third-rail for the organizational okey doke. I was not a direct party to this discussion but it’s been confirmed by enough people with direct knowledge that I do believe it. Whether the reader does it up to them. I am just reporting a relevant set of remarks that outline the current power relationship associated with the Chief Executive Officer position in Newington. The reader will not see this in the public-facing organizational structure.

Let’s directly examine the organizational management chart, as published on the League website:

One sees how HQ is formally organized, all leading to the CEO. There are eight departments, ranging from Operations to Product Marketing & Innovation, in addition to the CFO and assistant. Quite a management load but note the Director of Operations (now vacant due to a separation with the most recent employee, I’m told). Hmm. That person quarterbacks the operations on an daily basis. What does the Chief Executive Officer/League Secretary do? A lot, I suspect. We only know what he tells us. His monthly columns in QST tell us quite a bit.

But he said in his October 2021 QST column, for instance, that “I enjoy starting every day with a coffee and a tour of the social media outlets that feature ham radio, from Facebook to Twitter to Youtube.” A CEO has gotta keep up on that social media! Like many CEOs in the corporate for-profit space, thinking deep thoughts gleaned from Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book or planning a contesting trip to a super-station in the Caribbean with fellow ARRL Officers or staff does immerse the CEO in the culture of contemporary amateur radio. That’s important, right? He has the authority to schedule his time as he sees fit. But there’s an income stream that can be tied to a for-profit CEO’s actions like this. Is there for the non-profit dues-and-donor-driven ARRL? The Operations Manager does free-up time for those “executive” activities at an annual cost of $124,354 plus $20,980 (or $145,334 total) according to the latest IRS filing. That’s what makes it an executive position and not a manager: an executive has a Board and a manager has a boss.

It could well be than many who take issue with League actions (or lack thereof) actually care about the hobby, the organizing group leading it, and their ham radio friends. They recognize that the League is more than the personnel occupying the current positions.

The CEO title emerged late under long-serving David Sumner K1ZZ’s tenure. I’m told by a Board member and staffers from back then that it was largely done as an reward to his years of service, but indeed at Sumner’s vociferous request. Up to that point, the office was League Secretary. But now, with the CEO title, it’s become a boondoggle of struggles over who has the power to actually make policy and procedures enacted by staff at HQ. Just read social media or the Forums or read the mail on the bands.

But the CEO has publicly said that these detractors should just be ignored, largely because they are “self-interested or self-serving” in their complaints (QST, May 2024: 9). He just puts those letters into the recycle bin. The reader can evaluate the context of the CEO’s comments. It could well be than many who take issue with League actions (or lack thereof) actually care about the hobby, the organizing group leading it, and their ham radio friends. But, make no mistake, the choice to publicly redress those who disagree with your management comes from the insular bubble of a CEO that does not face election directly by the membership.

Up to that point, the office was League Secretary. But now, with the CEO title, it’s become a boondoggle of struggles over who has the power to actually make policy and procedures enacted by staff at HQ.

The CEO has a Chief Financial Officer (with an assistant) but this person does not have the usual and customary stated requirements to be an accountant by training or a CPA. This is another surprise in the organizational chart. Anyone, say a history teacher, could become CFO of the ARRL. This person is compensated $200,734 plus $36,017 (or $236,751 total) in additional monies, coming in as the second highest paid employee by the ARRL according to the latest IRS filing. One doesn’t have to be a CPA to run a good spreadsheet but there are usual and customary practices in financial management for a reason. Knowing the fiduciary responsibility to keep secure backups of League finances instead of just relying on a single company laptop is a mere example. One never knows when a hack attack will occur. There is, however, an outside auditor to examine the books for the Annual Report to stay out of trouble with the IRS tax-exempt designation.

Readers should be aware of these formal organizational lines of position and authority. After all, dues are paid and civic engagement to the National Association is warranted, right? But let’s turn to those power relationships that go beyond the boxes-and-lines themselves in the “back stage” arena of the ARRL.

Informal League Power Relationships

Let’s see the voting and power relationships in diagrammatic terms from insider reports and my perspective as a sociologist. (Bear in mind that this is an educated interpretation.) Some of the narrative from above feeds into this articulation of what power relationships factor into this chart. Confidential Board member comments tell me that I have the gist of it.

I’ve put a legend for where members vote and for what position in blue, as well as the voting ability of those elected by members. From those positions, I’ve identified reported power relationships in red. Where there appears to be formal, but weak, authority, I’ve labeled those links in pink.

From just a moment’s study, the reader can quickly see that the two positions that members currently vote for have little to no power to unilaterally affect actions, operations and service at Headquarters! Individually, they can ask but they cannot tell. Members, both current and former, have posted legions of stories on social media and the major amateur radio websites about their frustrations over this. But do not look at the man behind the curtain for it is the okey doke of the CEO’s power rather than authority. Publicly criticize what’s going on behind the curtain and you’re an irrational detractor out for your own fame and glory, says the CEO! (“Second Century,” QST, May 2024: 9). Could it also be an amateur who loves the hobby and the dominant organizing association who sees poor service and is actively commenting to help change it for the better? For many such “detractors,” I believe that it is.

Every two years, members elect a local area official to manage the ARRL Section, or a Section Manager (SM). Most members think that the SM represents their interests and can “go fight City Hall” on their behalf. Wrong! As I noted above, many (like mine) may try but, in practice, SMs themselves are managed by the Field Services Manager in Newington who reports to the CEO. A recent internal battle has resulted in there being a weak line of authority from the Division Director (and BoD member) and each SM in the Division. In practice, most SMs just answer to the Field Services Manager. My SM, Malcolm W5XX, is the longest serving SM in the League but he is largely told, in essence, to “shut up and dribble” on most matters. (My words based on his comments, not his.) The CEO says Section Managers live in different worlds of governance than the Division Directors (see his October 2023 QST column) so they should report to “his” Field Services manager. He makes the claim that the “law” makes them corporately loyal to the ARRL Inc., even though they are directly elected by dues-paying members. Finally, he says they are the “leaders” of the Field Organization, even though he has a Field Services Manager to “manage” them. Okey Doke.

From just a moment’s study, the reader can quickly see that the two positions that members can vote for have little to no power to unilaterally affect actions, operations and service at Headquarters! But do not look at the man behind the curtain for it is the okey doke of the CEO’s power rather than authority.

Likewise, every two years, members elect a Division Director (DD) who sits on the Board of Directors. Each DD has an associated Vice Director who is also elected, often as a slate for a given Division. In practice, this authority is met with weak power to get things done at Headquarters. Why? The CEO has placed an administrative “firewall” between Board members and staff at HQ. See the barrier in the chart above in orange. The Board used to meet in Newington which necessitated communication with staffers on constituent matters by Division Directors but the CEO moved the meetings to posher locales, like Hartford. Don’t worry about your Director’s out-of-pocket expense. It’s covered by his or her travel budget from ARRL. That helped short-circuit face-to-face communication with staff except via the CEO. A Division Director can go through the Standing Committee structure to influence some change. A little lobbying by the CEO, who is a non-voting member of each Committee, and things sort of go how he wants, I’m told by multiple people in the room. Power, rather than authority, the key to the okey doke.

Even if a program is passed through the Standing Committee(s), the CEO can just slow-walk it to death on staff implementation. I’ve watched an approved proposal for club-library map on the League website as well as an ongoing national survey program that I got my Division Director to work through the Standing Committee(s) get to the CEO when he put them in the recycle bin (see his May 2024 QST column on this). The Board did nothing to “direct” the CEO otherwise and they have simply gone into the CEO’s infamous recycle bin. So I’ve witnessed this power relationship myself as well as had it confirmed by Board members and staff. There are numerous other examples but the point is illustrated for the reader.

Even if a program is passed through the Standing Committee(s), the CEO can just slow-walk it to death on staff implementation.

This communications firewall, I’m told, has placed the CEO into an insular bubble allowing him to ignore any requests from a single Board Member should he wish as long as he has enough Board cronies who will not buck his wishes. This prevents any single Director from getting the necessary vote for a given issue to be approved. The CEO may ignore any detractors as he described in his May 2024 QST article and encourage staff members to just ignore members who criticize a policy or action. There is no recourse for members, except to not renew their membership. The recourse for Board members is to go along to get along. For, one day, they too might become President.

These are some of the mechanisms by which the CEO position wields power that outstrips the official lines of authority. There are several. Effectively, the ARRL HQ is a status-dispensing vending machine. Become a public detractor and there will be informal sanctions emanating from the CEO’s power relationships. Appointments to positions in the field services or committees, requests to HQ, and other matters may be delayed or denied for detractors who get on the CEO’s naughty list. All these have been said to me to be true, as a few examples. I am only a direct party to one of them. Did he threaten a detracting blogger with contacting his employer, ostensibly to get him fired? Is there an informal “do not publish” list for QST, managed by the “Four Horsemen” as a member of the review team calls them, for detractors of the League? Did the CEO or his subordinate direct the ARRL VM program to not send a letter of Part 97 noncompliance to an explicitly offending Youtuber for hawking products in his online store while on the air because he helps raise money for the League? Are other services made unavailable to those who offer up nattering nabobs of negativism toward the League? I am only directly privy to one of these events but some people who are do not like this unethical behavior although they feel powerless to prevent it without repercussions. These are some of the informal power mechanisms that stretch beyond the formal organizational chart of authority. The status-dispensing machine will be out-of-order for detractors of the League.

Effectively, the ARRL HQ is a status-dispensing vending machine…The status-dispensing machine will be out-of-order for detractors of the League.

As readers who have been hams for awhile have witnessed since the retirement of David Sumner K1ZZ as (then newly titled) CEO, the Board-CEO relationship has continued to be stymied with this okey doke organizational structure as have (former) member experiences with some staff at HQ. However, I do not see it as only “bad people” at work. (Well, maybe in a few instances.) It is the organizational structure and process that hires individuals from career paths that are ill-suited to non-profit leadership where member service is the prime directive. With this structure, member service was not the prime directive, although there are indeed hard-working individuals at HQ who do render great service to the membership. (I’ve had the privilege of interacting with several of them.) This chart that I’ve created is the embodiment of that ill-fitting organizational structure with power dynamics that serve “executive” worldviews rather than “non-profit management” viewpoints toward service.

I do not see it as “bad people” at work. (Well, maybe in a few instances.) It is the organizational structure and process that hires individuals from career paths that are ill-suited to non-profit leadership where member service is the prime directive.

Note that the President, elected not by members but by the Board, is mainly an emissary to the CEO with Board directives. S/he has no power to require their execution but largely the ability to pass them along. The ARRL is in the clear minority among peer national hobby associations in that members do not directly elect their Presidents. Societies in the UK, Germany, Greece, South Africa, and one of two in Australia all elect their Presidents. RAC and WIA do not, along with the ARRL. The League is very out of step with their peers in this critical aspect of governance.

The Executive Committee has direct bearing in an authority relationship with the CEO. The multi-year contract still protects the almost unilateral authority, and even greater power, over HQ staff and operations. It would still take larger Board action to compel the CEO on any matter to which he objects. This begs the question of how effective and efficient is this organization structure? If market share in memberships has anything to do with it, not very effective and getting worse each year.

Regaining Membership by Changing the Organizational Script

Many ARRL members have just not renewed and walked away. I believe that this alienation is a direct result of having the CEO position and the corporate vision that it perpetuates. Individuals hired from a commensurate candidate pool will behave similarly, although some more than others. Neither of the two positions that members can vote for have sole authority, and little individual power, to effect change that serves the membership. Social scientists have studied the withdrawal effects that alienation from individual agency has on volunteers and the ARRL’s work is driven by volunteers. The “executive washroom” conception of one executive to “run” amateur radio in the U.S. is way out-of-step with the market and present-and-recent membership. For many years, the ARRL HQ was managed by a League Secretary, then General Manager, from which David Sumner K1ZZ was up-titled to CEO. The legacy Secretary position remains as a title-appendage.

How can this dramatic membership decline be changed? I think by changing the fundamental governance mechanisms that produce it. With changes like this, the decline will most likely continue.

One key change would involve the relationship of who is elected by the membership and what power, vested through authority, that these positions have. This would increase the “say” that the membership at large would have over League matters because these individuals would face standing for re-election.

Does the League actually need a Chief Executive Officer? Or, would a Chief Operations Officer, hired from a pool of candidates with experience in the non-profit, membership-driven sector be a superior fit to the ARRL’s needs for service?

The second key change is to undo the gratuitous up-titling that was given to long-serving David Sumner K1ZZ by naming him Chief Executive Officer. Perhaps done in compassion by the Board of Directors to reward Sumner, it has been an organizational yoke around the necks of membership experience. The three successive replacements for Sumner were all hired from what I call the “executive washroom” pool of candidates who focused on being the chief executive from a for-profit corporate career path. They have all failed to lead this non-profit, membership-focused organization as witnessed in the dramatic and continuing decline in absolute membership numbers as well as market share. To continue down this path would not reflect a solid fiduciary relationship to the corporation, to parrot the legelese that is being fed to the Board. To the market of members and potential members, it’s just bad business management.

Does the League actually need a Chief Executive Officer? Or, would a Chief Operations Officer, hired from a pool of candidates with experience in the non-profit, membership-driven sector be a superior fit to the ARRL’s needs for effective service delivery? Note that the current expense for both a CEO and an Operations Manager is $494,055 in the latest IRS Filing. A half million dollars. To put it in perspective, this is what about 8,373 members would pay for membership in the League in a single year (divide $494,055 by $59 annual dues = 8,372.8).

The revised organizational chart with voting and authority lines would accomplish the objectives of giving members significantly more “say” in League matters, issues, and operation. It would also substantially nullify the insular bubble by the top person at HQ.

Here’s the gist of the new script.

• Replace the CEO with a COO hired from the non-profit sector.
• The President and other Officers would be elected directly by the membership.
• The Executive Committee would stagger three Division Directors into the mix, a new one and one departing each year, producing a three-year term for each, with the President as Chair.
• Division Directors would continue to be directly elected by their constituent membership every two years.
• Section Managers in the Division would continue to be directly elected every two years but would now report to Division Directors but be served by Field Services at HQ.
• Institute Streaming of Board Meetings (excluding employment or legal matters) with non-sanitized Board meeting minutes available to every member within one week after each meeting.
• Institute an annual “bottoms-up” evaluation survey of the membership on their interactions with ARRL Headquarters, conducted by an outside party.

Replace the CEO with a COO hired from the non-profit sector. This person does not have to be a licensed amateur radio operator but could become licensed after employment. There is precedent for this (current Director of Publications & Editorial Department, Becky W1BXY, and others). This person would not have “executive” authority but would be a manager of the HQ staff and operation. The key here would be making the President as the executive officer, who would chair the Executive Committee. The COO would report directly to this Executive Committee but would work with each Board member as needed to solve problems for members in each division or Section. The COO would serve on consecutive one-year contracts, hired by the Board. This would facilitate change in the membership service mission of the HQ staff and the COO. While the current CEO just says ignore the complainers, that is simply ignoring what the membership is trying to say, even if it is done in a less than civil fashion. It is the key issue driving membership loss today.

The President and other Officers would be elected directly by the membership, similar to the majority of peer associations, for a two-year term. The President would have succession ability upon re-election for one additional term. The lifetime length of service would be a maximum of four years (or two terms). Other Officers would also stand for direct election by the membership, with parallel service limits, as is the case with many other volunteer membership societies. This would produce movement through this singular executive leadership position, making it open to any member who could stand for election. This will also have the effect of greatly reducing the internal jockeying and political intrigue of the Board of Directors.

The Executive Committee would stagger three Division Directors into the mix, a new one and one departing each year, producing a three-year term for each, with the President as chair. A simple random selection of those eligible could initiate it from the current Board members, staggering the terms appropriately. Should a Division Director serving on the EC not be reelected, another would be appointed by the President to finish that DD’s unfilled term. This committee, chaired by the President, would oversee the COO and the HQ operations on a continuous basis. I could foresee weekly meetings by Zoom of this group. It would, indeed, be more work but this would keep it from being a “title collection” to hang on the wall in the shack. (I’ll simply ask the reader if there’s anyone like this among their local club’s officers.)

Division Directors would continue to be directly elected by their constituent membership every two years. Section Managers in the Division would continue to be directly elected every two years but would now report to Directors and be served by Field Services at HQ. No need for Newington to “manage” SMs other than the routine flow of information. The latter would not have any authority (or power) over Section Managers as it is today. This would increase the interest by rank-and-file members of the League in Section service. Division Directors would work directly with the COO and HQ staff on constituent issues, monitored by the Executive Committee. This does not have to be like the Rules Committee in the U.S. Congress.

Institute Streaming of Board Meetings (excluding employment or legal matters) with non-sanitized Board meeting minutes available to every member within one week after each meeting. Part of the pay no attention to the man behind the curtain charade currently in existence is the highly sanitized Board Agenda and minutes available to the membership. There is no reason for Board meetings to not be live-streamed to members-only except to hide from voting constituents how Division Directors vote and other pertinent officials participate in the meetings. One cannot be transparent by being opaque.

Institute an annual “bottoms-up” evaluation survey of the membership on their interactions with ARRL Headquarters, conducted by an outside party. As a Professor, even after I received tenure, every class I taught was evaluated by enrolled students. I didn’t always like it but it made me a better teacher. An annual evaluation survey of the membership is not difficult to institute through a third party. It is a standard part of formative evaluation research to provide an ongoing tool to improve service delivery to customers, which in this case, is members for the most part. It is common in non-profit settings as well as in many corporate environments. They are usually conducted by outside parties for the same reasons of integrity that independent auditors check the books for the annual report. The results will be professionally summarized with performance metrics and available to members within one month after the evaluation period ends.This will be an instrumental means of helping the ARRL better serve its members. It would be a necessary change along with direct membership voting on the President, other Officers, Division Directors, and Section Managers.

Conclusions

This article is a good faith effort by a professional who has been a consultant to organizations with management issues serving their members, customers, and their market. There would be kinks to work out but my point here is that the long-standing organization of the American Radio Relay League is the problem. I hold no animus to those occupying the positions of authority. They are put there by the system in place. But it is past time to change that organizational chart and how things work in Newington. The canard of “corporate loyalty” to ARRL Inc. as required by Connecticut law is a key part of this okey doke to prevent Division Directors, Section Managers, and Officers of the League from representing the membership. I’m told by other lawyers that this is a misreading of the financial fiduciary elements of the corporate law in that State which is being used as a power relationship by a cabal in office now. The Ethics & Elections Committee, which the President appoints, is the bureaucratic instrument through which that canard is implemented. A straightforward solution IF this interpretation were true would be to move the ARRL Inc. out of Connecticut to another state without such asinine loyalty oaths. But cutting the head off of the organizational snake that is the Chief Executive Officer position is the critical start.

Do I believe that the ARRL Board would even entertain this proposal? Not a chance in Hades. I’m not writing this article to the Board or Officers of the League. It’s written to the marketplace of members (of which I am a Life Member), former members, and potential members. I believe that this outlines the crux of why former members have left in droves and why many are so irate about it. Leaving is clearly their option which I endorse. I also advocate those who choose to stay and demand change in the organizational structure. It’s unclear how best to do that. I’ll explore some options in future articles.

Those employed in Newington are not the only ones who care about the hobby we share or the idea of the American Radio Relay League…League employees are not the League itself as their public relationship system likes to say to us. I hope readers who share those beliefs will work to change what we are getting from the ARRL. That may require drastic steps, including more shrinkage in membership, and competition in the services they provide to members, to push reasonable Directors to see the road ahead.

Let me conclude with the admonition that my writing is far from based upon being irate with any person in the ARRL management, as the CEO has publicly stated most detractors are. Board members will, likely behind closed doors (and email systems), berate and ignore what I’m saying here. Some may even quote things in Latin! There are peers among them who do not like that behavior. To use a frequent phrase by attorneys in letters on behalf of their clients, I am neither “shocked” or “amazed” by the Board, Officers or Staff at HQ calling me names and such. One even called me up and cursed me out a couple of years ago because I asked a simple question on the ARRL Youtube Channel. Nothing was done for that behavior toward a Life Member and volunteer staff, except he got a raise.

Those employed in Newington are not the only ones who care about the hobby we share or the idea of the American Radio Relay League. I became a Life Member and have spent over ten years volunteering for the League’s activities because of that sentiment. League employees are not the League itself as their public relations system likes to imply. I hope readers who share those beliefs will work to change what we are getting from the ARRL. That may require drastic steps, including more shrinkage in membership, and competition in the services they provide to members, to push reasonable Directors to see the road ahead.

No, not really. Here’s actual evidence…

In a previous article, I quoted current ARRL CEO David Minster NA2AA from one of his monthly Second Century columns in QST. I’ll reproduce it below:

“We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.”
CEO David Minster NA2AA, QST (March 2023: 9)

Let’s take Mr. Minster at his word at first but also look his words carefully.

“Lion’s Share.” What does that mean? We hear hyperbole quite a bit in common parlance these days. Example: GOAT is the greatest of all time. (No one even mention Michael Jordan or Lebron James, ok?) In common usage, it is more glorified smack-talk than a concept that is defined, much less measured for systematic comparisons. (Apologies to the sports statistician students from my courses over the years.) The Chief Executive Officer’s monthly column in QST should be taken more seriously than water cooler talk, no? This is certainly the case since the ARRL has tax-exempt status from the IRS, whose guidelines say they should be truthful and transparent in statements to their donors (and members). As the Chief Executive Officer, his public words matter for they speak for the company.

Here’s what this phrase means:

If a person, group, or project gets the lion’s share of something, they get the largest part of it, leaving very little for other people. Collins English Dictionary

This means he is saying the vast majority of “active” hams are League members. The converse is that only a minor, irrelevant portion of “non-active” hams are members of the ARRL. It’s a rhetorical term without a numerical meaning. But for rhetoric to be successful in an argument, it must have the weight of convincibility which is largely evidence-based. So vast majority means much more than 51 percent which is a simple majority. Another argument is “The greatest part of something, to the point where alternatives are nearly irrelevant in size.” We will just proceed with Minster’s usage as reflecting some proportion which leaves the remainder as irrelevant in size.

Now, let’s wrestle with the oft-used phrase, “active ham,” to which Minster prefaces with radio, or “radio-active.” Unless we have some clear understanding of what this word means as well, then Minister’s claim can be whatever he wants it to be. Hams use it with their own, mostly unspoken, meaning. For example, a nearby club that I’ve been working with to regain their nearly dormant footing in Vicksburg has claimed the slogan of “VARC: Radio Active on the Mississippi River.” (They actually have the state’s only nuclear power plant just south of them in Port Gibson, MS but that’s not what the slogan refers to.) A dictionary definition references acting or capable of acting or currently in operation, in effect, in progress and so forth. It is one or more behaviors, for sure. But which ones and how much does it take to be considered “active” in the hobby? Every ham would have an opinion, of course, but we need systematic observation of amateurs’ behavior to better determine how to conceptualize activity in the hobby.

Active is “acting or capable of acting or currently in operation, in effect, in progress and so forth.” Collins English Dictionary

For the CEO of the ARRL, it means that a ham who engages in one or more of these unspecified amateur radio activities has a paid membership in the League (including Life Members like me). As I pointed out in a previous article, CEO Minster does not show any data, cite any studies (be careful of just citing a study as you might not actually have one), or go beyond the rhetoric of “we know in Newington” thus and so. Do we just take him at his word since HQ knows stuff without the transparency of how they know the stuff the CEO says they do?

Fortunately, we don’t have to. Our neighbor to the north, the Radio Amateurs of Canada, conducted a very detailed national survey prepared by Paul Coverdell VE3ICY with data collected in 2021. It covered all hams in Canada, including both RAC members and non-members. In fact, about 21 percent of all respondents were NOT members of RAC. When RAC President Phil McBryde VA3QR asked me if I would analyze the data for them, I did with the full report here. Paul VE3ICY included over 30 specific amateur radio activities as well as the time spent on them. Unless one thinks that ham radio operators in Canada are fundamentally and exceptionally different from those in the U.S., these are by far the best data on specific measures of ham operator behaviors. (Ok, Canadian hams do appear to be nicer, on average, but this is just my experience!)

Conceptualizing active ham operators

The scientific problem is that there is no recognized concept regarding being an active ham. Imagine trying to measure the impedance of any antenna without the concept? Couldn’t you see the morass of Youtube videos with a myriad of “meter measurements” that go all over the place except the places where the concept of impedance should take them? Sounds silly at first to those not well-read in the philosophy of science but how should we conceptualize ham activity?

Minster writes and speaks as if it is a light switch: either on (active) or off (inactive). Does it make sense to think of active or inactive hams only that way? If we asked two hams if they are “active,” each might say yes. Delving further, the first one might just be an ARRL member and really read QST every month. The other might be an ardent EmComm operator, participating in several weekly Nets and activating for emergencies with a local ARES team. And be an ARRL member. Are both “active”? Well, they say they are because each refers to a different standard of reference in doing so. It seems much more theoretically beneficial to conceptualize ham operator activity as a dimmer switch, or on a continuum rather than an on/off dichotomy, especially since the “off” of absolutely no activity has no internal variation while the “on” of some activity can range dramatically. I explore this distinction with these national survey data. The reader will see that there is quite a bit of variation within the “on” part of Minster’s dichotomy!

In my report to RAC on their 2021 national survey of Canadian hams, I analyzed the 32 specific operating behaviors. (Each is listed there for your reading so I won’t reproduce them here.) It’s clear that activity as directly measured by asking hams themselves if they do specific things varies quite a bit. I’ve excerpted Figure 2 from the report below. The average number of activities in a given month is about nine (9). These range from one (1) to twenty-nine (29). Quite a bit of variation. A dichotomy conceptualization of activity would not characterize these observations very well. Not a lightbulb turned off or on but a dimmer that varies greatly and shines rather bright if you’re doing a couple of dozen activities during a month!

It’s important to recognize the potential “sample selection bias” that truncates the distribution on the left (i.e., the truly inactive hams, those that would score zero here, may not be adequately represented in the survey). I’m not sure that this is different for non-members and members but we simply do not know. We will see if there are any differences in those in the survey who are not very active below. Given that these are the very first national sample data on specific operator behaviors, the results make this question pale by comparison to what we do learn from them.

In the right panel, box-and-whisker plots visualize how each age varies in total number of activities. The median number of activities (illustrated with the black line in the box itself) does not diminish that much with age. The small set of teens in the sample to make that group pop up in number but the overall distribution shows that middle age hams have small segments who really, really get involved in a diverse set of activities.

To emphasize the key here, the notion of being an “active” ham is best thought of as a continuum from an external, objective viewpoint. This allows for us to see how amateurs themselves say they behave instead of us individually recounting just what we see on a daily basis. This externally objective conceptualization is a canon of science. Water cooler hyperbole per se is not very useful to understand things from a scientific perspective.

Is Measured Ham Activity Related to National Association Membership?

If being a member of RAC, and by inference, ARRL, contains the lion’s share or “vast majority” of active hams, then this distribution of the total number of activities, and the time they spend on them, would show marked differences for members and non-members. It might show that measured years of self-defined “being active” would also be different, too. Wouldn’t “radio active” hams know they are active since we now have specific measurements on that activity? Let’s see. Here is the total number of over thirty specific activities reported by hams in Canada, separated by RAC membership. The box-and-whisker plots illustrate the distribution of each group. I’ve annotated the display for readers unfamiliar with this data visualization technique.

There is less than one average activity difference in favor of RAC members in comparison to non-members (means of 9.55 vs 8.81). This difference is likely to be non-zero (p = .006) in the population but substantively it is very small. The medians, shown in the boxes as black lines, are exactly one activity different (9.0 vs 8.0). The percentage of highly active and very lowly active hams are very similar for both RAC members and non-members. Finally, the general shape of the two distributions of amateur radio activity is almost identical. The capstone comment is that imagine all of the differences among Canadian hams in this survey in measured operator activities (see previous histogram). Of all these differences in activity, only 0.6 percent is due to membership in their national society! Less than one percent.

The total number of activities is one aspect of ham operator behavior. Another his how much time do they spend on these activities? Surely, an operator spending much more time on an activity is more “active” than one who spends less, right? Combine these for all activities since some hams are more pluralistic in their enjoyment of the hobby than others.

I’ll compare those data for members and non-members now in the boxplots below. Notice in the top panel that the raw numbers of total hours are bunched around the medians for each group. But the median hours spent in ham radio activities are actually higher for non-members (41.0) than members (35.5)! This equates to about 1.4 hours and 1.2 hours, respectively, in a 30-day month. Recall that the median (50th percentile) has one-half of the respondents below and above that point. The mean score will be influenced by very high or low scores. Each group has them (shown as the symbol * in the boxplot). Perhaps League members are more highly active hams as Mr. Minster alluded to in his QST editorial column. Not really, as the means for members (93.26) and non-members (120.19) still show that Canadian hams not in RAC report higher levels of activity than do members.

Because of the skewed distribution in the raw number of hours per month (small share of highly active hams in each group), the lower panel uses a log form of the number of hours reported. This gives the reader a clearer visualization of just how similar the two groups are in hours of activity spent each month. They are almost identical! To make the visual point in numerical terms, of all of the differences in hours of activity, only 0.2 percent is associated with RAC membership. Almost zero.

In the full Report, I combined some of these 32 specific activities into meaningfully similar indexes, such as EmComm, Competition (contesting), and so forth. Perhaps it is only among some activities that national association members gain this “lion’s share” of active hams. Let us see briefly.

In the set of six panels above, I’ve assembled comparative boxplots by RAC membership. Only one shows any differences for members and non-members: competition, such as in contests and DXing. None of the other activity indexes are any different by membership status.

Individual activity comparisons by RAC membership are detailed in the final report but do are not inconsistent with the stark lack of differences by membership status shown here (i.e., not favoring either one). Perhaps it is the contesting and DXing segment of ARRL membership that is most on CEO Minster’s mind when he asserts that the Lion’s share of “radio-active” hams are League members. That would be the only finding here that is in line with that viewpoint. I try to explain why this might have some influence on him in the final section.

Is the Scope of the Amateur Radio Career Where Membership Makes a Difference?

To give CEO Minster’s assertions every chance to be validated, perhaps his statement may be accurate over a longer duration of time. Like nearly all such surveys of behavior, the scope of time being referenced is a recent month. Would national association members be licensed longer or have a greater share of the length of their license tenure being “active” as they defined it? Would the temporal duration during the ham radio operator’s career better fit the “Lion’s share” description by CEO Minster? Fortunately, we can examine the RAC Survey 2021 national dataset directly.

As described in the Report, I have taken the measurements for years licensed (or tenure) and self-defined years “active” to make the following comparisons for national association membership. I’ve taken the difference (i.e., License tenure – years active) to compute a percent of the length holding an amateur radio license has been spent being active. I’ll call this the percent of active years since obtaining a license. It can range from zero to 100 with two-thirds reporting one hundred percent. This metric gets at the career aspect of being “radio active” rather than just a recent snapshot of ham activity. This variable cannot be more than 100 percent so it is truncated on the higher end. The two boxplots below demonstrate that there are virtually no differences in career active status for national association members and non-members.

Another nuance to length of license tenure and self-defined active status career is illustrated in the scatterplot below. This is simply the years active plotted by length that a license has been held. RAC membership status is denoted with different-colored circles as shown in the legend. Not surprising is the positive relationship: the longer the license tenure, the longer the ham reports being active. But note also that this is not nearly as high as many hams like to think it is. It’s the same regardless of RAC membership status (compare the two R-squared coefficients for similarity: .146 vs .144). The clustering of small circles at the zero point illustrate hams that have continuously been active. Note that the left axis means more years of inactivity (tenure – active). The more one is from the vertical axis reflects less activity since licensed. How different are RAC members from non-members in whether they’ve been continuously active? I’ll examine that next.

Using the data on “100 percent active” or not and membership status, the following crosstabulation answers this question. There is at best a three percent difference in “always active” status. For a survey sample, this is not a statistically significant difference (p = .303, ns) and thus the only observed differences are simply random fluctuations.

The time scope of the ham career also does not reflect any statistical differences, much less a Lion’s share.

What Can We Conclude About the Lion’s Share Thesis?

The recent statement by ARRL CEO David Minster NA2AA in his monthly QST column said that the Lion’s share of “radio-active” hams are indeed members of the League. This means that those hams who are not League members are a small, irrelevant segment of those hams who are “active” on the bands. He offered no data or other reference to this statement, simply that it is well-known, for some time, in Newington. As the CEO of a tax-exempt corporation, his public statements have greater weight than mere idle chatter, like that the reader may encounter at a hamfest. Indeed, IRS official guidance requires tax-exempt charities who solicit donations to be both truthful and transparent in their public and official statements to their constituents.

This led to my analysis of RAC 2021 Survey data on over 30 specific ham activity behavior to determine if there are any noteworthy differences between RAC members and non-members in this national survey. I demonstrated that the notion of being an “active” ham is best thought of as a continuum from an external, objective viewpoint. It is not useful to think of amateur radio opeartor activity as simply being a dichotomy like a light switch. Rather, the data show that there is a very variable continuum of activity.

I found almost no evidence supporting CEO Minster’s statement in his QST Second Century column. In this analysis, I tried to give every opportunity to find any area that fit Mr. Minster’s stated “Lion’s share” thesis. To cut to the chase: The single result that reaches statistical significance in favor of members was very small in practical value, less than one percent difference owing to RAC membership. It was one more activity per month that RAC members say they participated in versus non-members. The time spent in those activities was actually higher for non-members. The shapes of each respective distribution, even for the total number of activities per month, were nearly identical, further evidence of the similarity of members and non-members. All other metrics showed virtually no distinction between national association membership and non-members in Canada.

Specific areas of activity were also identical except one: Contesting and DXing where RAC members were demonstrably more active than non-members. Remember, RAC was born out of being a Section in the ARRL and modeled their governance organization in a parallel manner. If we assume that the US amateurs are generally similar to Canada, could this be what is shaping the CEO’s view from Newington?

It’s often heard that the “Contest Mafia” rules Newington by donations, serving on Committees, and becoming Directors. I’m not sure how empirically true this is but several prominent contesters have said this to me, sometimes in jest, but the idea is a real thing at minimum. Is Mr. Minster’s worldview of amateur radio in the U.S. heavily shaped by “radio-active” contesters and DXers who have higher influence in Newington? He has identified himself as avid contest participant (see QST Second Century column, November 2021: 9) and, rumor has it from some involved, enjoys organizing contesting trips outside the country with some Board members, Officers, and staff members. Thus, identifying closely with a smaller group might explain his statement and it presumes the same membership effect would hold in U.S. data. Clearly, from his column in September 2021’s QST, he has been influenced directly by a few power brokers:

Nearly a year ago now, I received strong feedback from a few important members; these were members who play an important role in our community or who were large donors. The messaging was consistent and clear: they were not happy with where the governance of ARRL had strayed. They weren’t asking me, they were telling me: I had to make it one of my top priorities. And I have.

A casual perusal of the call signs that place in the top echelons of various contests and highest on the DXCC Awards lists will also show many who are donors to the League, attaining specific mention in the Maxim Society: “ARRL is fortunate to recognize a group of individuals whose extraordinary generosity continues to support the organization at leadership level.”  It may be a stretch to make this connection but it is the only membership effect I found in all of these comparisons of activity by membership status.

Is another explanation of Mr. Minster’s “Lion’s share” thesis just a reflection of how he manages an organization? Remember, he says he comes from a lengthy career in the jewelry industry. Things are highly inflated (average mark-up for retail is 250-300%) and made to look bright-and-shiny in jewelry stores. Ever wonder why lights are bright and spotted toward the display cases? This is so as to make diamonds, gems, and other jewelry sparkle. Perhaps the CEO mis-spoke because of his career history in jewelry where bright-and-shiny promotions are the norm?

I have no idea if the Contest Mafia connection or the jewelry management background has anything to do with how far off the CEO’s statement is from recent (2021) national survey data from Canada. I’m stretching here to make sense of how wrong his column could be on this, unless they have convincing national U.S. data that they will not release to the public. And that may be at odds to the IRS guidance to tax-exempt non-profits since it intentionally lacks transparency to members.

Whether it is based on social influence from being a contester, politically influenced by powerful donors, or just a Machiavellian strategy to ignore the half-million licensed amateurs in the U.S. as not relevant to the existing League’s interests, it is just incorrect with respect to the only data on the subject that is in the public sphere.

A reader would have to argue that hams in Canada are demonstrably and fundamentally distinct from hams in the U.S. to wholly reject these results. Is there any evidence to that effect? Well, when the National Association for Amateur Radio, the ARRL, does not release data they say they have, and upon which they seem to make factual claims, we have no counter-factuals to this analysis based upon representative data from Canada. So, no there isn’t.

There is no other way to put this, based upon CEO Minster’s original statement and the results of this thorough analysis of national data on Canadian hams. If this is a “Lion’s share,” then it is a very small kitten indeed.