The ARRL Board is at it again—taking another swing at updating its by-laws to better regulate the behavior of sitting directors. On November 19, 2024, they released an initial draft for review, followed by a revised version on December 18, 2024.
So, what’s the big deal? Let’s dive in.
Why the ARRL Needs Better Rules Governing Behavior
Behavioral standards aren’t just a nice-to-have; they’re a must. Like any membership organization, the ARRL has to set clear expectations for directors, officers, candidates, employees, volunteers, and members. Without these guardrails, chaos — or at least some serious legal and ethical headaches — can ensue.
Connecticut law, where the ARRL is incorporated, provides the baseline. Here’s a snippet:
A director must act in good faith, with the care of an ordinarily prudent person, and in the best interests of the corporation.
These words are not just platitudes; they are law and they establish a standard of performance that the ARRL must meet. If things were to go awry for the League, there are very real scenarios under which the organization might be found liable if it fails to ensure that directors uphold these standards.
The need for transparent, fair, consistent and compliant policies goes beyond protecting the League from legal exposure. Good governance also forms the bedrock for a trusting relationship with members.
The ARRL isn't alone in this; codes of conduct for board members and enforcement mechanisms are the norm in the association world. Authorities on association governance like BoardEffect and ASAE agree — enforceable codes of ethics are important to have in place.
But, the ARRL already has things in place to deal with this, right? Well, yes and no.
Recent Controversies Highlight the Need for Action
Take the past two years as an example. Sitting directors Ria Jairam (Hudson Division) and Dick Norton (Southwestern Division) found themselves embroiled in ethics investigations. Meanwhile, would-be directors like Talens, Marler, and Hopengarten saw their campaigns cut short under murky circumstances. All of these cases were handled with current ARRL procedures. Yet every one of them was engulfed in confusion and controversy, underscoring the ARRL's need for a much more robust process to manage these situations fairly and transparently.
What’s Broken?
The current system revolves around the Ethics and Elections Committee (E&E), a standing committee of three directors handpicked by the ARRL President. While that might sound fine on paper, in practice, it’s fraught with problems:
- Inherent bias. Committee members are current directors, often with personal or political ties to the President or other board members.
- Opaque processes. There’s little clarity on how complaints are handled or decisions are made.
- Lack of continuity. Membership changes annually, making long-term consistency impossible.
The ARRL has tried to fix these issues before—several times, in fact—but previous proposals have fizzled out due to opposition or poor design.
What’s New This Time?
In January 2024, the Board created a committee to develop a better plan. After months of work, their proposal is ready for review. The big question is: Does this version finally get it right?
Why This Matters Now
The stakes couldn’t be higher. The ARRL is grappling with declining membership, competition in every sector of its business, and a growing trust deficit among its stakeholders. Add internal board conflicts to the mix, and you’ve got a recipe for a crisis.
If ever there was a time for the League to prove it can rise to the occasion, it’s now. This by-law revision is an opportunity to show members that the ARRL can tackle tough issues with empathy, transparency, and excellence.
Does the Proposal Deliver?
Spoiler alert: It doesn’t.
Here’s why:
- Bias isn’t addressed. The E&E Committee structure remains fundamentally flawed, and addition of the “neutral third party” doesn’t solve the problem.
- Detail and rigor are missing. The plan leaves far too many questions unanswered, creating loopholes that could be unfairly exploited.
- Validation is lacking. The proposal feels insular, with little evidence of external benchmarking or input from governance experts.
- Potential legal conflicts. Some provisions may clash with Connecticut law, particularly around director removal.
- Scope creep. The plan goes beyond the committee’s mandate, muddying the waters even further.
What Does Good Look Like?
Here’s the gold standard we should aim for:
- Focus on the real problems. Does it address bias and ambiguity head-on?
- Clear expectations. Are the rules and processes easy to understand and follow?
- Enforceability. Can the plan be executed fairly and consistently?
- Best practices. Is it grounded in proven methods used by other organizations?
- Rebuilding trust. Does it inspire confidence among members and stakeholders?
Sadly, the current proposal misses the mark on all counts.
Looking Ahead
The ARRL has a chance to turn the page and set a new standard for governance. But to do that, it needs to go back to the drawing board. In future posts, I’ll break down the shortcomings in detail and propose solutions that could help the League get it right.
