k5sep at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 26 18:21:28 EST 2006
I fully agree with you now that I have had a chance to
experience both sides of the spectrum.
--- John King <k5pgw at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob: The reason the ARRL doesn't poll its' members
> the Amateur Radio Community is because the "CEO"
> doesn't CARE what members think. He is the "boss"
> annointed himself as "the RULER" of ARRL" and thus
> has a right to decide what is best for Amateur Radio
> because he is in control and no one shall get to the
> decision making table lest they come by him and
> the thinking to his Majesty". I have felt for over
> years that the "CEO" was the problem for all Hamdom.
> 73, John, K5PGW
> --- Peter Markavage <manualman at juno.com> wrote:
> > A quick article index search for "surveys" in QST
> > popped out 91 different
> > articles.
> > An ARRL site search for "surveys" resulted in 848
> > results.
> > ARRL 1998 Annual Report, page 6, provides a bar
> > graph showing membership
> > rise and fall from 1978 through 1998.
> > The membership graph is shown to somewhat cyclical
> > even during this
> > period. As far as Incentive Licensing, who cares
> > this point. It was
> > over 35 years ago. ARRL acknowledged years ago
> > it probably was not
> > the best proposal to support. If you really want
> > know the "numbers"
> > between 1969 though 1977, check the Annual Report
> > write ups in QST for
> > those years.
> > Pete, wa2cwa
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:50:18 -0800 (PST) Bob Scupp
> > <k5sep at yahoo.com>
> > writes:
> > > Anthony, Don and Everyone else-
> > >
> > > I had the privilege (?) of serving as ARRL Rocky
> > > Mountain Division Vice-Director for two
> > consecutive
> > > terms. At that time, terms of office were two
> > years
> > > (1990-1994).
> > > One of my continuing issues with ARRL is that of
> > > non-documentation. For example, CQ Magazine is
> > > subscription only and not a membership
> > organization
> > > unlike the League. Yet, in each monthly issue
> > there is
> > > a self addressed post-card for responding to
> > > issue's survey questions. They then report the
> > results
> > > in a future issue. The League could do something
> > > similar with QST. It could also do the same
> > on
> > > their website. Collection of this data can be
> > compiled
> > > for computer storage and report in an upcoming
> > issue
> > > of QST. It can also be used for their Board and
> > other
> > > committee activities. So why do they not do
> > > Unfortunately, the answer is obvious.
> > > I got tired of hearing, "The members in our
> > Division
> > > support/do not support an issue". Who does or
> > > doesn't(not by name and callsign)? Where is a
> > > documented survey to back up a given position?
> > >
> > > Sorry I do not remember the FCC Docket number
> > > remember in the late 60's (I think it was
> > 1968-1969)
> > > Incentive Licensing? Please correct me if I am
> > wrong
> > > but I thought the League supported it. As a
> > result,
> > > many of their members by the thousands dropped
> > their
> > > membership for years to come. Naturally this
> > adversely
> > > effected League membership numbers along with
> > > amateur radio community.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, after all these years the League
> > and
> > > their higher-ups have not learned their lesson.
> > > Survey, Document, Report, etc.
> > >
> > > Just my two cents worth if that.
> > >
> > > Bob K5SEP
> > > ARRL Member since 1969
> > > ARRL Life Member since 1976
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 15 Dec 2017.