Pat,
I'm not 100% sure but I thought that federal law says that any non-profit
organization must show it's financials when asked. I thought they also were
made to make them public at least once a year. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd like
to hear from one about it. Seems to me like I remember hearing about this when
United Way was caught and the CEO put down the road several years back.
Will
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 3/6/05 at 5:54 PM Pat Poirier wrote:
>Hi Will,
>
>The ARRL membership is nothing but a cash cow to the few that are in the
>inner circle. They call themselves a non-profit organization and that is
>the
>nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
>
>They will not tell anyone where they spend the membership money. When they
>travel you can not find out how much it cost for the inner circle to
>travel
>around the country or the world and how the money is spent. When you ask
>for
>the financials of how they spent the members money you will be told that
>they are not going to be releasing that information.
>
>They have changed the name of the organization to "The National
>Association
>for Amateur Radio" not a single member got a chance to vote on that. When
>I
>questioned the name change I was told that I didn't have a vote in that
>decision and that only section managers could vote on the name change. I
>have a real problem when any one takes the word American out of anything
>that I belong to. I had a very heated debate with on of the Midwest
>section
>managers about this on 15 meters and his bottom line to me was if I didn't
>like the change, then get out of the organization.
>
>You are right that we need to clean house of everyone in the inner circle,
>they have no interest in ham radio. They are only looking to publish their
>magazine which is mostly advertisements for themselves. Almost every page,
>they have their hand out pan handling you for money. They live the good
>life
>and they want more.
>
>Look at the poor job they did on 60 meters, we ended up with a few
>channels,
>like were are CBers or something and 50 watts ERP that is a joke.
>
>If you funnel money into them for advertising or other ways they will be
>your lap dog and the rest of us don't matter.
>
>I will stop now because I could keep on going with the crap that they have
>pulled.
>
>73,
>Pat W1KA
>PS, Does anyone know where all the Alpha 77DX and Commander 2500E
>amplifiers
>went that were donated to W1AW that have now been replaced by Harris
>amplifiers ??? I am not a betting person but my money is they went to the
>inner circle gang. I never heard anyone getting a chance to buy any of
>those
>amplifier.
>Pat
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Will Matney" <craxd1@ezwv.com>
>To: <amps@contesting.com>
>Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 4:14 PM
>Subject: Re: [Amps] WinLink
>
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> What I read was that this was not announced until after the vote and a
>> bunch of hoopla went on before they would put it out publically. I guess
>> the link was what become of the afterwards. The way I read about it,
>they
>> tried to hide it back as first by one small mention tucked away where
>> nobody would notice. See, the thing is, like I said earler, I dont give
>a
>> tinkers damn about what they do with the band, etc., just the way it was
>> done. Read my post back to Rich and you'll see why. Plus, the website
>> where I read about it. One of the voters who desented, explains a lot in
>> detail. They done somthing worse in my opinion to Rich years back and
>this
>> just really set me sore. Rich had done a lot for the technical side of
>the
>> hobby and was just flat sh#t on by the establishment because of folks
>with
>> their hands in the cookie jar. As was commented on earler, the ARRL is
>> nothing more than a magazine publisher with their hands out now. They
>dont
>> have any help for those who need it and d
>> ont care. It's became just one big money making gimmick for a few to
>keep
>> them in a job IMHO. I'm sorry to sound this way, but when I see folks in
>> the right getting wronged, my hackles stand up. I consider Rich a good
>> friend and have never met him. However, he has helped me everytime I've
>> asked, never failed, if not within the same day I asked. He and others
>> have done a lot for others, giving freely. Then you have those in there
>> now, who only see the bottom line as dollars with no cents (sense). Even
>> though a joke was said, it digs at the real truth.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>>
>> On 3/6/05 at 3:56 PM Dave wrote:
>>
>>>They haven't been very secret about it; the proposed bandplan is
>available
>>>via http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html .
>>>
>>>Personally, I don't have a problem with switching to a bandwidth-based
>>>allocation scheme, though any proposed change in allocations will
>generate
>>>squawking and crowing from those getting less and more respectively. What
>>>concerns me is that this proposal would also eliminate the frequency
>>>constraints on semi-automatic operation. Frankly, I'd rather have BPL
>>>deployed next door than open the bands to robot stations that call over
>>>ongoing QSOs. Unless such stations are running software that reliably
>>>detects busy frequencies and declines to answer calls if doing so would
>>>QRM
>>>someone, they should remain corralled in a few band segments.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Dave, AA6YQ
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: amps-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:amps-bounces@contesting.com] On
>>>Behalf Of Will Matney
>>>Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:06 AM
>>>To: amps@contesting.com
>>>Subject: [Amps] WinLink
>>>
>>>
>>>I just ran across something (2-3 days back actually) about the ARRL
>almost
>>>secertely pushing through a new bandplan for Winlink, I think was the
>>>name.
>>>I have read some others opinions before I made this post. One wonders
>why
>>>I
>>>will not re-license and this shows why. I have seen the ARRL now, over
>and
>>>over, for years now, seem to do some pretty underhanded things. It seems
>>>to
>>>me it is always tied to a money flow some where. I know all to well what
>>>they did to Rich Measures on here, and it was over deep pockets
>>>controlling
>>>what the ARRL now does. I'm sorry, the ARRL is supposed to be for all the
>>>amateur radio folks but when money is involved somewhere, it seems that
>>>things gets hushed, law suits gets threatened, and stuff is done under
>the
>>>table. Folks wonder why the membership is dropping off and this pretty
>>>much
>>>nails it. Before we had the internet, where information flows sooo
>freely,
>>>keeping things hid away was 100% easier. I started on the net about the
>>>same
>>>time I said by -by to my license. These types of actions is the very
>>>reason
>>>they went. To straighten it out, there ought to be a major house cleaning
>>>of
>>>the ARRL, and the FCC. There's too many corporate and political fingers
>in
>>>there. The ARRL should only be staffed by non-political, non business
>tied
>>>hams IMHO. This very thing is the reason I dont see myself ever being
>>>re-licensed in the near future. I just had to say something as I'd had
>>>this
>>>bottled up now for a few days. Any comments are welcome.
>>>
>>>Will
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Amps mailing list
>>>Amps@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Amps mailing list
>>>Amps@contesting.com
>>>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>>
>>>
>>>__________ NOD32 1.999 (20050215) Information __________
>>>
>>>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>>http://www.nod32.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amps mailing list
>> Amps@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
>>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.999 (20050215) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.nod32.com
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|