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.

In this episode, we join Martin Butler M1MRB, Chris Howard (M0TCH), Martin Rothwell (M0SGL), Frank Howell (K4FMH), Bill Barnes (WC3B) and Leslie Butterfields (G0CIB) to discuss the latest Amateur / Ham Radio news. Colin Butler (M6BOY) rounds up the news in brief and the episode's feature is In The Grid.

We would like to thank Walter Washburn (KT0D), an Anonymous Donor our monthly and annual subscription donors for keeping the podcast advert free. To donate, please visit - http://www.icqpodcast.com/donate

• Ham Operator Must Pay in First-Responder Interference Case

• Georgia Club Donates Radio Books to Local Library

• Year-Long Special Event Celebrates Britain's Railways

• Parker Solar Probe 'touches' the Sun

• Deadline Extended for ARRL Foundation Scholarship Applications

• Straight Key Month

• HamCation POTA Meet-up

Suitable for the urban fox 

From the January-February 2025 SARC Communicator

My power supply was an 18 volt 5.0 Ah Lithium-Ion Battery (Makita BL1850b) feeding in the Drok Buck Converter to reduce the voltage to 7.4 Volt for the Radio and that voltage was also perfect to feed the Arduino Uno as it has a 12 volt connection with its own regulator to supply 5 volt to the board.

~The Silver Fox VE3BQM

A special event station from The Netherlands

This is an HF activity on January 23 from PA25MC, which will be on the air for just one day to introduce Marines to the world of ham radio. They will try to use as many HF-bands as possible on SSB. They remind us to please remember that Amateur procedures are new to them, but will do everything to get them up to speed quickly. 

Marines are used to speaking English but naturally keep their communications short. The organizers would really appreciate it if you contribute to a successful event by connecting with them!

PA25MC is organized and supported by PI4VBD, the club station of the Royal Army. Their station will always comply with the user regulations and regulations for radio amateurs and has no military function.

 On Wednesday it was time to see if I could uphold a New Year's goal I had set for myself. Each Wednesday is the CWops Mini test for 1 hour at 1300 and 1900 UTC. I have been taking part in this weekly event for a few years now. I found it greatly helped me increase my confidence with higher speed code, becoming more familiar with my N1MM+ keyboard commands and building on my hearing the code and moving that to typing it. 

 
The code speed in the CWT's as they are called on average goes from 32wpm to 36wpm. There are times when your pushed and speeds can rise to 40 plus. I have always searched and pounced for contacts during this one-hour mini-contest. There have always been these apprehensions to run or call "CQ CWT". The mini-contests are always very well attended and these ops have an excellent grasp on CW. In the past, I have tried for a short while to run and it has been a lacklustre event for me from plan nerves and getting from ears to brain to keyboard flustered. I found once this happens things go downhill for me very fast. I then in defeat go back to search and pounce. I have been practicing over the past year with code contest programs, I have been very active in CW contests running and now it was time to commit to running in the CWTs. During the morning CWT at 1300 on Wednesday I warmed up my ears, and brain and searched and pounced for about 15 minutes. Then it was time to find a clear spot and send out "CQ CWT VE9KK". Unlike in weekend CW contests when I ran this time I felt a bit nervous. You never know the speed someone is going to come back to you at. I am perfectly fine with that as I want to improve and if you send "??" or part of a call they will slow down and all is well. 

In the 1300 UTC session, I ran for 20 minutes and actually, I was very surprised it really went off very well. Sure I did ask now and then for a repeat, had a typing breakdown due to nerves and now and then hit the wrong macro key sending the wrong message. In the 1900 UTC session, I ran for 30 minutes and it was better but as I was in the swing of things we had a power outage! 

Looking back I did ok and better than I expected, I am very glad I took the plunge and I know over time I will get better and the nerves with calm down as well. Now I know some readers will think "What is the big deal". That is very true but for me, it is like I am playing High School football and was picked up and placed in the NFL. In my humble opinion these ops are the cream of the crop when it comes to CW contesting and to be honest I find it intimidating. But one week down and 51 more to go or thereabouts!

Corporate annual reports can be real snoozers to read. Unless you have a specific interest in the contents. A high school teacher once used a similar analogy as I tried to stay awake in her class which was just before basketball practice. History is boring. Unless it touches your life! If you’re a licensed ham operator, this story possibly does touch your life. For non-profits, annual reports, if issued, are most often a fiduciary document, not just something dashed out for informal consumption. In short, you should be able to trust what financial information is reported.

That’s actually a legal aspect of being a non-profit, especially if it receives tax relief on income and donations under the IRS Code 501(c)(3). (Not all non-profits have status under this part of the tax code.) This commitment to trust is part of the determination that the IRS makes when it issues a Ruling on a non-profit corporation petition for federal tax relief. Seriously. That ruling for the ARRL came back in 1931.

The formal non-profit requirements are not as clear when it comes to non-financial statements such as factual claims made in an annual report. But the IRS makes it clear that non-profits receiving tax relief under the tax code should be publicly transparent: “By making full and accurate information about its mission, activities, finance, and governance publicly available, a charity encourages transparency and accountability to its constituents.” I was President of a small non-profit for several years, fortunate enough to have a fellow ham attorney who handled these matters weekly as my Secretary-Treasurer. We recently closed the corporation since it had fulfilled its stated mission. We never issued an annual report. Thus, I have personally been through the process. Non-profits are not required to do so but they must file Form 990 with the IRS annually, in a timely matter. For the ARRL, many such filings are available here via a name search. The ARRL Foundation’s Form 990 filings can be found there, too.

Best practices in the non-profit world, however, do suggest the following if a non-profit issues an annual report document, transparency is vital. This complements the IRS quotation on best practices in the previous paragraph:

Transparency is important for a nonprofit. People want to know how trustworthy a nonprofit organization is and see the impact of the work they’re doing. A nonprofit annual report can highlight the good you’ve done, your profits, your losses, and your expenses. This can keep volunteers and investors satisfied with what they’ve helped to create. (Mosey, a compliance assistance company for non-profits).

Especially for a non-profit like the ARRL, which is a corporation with a separate Foundation that allows donors to receive some tax benefits through those solicitations, the transparency criterion is very important.

The trust that what is said in an annual report is akin to key non-required acts that the reader experiences every day. I come from three generations of bankers (my brother was the banker, I became a news journalist then college professor). There is no requirement for a bank teller to count back cash in front of the customer. None. Their bank rating by Sheshunoff & Company will not change one whit. Why do they do it, each and every time? To certify the trust that the transaction is accurate and complete. There are many other examples available but the reader gets the point: trust and veracity are paramount for a membership-based non-profit corporation that solicits donations.

This preface is useful for what I’m about to show. When I read the 2023 Annual Report, I was looking for membership numbers. But when I read the President’s Foreword, a paragraph jumped out at me.

Wow! Let’s ponder this number. Some 75 percent of Technicians just do not participate in amateur radio as soon as one year after receiving their FCC license. Before the reader fires up a spreadsheet to copy and past the simple license numbers from the ARRL FCC Licenses page, consider what this data means. Rick K5UR was referring to 75 percent of NEW licenses, not of ALL licenses. The full Technician license count is comprised of multiple elements: Total = (Existing Licenses + New Licenses) – Expired Licenses. There is no public data readily available that will identify this equation (i.e., give unique estimates consistent with the known total).*

*Moreover, the FCC mainframe ULS database is not efficiently updated to remove expired licenses when the expiration dates pass. It's an erratic thing based upon IT workload so on any given day, the ULS database for amateur radio licenses will undoubtedly contain what "should" be expired licenses but they just haven't been purged. Joe Speroni AH0A and I have downloaded the "end of year" full set of ARS licenses on or about January 1st each year to capture the EOY dataset. Joe used to maintain a snazzy website with a database backend allowing the user to generate custom tables and graphics with filters. He sunsetted that a few years ago but I got 2000-2012 from him before that occurred. I've continued to download the data each January 1st so I have a continuing series from 2000-present. They represent a consistent dataset for EOY numbers. 

But a thought experiment might be, say, 30,000 NEW Tech licenses per year. This would suggest that 22,500 would get licensed but become wholly “inactive” not later than 12 months afterwards. Imagine an active local club who works hard to get 50 new Techs into the hobby through their training and VE Testing Program in a year’s time. This would mean that only 12-13 would still be participating in the hobby a year later. Demoralizing, no?

This is a truly significant finding reported in the 2023 ARRL Annual Report so surely it was something carefully determined by people skilled in data analysis, right?. That’s what I would have assumed. It is critical to better understand this study so I needed to read it for the details.

Just knowing how being “active” in the hobby was defined and measured would be illuminating. We don’t have anything like a consensus on what this means, yet it’s used in any discussion of the state of the hobby. What were the source(s) of the data used? How large were they and how was the sample drawn? Did ARRL conduct a large random sample survey that has not been released to the public? (This is kind of a joke since they hardly ever release survey data to the membership, unlike RAC.) Will the sample generalize to some large population versus just being, say, hams in the Newington, CT area or something? So many questions that are important on this surprising result.

Yet, as the reader will see, CEO David Minster says there was not a study per se!

I sent Rick K5UR an email requesting a copy of the study cited here. So there’s no misunderstanding, I’ve reproduced the email chain below for reference. No he-said, she-said here.

Let’s see if I can summarize. The ARRL President needed some data on the state of amateur radio to frame the theme of the upcoming Annual Report which was on volunteers. The President was told something, either in person or in a presentation (he says he honestly does not recall), by the CEO David Minster concerning a surprising statistic from the Strategic Working Committee about Technician License retention. Rick K5UR publishes his Foreward in the Report as a clarion call for greater volunteerism toward new Technician licensees. Routine. Next on the to-do list, right?

A volunteer for the League (me) asks for a copy of the study since it’s really important for understanding recruitment and retention of new ham operators. And the IRS says this tax-exempt non-profit corporation should be publicly transparent in its activities as well as it being “best practices” to do so. President Roderick refers it to the CEO, who runs the show in Newington. Mr. Minster then corrects the language in the official 2023 Annual Report that there really is no study per se, only a bunch of data amassed to reach some conclusions. But, on the other hand, yes, they did put the results in many tables. OK? But the CEO doesn’t have the “non-study” set of tables or is unwilling to release them. He didn’t say. Mr. Minster points to the recently unelected Division Director Fred Kemmerer AB1OC to fork over answers to my basic questions noted in the email chain. (I get that Fred might not be in the mood for this.) As the source of this “massive set of data put into tables,” Fred AB1OC finally replies that he has nothing to add to what CEO Minster already sent me: which was nothing! So ARRL executives have acknowledged that there is not a study in any real sense but they also refuse to disclose whatever they did to reach this surprising conclusion about Technician loss to inactivity.

The result that I illustrated above should make rational donors question why they would willingly support an education or training project just to have three-fourths of the Technicians being produced take a hike from the hobby inside of a year. Put another way, how would the reader feel if their bank just said, we don’t have to count out your cash withdrawal to you…and we don’t have to explain why.

Is the reader shocked? I'm reminded of the George Bundy character in the old television show, Married With Children, who would say in this situation: Ah geez!

Many questions of suspicion come to the surface here. Did Mr. Kemmerer lose the materials? Did he or his group just not know how to conduct a quality analysis of “a bunch of data” so they’re afraid of releasing it for critique by those who have professional credentials? (Among professional researchers, this is called peer-review and is expected for every study of any significance.) Is it being angry over not being re-elected? Is it a belief that the public simply has no right to know anything cited in an Annual Report? I honestly do not know but one is forced to guess to fill in the blanks since he refused to communicate as CEO Minster told him to do.

I get that Rick K5UR got caught short with this, trusting his CEO to get him key data for the Foreward of the Annual Report which focuses on volunteers in the hobby. I’ve put together many technical documents like this and you have to rely on others for accurate information. The CEO is compensated $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721) according to the latest IRS Filing. This should be the kind of thing that he does for the President in preparation for a fiduciary Annual Report just like getting an official auditor to verify the financial books. But you must get these things right in such a public document, according to those who proffer best-practices for non-profit filings of annual reports. Rick knows this better than I as he is a practicing labor attorney. You must present accurate statements to the court and must face questions by the judge or opposing counsel. This time, it’s the court of public opinion. Since the CEO pushed it off on a former Division Director, it’s confusing. Or perhaps not. The reader can make their own determination here.

The CEO is compensated $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721) according to the latest IRS Filing. This should be the kind of thing that he does for the President in preparation for a fiduciary Annual Report just like getting an official auditor to verify the financial books. 

I’ve been involved with some key issues like this myself. My university research center years ago worked with the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) on the alternative year survey of the U.S. Senate and the House staff. When the Blue Book report, as it was called, was released, it was said that everything on the Hill ceased for 15 minutes. Why? Congressional staffers wanted to see where they ranked in compensation among their peers. When Time Magazine was doing an investigative piece on the glass ceiling in Congressional staffing compensation for women, the CEO of CMF was on one telephone line with the Time reporter and me on another. When Time would ask thus and so, CMF would tell me the question and I’d quickly run the survey data on my Sun workstation, verbally giving the CMF CEO the results for his response to the reporter on the other line. The CMF CEO was speaking to the public, in the form of Time Magazine’s readership. He had to get what he said right so he called on a scientist involved with the data collection and analysis of congressional staff salary data. That’s a fairly pressured environment to get it as accurate as possible but that’s the deal, no? And, while Time is a for-profit magazine, the principle is the same for the ARRL especially since they solicit contributions from donors.

With the CEO washing his hands of it and the expert on the ARRL Strategic Working Committee just clamming up totally, we are left to conclude precisely what the CEO’s response to me said. There was no study per se. For whatever reason, when they publish something that is unfounded, trust tends to go out the window.

Now, should the reader trust the ARRL when they publish a statement about amateur radio in the U.S.? Should donors question the veracity of what good their money does for the hobby, especially if the solicitation is based on a publicly undocumented study? (Especially since IRS guidance suggests they must be transparent on their activities.) What other statements have not actually had studies behind them even though presented as such? I don’t know. If the ARRL does not have anyone who can conduct a formal study on a topic so it produces a self-standing document, then stop saying they’ve done one. But the transparency issue is still the underlying problem. It precedes the current CEO’s tenure in Newington.

Some years ago, I requested the survey data the ARRL pays for by Readex Research to better understand publication subscribers and readership. CEO Howard Michel denied that request (even though I am technically a volunteer staff “flunky” who is a professional survey researcher) stating that the “League would lose its competitive advantage.” Who is the ARRL competing with such that they desire an advantage?

General Manager at the time Harold Kramer told me that the Readex survey was “proprietary” to Readex. That’s contrary to my experience as a survey researcher who both had clients as well as hired large survey research companies like Gallup to collect data for my research program. I called Editor Rich Moseson at CQ Magazine, whose company also purchased a survey of their readers from Readex to see if the latter’s work for them was indeed the proprietary property of Readex Research. He told me no, it was not. I then called Readex as a prospective customer and asked them the same question. Their response was the survey data was the property of the client. So the League could have easily sent the data to me, as RAC recently did for a survey they collected, so I could provide expert additional analysis to assist “my” national organization.

But why tell a volunteer who is offering to donate about $10,000 of consulting time to help the League meet its mission statement of “to promote and protect the art, science, and enjoyment of amateur radio, and to develop the next generation of radio amateurs” something that is demonstrably untrue? The five pillars are Public Service, Advocacy, Education, Technology, and Membership. Clearly, such results from a national survey would significantly contribute to education, technology, and advocacy, if not the other two. It is the League’s mission. Is it to have complete control over any and all research findings? This way, the League can make whatever claims they wish without independent challenge.

The League’s record on corporate transparency is lacking in my mind from these events. It falls far short of the “best practices” for non-profit corporations as noted above: Transparency is important for a nonprofit. People want to know how trustworthy a nonprofit organization is and see the impact of the work they’re doing. It appears to be at variance with the IRS guidelines for transparency, too. The reader will have to evaluate accordingly. A statement that is often used in data science is: In God we trust. All others bring data.