AmateurRadio.com

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.

“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.

Since the previous blog post got out and syndicated via AmateurRadio.com, I’ve had inquiries about how to go about building an effective relationship with a local library system. Some clubs have already done this but focusing on emergency communications activities. The ARRL tends to call these “served agencies.” This may be with a local Emergency Management Agency, hospitals, area Red Cross agency, or local governments. As I’ve written here before, why not think of other organizations as educational “served agencies”? That might be a good start!

Back in January (2024), I led a Forum at the Capital City Hamfest in Jackson MS on developing strategic partnerships with public libraries. We had representatives from the Madison County (MS) Library System and the Director and Vice Director of the Delta Division of the ARRL on the Panel. Here is an updated slide deck of that Forum discussion. The interested reader might use this as a jumping-off point to take the ball and start dribbling (see last slide!).

Download PDF here.

As readers of my blog have likely observed, I’ve been promoting a “served agency” partnership between the ARRL-affiliated clubs and local public libraries. I’m told by my Division Director, David K5UZ, that the Plant the Seed, Sow the Future Initiative was formally adopted by the ARRL Board of Directors in a recent meeting. I’ve had virtual meetings with ARRL HQ staff on advising them regarding technical details of adding maps, databases, and other material to the arrl.org website pages pertaining to clubs. The entire website was recently revised (again) so this is taking some time. Need I say, LoTW?

Locally, I’ve been working with the Jackson ARC in their recent formal partnership with the Madison County (MS) Public Library System to enhance the emergent “maker spaces” in that library system. Over this year in my role as Delta Division Assistant Director, I’ve been doing club development work with the Vicksburg ARC who is refocusing their activities and initiatives, including some discussions with the Warren County Public Library System, whose slogan is “We’re more than just books!” VARC is interested in partnering with them on creating maker space activities. These meetings and conversations have universally been met with a very strong desire by the library administrators there to welcome amateur radio into their programming. How can this be effected in ways that allow amateur radio to reach the two key demographic audiences of women and youth that visit public libraries at twice the rate that they visit movie theaters?

I’ve created a new but common proposed activity to be just one of several such ways to operationalize this “served agency” relationship: holding periodic “on the air” events at public libraries. LiOTA, short for Libraries On The Air, is outlined in a concept memo I’ve submitted to my Division Director, David K5UZ. I’ve posted it here for transparency. We will see if the ARRL Board of Directors takes advantage of the concept. If not, there may be other groups who wish to implement it.

Below is the spatial distribution of the 9,215 libraries in the current (2021) public library database. Not surprisingly, they follow population settlements which generally reflect the spatial distribution of amateur radio licensee locations. It’s also not a shock to know that they are not dissimilar to the pattern of ARRL-affiliated clubs. In other work for Plant the Seed, I’ve created spreadsheets by club for each Division showing for which public libraries the club is the nearest one to that library. These market areas can be used to easily identify potential nearby LiOTA sites. And, yes, POTA participants, I’ve already created an exhaustive list of public library entity numbers in spreadsheet and map format, ready for the League to use on their website for LiOTA, should they adopt the program.

Because of the targeted-marketing concept driving this prospective program, the logo I created includes a female radio operator at a library. Using control operators, getting women and young people on the air at libraries is the key metric of outreach in this program. Passive options, such as planned programs, displays or kiosks, books donated on amateur radio, club meetings, at public libraries are further means to reach this audience. But getting non-hams on the air will likely be a key. (If not, why do we use GOTA stations at Field Day?)

Here is the logo that I’ve created for the LiOTA Program. Hmm. It might look good on a spiffy tee shirt.

Here’s the brief memo that I submitted to David K5UZ. Time will tell as to it’s fate. Contact your ARRL Division Director if you support the program!

My two blog articles here from 2020 about the role that the Public Library System can play in reaching young people and women—two demographics that the ARRL says it wants to reach—have not fallen on deaf ears in Newington, CT. It has moved forward it seems. I’m told that the ARRL Board of Directors has embraced the concepts and directed the staff at HQ to implement it very soon.

My Division Director, David K5UZ, his Vice Director, Ed WB4RHQ, and Mike Walters W8ZY, Field Services Manager at ARRL, organized a video call with me last week to discuss steps to move forward with the Plant the Seed, Sow the Future program. I’ve been involved with program design and implementation for several decades via the US Department of Agriculture and state or local government. It’s a good sign that the BoD has issued a directive to the CEO in favor of this program. With all that’s been going on at the Board, I’m delighted that targeted actions like this are moving toward being implemented.

Mike W8ZY and I agreed that a map display would be a good tool to add to the ARRL-affiliated club search page. (They are re-thinking that page, too.) I’ll supply their IT staff with a file of public libraries in the U.S. and some attributes that are useful. Contact info for the Director, number of programs for youth and young adults, and so forth would allow clubs to target libraries that already have active programming in place and are near their location. But there’s more than just setting the table to ensure a meal that is well-enjoyed by all in attendance. Getting guests to the dinner table in the first place is one step! Engaging local clubs is that first step but they have to have access to the tools to make it efficient and effective for a longer term pay-off.

I prepared a memo some time ago to my Division Director, for whom I serve as an Assistant Director for the Delta Division. This memo recommends specific steps and stages for engaging affiliated clubs in this initiative. The Vice Director, Ed WB4RHQ, told us on the Zoom call how successful the Plant the Seed initiative has been in Tennessee already. Library Directors asked local ham club representatives if they would give programs at the library BEFORE hams could even bring it up! That’s a good sign.

It’s because programming for the public is the “new cheese” for library directors. I learned this while at the Board of Regents Office in Atlanta. The Public Library System reports to the college board in Georgia. I was tasked to work with the PLS and learned quite a bit about how local public libraries view their mission and operations. Programs are the key “cheese” that will move public library directors today.

Here are the steps I outlined in my member to my Director for implementing the ARRL program:

This is a recommended game plan to engage public libraries in the United States as a portal for education and outreach regarding amateur radio. Here are my bullet-point steps:

• ARRL Board declare public libraries as new “served agencies” like Red Cross, not for emergency communication but for education and outreach. This makes it an official program with a League commitment. It also means it will not simply go away when some ARRL staffer decides s/he doesn’t want to deal with it anymore. Note to the skeptic: did you realize that for years the annual affiliated clubs forms that many club officers (including me) completed and submitted to HQ simply went into a file cabinet? And that the staffer who was leaving that position intended to put them in the trash dumpster out back when he retired, saying that “nobody cares about clubs anymore”? I didn’t think you did. It appears that the HQ Field Services Staff does care about clubs now. Board action can have that effect.
• Re-introduce the $200 ARRL Library Book Set to the ARRL website. It was removed by Bob Interbitzen NQ1R, ARRL Product Development Manager, a couple of years ago as being irrelevant, right after my blog post was being circulated. It has yet to be returned as a product. Perhaps the CEO David Minster NA2AA can change that. He wants members to write him with ideas such as this so fire away: [email protected].
• ARRL make presentation at American Library Association conference in the Public Libraries Division (https://www.ala.org/pla) to point out how the League can provide a national network of STEM-related activities to local public libraries via ARRL-affiliated clubs. The ARRL should also have an Exhibitor Booth. The League’s national network of local groups and proven outreach can greatly assist libraries in the provision of STEM-related programming and activities to children and adults.
• ARRL negotiate an MOU with ALA-Public Library Division that parallels the one with Red Cross (and others) regarding emergency communications. This brokers an official organizational relationship between the League and its parallel organization for libraries in the United States. It also means that the Leagues means business in this educational outreach enterprise.
• Roll-out the Plant the Seed, Sow the Future program through Divisions (BoD members) and Sections (Section Managers) but with Field Services Staff providing technical assistance. This should be a one-year targeted effort to prevent a languishing promise to the ALA. A spreadsheet identifying area public libraries nearest each affiliated club with name, address, contact information, and so forth will be provided through the existing ARRL Field Services communication channels.
• Specific Objectives: each affiliated club create a standing written relationship with at least ONE public library in their area, negotiated through the Director of that library. This relationship must include: (1) donation of the set of ARRL books to the library that must be placed in their official holdings; (2) delivery of at least a quarterly program on some STEM-related subject at the local library by one or more club members; and (3) a display or kiosk in the library illustrating some aspect of amateur radio. This display should be changed out twice yearly.
• To maintain Special Service Club status, a club must meet these goals within two reporting years.
• Clubs that meet these goals within one reporting year will receive some reward from ARRL, to be determined. This will enhance the incentive for local affiliated clubs to engage with their local public libraries.

Imagine that if only 25 percent of the 2,850 clubs listed in the ARRL Club Search database were to negotiate a continuing relationship with at least one local public library, that would be some 712 libraries offering both books and programs on amateur radio to two key demographic groups: women and young children and adults. The 25 percent figure should actually be a lower bound of what all clubs should attain. But it would be leaps-and-bounds greater potential exposure than what the Teacher Institute can reach in a single year with class sizes in the 25-student range.

In the spirit of radio sport, avid contester David K5UZ asked, “Which Section can get the most libraries served by constituent ARRL Affiliated Clubs donating the League’s 10-book Library Set to libraries near them?” That would be a national contest indeed. One yielding a greater common good than a plaque for a single radio contest.

Now, to be sure, there are alternative versions of these recommended steps that better dove-tail with the League’s operation, the Divisions and Sections themselves. Some will say it’s too fast. But the thrust should be consistent with these ideas.

Not every ham thinks that public libraries would be an effective organization for amateur radio education and outreach. My own Section Manager, Malcolm W5XX, said that “no one” goes to libraries any more. My fellow podcast Presenter on the ICQ Podcast, Dan KB6NU, says he is skeptical. About ten years ago, he asked a staff member at a local public library in Ann Abor, MI where he lives about donating ham radio books. According to Dan, the staff member said something to the effect that if they took book donations from the local ham club, they’d have to take books from organizations that they’d prefer not to have in the library. I guess, think neo-Nazi hate material or something of that nature.

There may be others who disagree with the thrust of this Plant the Seed Initiative. But it may well be that there is a disconnect between the source of information that I’m using and what others are basing their opinion on. I’m using very high quality national data collected by the Gallup survey organization. I’m a professional survey researcher analyzing their raw data. I’ve done this a few times over my career so I think that I’ve got a very good handle on the national picture of reaching targeted audience groups. (Years ago, I designed the evaluations of the Smoky the Bear and the 4-H Programs.)

I love my Section Manager and respect his service greatly but the demographics of the Gallup Organization’s survey show that he himself is in a demographic (80 plus years of age and a man) that truly does not visit public libraries. Mal W5XX also has mobility issues and is retired from the US Corps of Engineers in Vicksburg MS, their hub of management. There are things you do not see if you are not in a position to look.

Now, Dan KB6NU does visit public libraries. In fact, he teaches ham radio licensing classes at one in Ann Arbor. I like and respect Dan as I’ve gotten to know him on the ICQ Podcast team. But there are a couple of things I can point out here about the basis of his stated skepticism.

One is that it’s a single library in Ann Arbor, not a state or the whole country. Moreover, asking a staff member who is not the Director is always more likely to yield a “no” to most questions. A Director is the go-to person in the public library space for any inquiries about donating books or other materials or coming in to give programs. Why? They have the authority to say “yes” without checking with anyone with the possible exception of the Library Board. It’s a relationship that a ham should seek, not just the act of dropping off a set of books.

A second thing is that the Ann Arbor library already has a number of amateur radio books and a magazine in their online catalog so they have already passed judgment on the content and sources of these holdings. Here’s a link for a search there for the term “amateur radio.” They have the current issue of CQ Magazine as well as the British magazine, Radio User (now part of Practical Wireless). They have several of Dan’s popular No Nonsense study guides, popular titles by Ward Silver, and the ARRL Operating Manual. Getting the ARRL Book Bundle would give them the latest and more depth to the content they already have in their holdings. So I do not know why the library staff member replied to Dan’s kind offer that way about ten years ago. But I’m not sure that that one experience is strong evidence that public libraries are not viable outlets for outreach and education about technology like amateur radio.

In fact, the Gallup report shows with national data that the library is the single most commonly visited public space to find young people and women. Should we ignore this critical fact? I certainly don’t. This is just an example of why it is critical to approach this “seed planting” as a relationship not a simple donation, just like we do with any other served agency in the EmComm arena of service. For instance, imagine your ARES team NOT having a relationship with the local EOC or other emergency management agency. Then just “show up” with HT in hand saying I’m a ham operator and heard you could use some help in the tornado, flood, fire, recovery effort. You’d be asked to vacate the premises very quickly because they are busy with their demanding work and they do not know you or your group! That’s what just dropping off a set of books might be like for a public library. At least, this is my take on it.

Work with ARRL Field Services and IT staff is scheduled to continue. I’ll see how this progresses and report further on the project. In the mean time, (re)read my two original blog posts on this concept. More than ever, we need to Plant the Seed of amateur radio. And use something more efficient than a screwdriver antenna (apologies to hams who use these antennas as I did some years ago). Keep up the Teacher Institute but expand into where the desired market audience can demonstrably be found. That just makes sense if we are serious about addressing the Baby Boom population exodus with a rational, data-driven plan to do what the ARRL has promised the IRS that they will do in exchange for not paying taxes on donations: education and outreach.

A long-used term by the American Radio Relay League, the National Association for Amateur Radio, is “served agency.” Almost without exception, it refers to a government agency or non-governmental organization that provides vital response support in times of disaster or, at least, in times of public service. In fact, the ARRL has official memos of understanding with many key agencies to which they promise their members or affiliates will “serve” as this screenshot from the League’s website details.

There is also an “educational outreach” page on the ARRL website. It lists programs, brochures, videos, suggestions on how to speak to youth groups, and small grants for educational outreach. But nowhere does it get the urgency, importance, or strategic planning that the “served agency” page does.

Recently, the ARRL Board approved a Life Long Learning Program, focusing on “offer[ing] a variety of learning opportunities for new, current and prospective amateur radio operators.” It mentions “youth and school resources” with ready-made presentation slides, videos, and associated materials, including a budding array of online courses. But only through school resources are libraries mentioned. Yet, the Gallup survey organization identified one leisure activity as “the most common cultural activity Americans engage in, by far.” That activity is visiting a public library.

The average 10.5 trips to the library U.S. adults report taking in 2019 exceeds their participation in eight other common leisure activities.…it’s the most common cultural activity Americans engage in, by far.”

Gallup Survey Organization

Schools and their teachers are already the foci of the League’s attention for outreach. And, from teachers whom I know who have been among the dozen or so each summer who attended the Teacher Institute, it’s a good thing. It uses the well-oiled “train-the-trainer” model of subject matter material propagation. I don’t know if there has ever been an evaluation of the program, following up and documenting how many new hams got licensed or even how many students got exposed to amateur radio after the teacher-trainer returned home. If so, I’ve just missed it. But until that happens, we just do not have common measurable outcomes on how effective the Teacher Institute is for getting students into the amateur radio hobby.

Gallup survey data recently revealed that U.S. adults attend the library on average about 10 months out of the year. This is more than they attend movies. And far more than parks or casinos. Women visit libraries twice as much as men. Hmm. That’s a population segment that amateur radio largely misses out on. And, young adults aged 18-29 attend public libraries more than any other age group. Isn’t the League trying to gain penetration into the youth market segment? The 30-49 age group is just behind the younger age group in library visits but this tapers off after age 50 onward until the typical retirement group of 65 years and beyond.

Women visit libraries twice as much as men. Hmm. That’s a population segment that amateur radio misses out on. And, young adults aged 18-29 attend libraries more than any other age group. Isn’t the League trying to gain penetration into the female and youth market segments?

Frank K4FMH

They are there, at the public library, but will we hams come? I’m reminded of the famous quote by the notorius bank robber, Willie Sutton. “I rob banks because that’s where the money is,” Willie Sutton supposedly said to news reporter Robert M. Yoder. Women and young people are at the library more than any other single public place.

Should the priority of educational outreach as one of the National Association for Amateur Radio’s goals include key educational outreach organizations as “served agencies”?

Here is a small look at the potential to reach young people in public libraries, taken from the latest Public Library Survey data available (2017) and only for the four states in the Delta Division (AR, LA, MS, TN). Over a year’s time, the 365 public library systems (actual outlets like branch libraries and bookmobiles total far greater but aggregate to the system) report these levels of traffic inside their brick-and-mortar locations, shown in the table below. The 9 million registered borrowers contribute to over 55 million visits during the year which also include unregistered borrowers. Over 5 million attend formal programs at these libraries, comprising over 3.3 million at children’s programs and a half million at young adult programs. This totals about 4 million persons in the youth market in just these four states alone. In addition, a total of 10.7 million wireless Internet sessions were utilized by patrons. This potential market traffic comes into the doors of brick-and-mortar public libraries. They reflect a clear and present target audience for the ARRL’s stated educational outreach audience. And, far easier to reach than via the school setting.

A new program that I described in a recent blog post describes one attempt by the Delta Division to leverage a current ARRL deep-discount sales program to begin raising public libraries to “served agency” status. This is the Plant the Seed! Initiative. It will be followed by the Sow the Future program, described below. The League has only recently begun using demographic data analytics to identify, understand, and reach out to desired market segments. While it’s just being rolled out to the Delta Division of four Sections in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee, it is scalable to the all Divisions. Here’s how it works.

The ARRL has a set of 10 key books, including the two popular ones (Handbook & Antenna Handbook), for sale at a flat fee of $200 which includes shipping. They are only for library donations. Hence, the product is called the ARRL Library Book Set. For many clubs, the per-member cost of this set is less than $5.00. It’s less than a slice of pizza at a ham club lunch. The issue is that hams vary widely in their familiarity with their local library, although some might even be the Library Director! So what is the “social ecology” of where amateur radio clubs are located versus local libraries?

I extracted the ARRL affiliated clubs in the Delta Division from the ARRL Find a Club webpage. There were geocoded to varying levels of accuracy (some at the city level). The Public Library Survey that is produced annually was used as the database for library systems (branches and bookmobiles are note used here but could be). The 2016 data are the most recent available. A script to conduct a spatial search for the nearest club to each library, within each Section so all clubs and libraries are within the section boundaries, was created and executed using GIS software. The results placed over a basemap is shown above.

A couple of things emerge from this spatial representation. Some clubs are the closest one to many public libraries. In one case (Bossier City, LA), there is no library for which that club is the nearest. This is due to a nearby one in Shreveport that just happens to nose it out, so to speak, in terms of the geocoded club locations and the libraries. So, the clubs and communicate between themselves, perhaps in concert with the Section Manager, to use this map and a master list of public libraries and clubs in the Section, to determine which libraries should receive the book set donations from each club. Similarly, in another city (Starkville MS), one club is nearest to a public library several counties to the west while the other is closest to several nearby. Again, club officer communication along with the Section Manager, uses these results as they were meant to be: just a guide to the local area terrain for libraries and amateur radio clubs.

Delta Division Director David Norris K5UZ has communicated to each Section Manager with a “challenge” to see which Section can serve the most libraries. Right now, Mississippi and Malcolm W5XX is in the lead, mainly because my club, the Central Mississippi ARA, has taken delivery of two ARRL Book Sets for donation to libraries in Rankin County (Central MS Library System) and Madison County. We’ve communicated with the President of the Jackson ARC who will take the lead on the Hinds County (Jackson) Public Library System. Checking the online catalog of ARRL book holdings is an important act. The Central MS Library System had several titles but all were more than a decade old. Madison County, which has the highest median income in the State, had almost none. Surprising but that’s why we should always check a library’s online catalog of current holdings beforehand.

Getting the library’s Director involved in the donation is also vital. Don’t just “drop off” the donation at the check-out desk. Easy for the club official but terrible for the library staff. Library’s just don’t work that way regarding collection development. This “drop off” may well just get the blister wrapped donation of 10 books placed in the next sidewalk sale of the library. Take the time to get the Library Director involved. Get that person in the public relations photo and narrative as welcoming the donation so their acceptance is in the public view. Execute due diligence in this strategic investment for amateur radio. More work but far greater pay-off.

David K5UZ and I also provided an online Dropbox folder system for the “paperwork” to facilitate the implementation of this Plant the Seed! Initiative. Sub-folders include the logo, the map of the spatial ecology of clubs and public libraries (see above), a narrative document which both announces the Initiative, gives a description of the Dropbox file system and the link to it, and recommendations for Section Managers to implement the program within the Section. Finally, and this is a key to facilitating the Section Manager’s job of both encouraging and managing the roll-out of the Initiative in his Section, we created four spreadsheets. Two are the master list of ARRL affiliated clubs and public libraries in each Section. A third is a list of clubs with nearest public libraries. This gives the Section Manager an overview of the Section and helps in advising clubs on libraries to serve (see discussion above). Finally, separate spreadsheets for each club in the Section were created. This allows the SM to just email a single spreadsheet to a given club using the email contact within that individual.

These procedures reduce but do not eliminate confusion over the suggestions made to clubs. Imagine, however, just advocating that clubs donate to their libraries. Here’s the link to purchase at ARRL.org. Go to it, clubs. Check off that box. Done! Wow. That would be worse than stepping on an unseen covey of quail! More importantly, it would be destined for failure in terms of making a systemic impact on getting amateur radio material into public libraries.

It would also not create an ongoing relationship between the club and the library itself. The follow-up effort is called the Sow the Future portion of this Initiative. Offering programs on amateur radio at the local library leverages the initial book donation and benefits the library staff who are charged with creating programs for the public. This activity by ARRL affiliated clubs “serves” the public library in a very beneficial way. But it doesn’t happen without systematic planning. Planning the spatial ecology of linking national organizations like the ARRL and one or more of their Divisions to their Sections and their Sections to affiliated clubs is critical. It’s the return on the investment of the $200 set of books to get a continuing “served agency” relationship of giving programs on the amateur radio hobby at that recipient library.

Remember, Section Managers report to the Field Services Coordinator in most day-to-day matters. Getting the organizational links among the League, Division Directors (who comprise the governing Board for the League itself), Section Mangers, loosely affiliated Clubs, and individual ham operators is far from being a well-oiled or even well thought out machine. Hams who are not League members may be members of an ARRL-affiliated club. Or no club at all. So the final link in this chain is only a part of the ham radio operator market. But it’s the market that the League deals with most of the time. The need to use demographic data analytics like this becomes crucial in a loosely-coupled organizational ecology that is the case with amateur radio in the United States. The approach outlined here is just one example of using them to plan a new set of links in this ecology.

We hope that this Initiative will be met positively by clubs and their members. It’s a nominal financial commitment by clubs on a per-member basis. Doing the final leg-work on establishing an ongoing relationship with one or more local libraries is as important as the $200 donation of books. David Norris K5UZ is investigating whether it’s feasible to get the digital version of the new On the Air magazine available to recipient public libraries to leverage the wireless Internet access by registered borrowers. We will see how that materializes.

Public libraries are the dominant local community organization through which to consistently reach both women and youth, from the recent Gallup report’s findings. Libraries should be viewed as “served agencies” for educational outreach much as the League advocates ARES teams serving critical organizations in times of emergency. Or a bike race, which is more often the case. Because libraries are where the “money” is.