[CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did

[Ford Peterson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary J. Ferdinand" <W2CS at bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] What the ARRL Board did


 > We now have some time to do this right.
 >
 > Yes, there is intended CRITICISM in that statement.
 >
******** Snip  **********

 > I would like to see the Board review its process.  Any changes such as the
 > ones being debated should have been aired in front of the membership. If the
 > reasons were sound and the proposals well-articulated, I'm sure the
 > membership would provide positive feedback.  How about the Board take up
 > an agenda item that directly impose a decision-making process that includes
 > the membership?    As it was, the information was informal, rumors were 
flying,
 > and the speculation was rampant.   It is very understandable why there were
 > numerous statements of distrust thrown at the League.  You do the League
 > no service when you manage in this manner.

Just so I can understand here, the minutes of the meetings being posted on
the web are not enough?  If you read Walt's post you would realize that the
"process" to which you refer is being modified.  So what's next?  A
certified letter addressed to you indicating a formal transcript of
everything that was said?

 > This is not the way a Board should behave.  Deal with the membership
 > honestly and openly and we will have productive, fruitful discussions.  In
 > this instance you all got exactly what your process deserved. You were
 > perceived as acting without our counsel, proceeding down a path to present
 > to us a fait-accompli.

Latin?  Classy!  Your comments are a bit presumptuous.  I think there was a
proposal to review QST content.  I believe you will find QST content reviews
in the minutes a couple of times a year.  Contesting came up a loser!  Get a
grip.  Stop treating the board like they are the anti-Christ!  They are
managing the business.  The word hit the street that the subject was being
discussed.  You heard about it.  Every body heard about it and we are still
hearing about it.  Yet accusations of a sinister motive abound?

 > Please clean up your act.  When can we see the actual complete proposal,
 > in detail, along with supporting facts?   Then, armed with fact instead of
 > speculation, perhaps the membership can be part of the solution and we can
 > work with you as a team.

So when the vendor for Field Day pins is up for review, you want to be
notified?  I for one don't want to be burdened with the thousands of details
these guys have to act on every year.  The fact that our "representatives"
are discussing issues does not presume that they will act without
discussion.  Neither does it imply that they would have acted unfavorably.
You imputed sinister motives yourself--not the facts.

What Walt said about section new is very true.  In my 30 years or so I've
never read section news for any section other than mine--never!  Now that's
tabled too.  You happy?  I hope you enjoy the 6 pages of section news for
another 8 months.

The gloves are off folks.  There is not a single aspect of ham radio that is
safely grandfathered into QST.  Instead of treating these people like
villains, start proposing some solutions to problems.  Figure out how to put
about $500K into the treasury and we won't be dealing with all the minutia.
Figure out how to recruit another 100,000 young people into ham radio and we
won't have to worry about our beloved contest scores--they will be in
blinking neon at the next hamfest too.  Better yet, with the average age of
a ham being what it is, figure out how to make these old guys live another
50 years!  Now there's a challenge...

Solutions my friends.  Put on the thinking caps.  With solutions we will
move the world.  Everything else is just more bitching.

Ford-N0FP
ford at cmgate.com


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com