Dave:
Yours is a very fair and professional response. I agree that there are more
effective and less effective ways to address to ARRL, and you make your point
well. The recent letter by Walt Stinson caused me to feel that some, at
least ,
of the directors need to learn how to address the ARRL, too. For the ARRL is
NOT just the Officers and the BOD, it is the membership. Director Stinson's
letter was not in the spirit of asking for more information from the
membership, it was written from the perspective that the decision was
made, and
that the membership should "get the information" and "cool down" to quote him..
It was written in an arrogant manner that was likely to alienate rather than
achieve support from the membership. Thanks for giving us the other side
of the
story. I am sure that the vast majority of the BOD is anxious to hear from us.
Likewise, I believe that the vast majority of the membership is interested in
the health of ARRL, QST, and amateur radio, and not just in their "special
interests".
"David L. Thompson" wrote:
> I have been an Assistant Director for over 25 years in two different ARRL
> Divisions and have worked with 4 different Directors.
> Addressing the ARRL has come a long way from the days of Director Kahn and
> Mr. Budlong. Here is how it works (in simple form as there are
variations).
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|