RSGB Expenses Hike Prompts Departure

It's that time of year again when the finer details of the RSGB's accounts are slowly sinking in.


I'm always interested in the non-remuneration of the board members which, the Articles of the company say, is to cover legitimate expenses.  It is not, therefore, pay.

So, let's look at this latest accounting period.

In 2015, eight board members collectively claimed £15,000.  That's the equivalent of £1875 each.

In 2016, seven board members - one less than in 2015 - claimed £17,000.  A new equivalent of £2428 each.  Note that some members may have claimed more than others.  That's why I use the term "equivalent".

Now, these are not huge sums, and there is no suggestion that the claims are not legitimate and properly due.

What is surprising is that, despite the number of board members claiming dropping by 12.5%, the total claimed has nevertheless gone up by 13%.  Inflation is essentially flatlining, so that doesn't explain much of anything.

I find myself again questioning why I have joined the RSGB when, in practice, all I get is a magazine that I don't actually ever enjoy reading.  This is very different from the experience of being a member of the ARRL, where everything in QST and beyond is so much more practical and approachable, albeit with no influence in the UK.

I think the basic problem I have with the RSGB is (a) that it is a limited company where the directors each shoulder the non-responsibility of a £1 liability if it all goes belly-up.  That doesn't foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, as this event, or this one have fairly recently proven.  I think an alternative structure like a not-for-profit or community benefit organsiation might better match what we actually expect a hobby society to be.

And, (b) there is a very strange culture surrounding the RSGB.  I found this out with some amazement a few years ago when Len Paget, still an RSGB bigwig, decided to send his views of me (based on exchanging a couple of emails about planning matters) to 11 members of a non-radio organisation, questioning my suitability to be a representative of that organisation.  He used his personal e-mail address to do so, but was in practice representing the RSGB, because that was the only route through which I had ever approached him, via the 'haveyoursay@RSGB... address', and the RSGB (and ICO) accepted the breach was their responsibility, not a personal matter between myself and Paget. Paget was very lucky he didn't end up with a libel writ.  Sadly for him, I wasn't even a member of the society he contacted.  The ICO carpeted the RSGB for its poor data control.

With many of the same old people in charge, it's hardly surprising that I find the RSGB hasn't really changed very much with some new faces over the  past three or four years.  I can't even say I've been very impressed by the quality of advice offered by those volunteers I've approached for help; I could have done as well or better under my own steam.

For example, the RSGB continues to claim that a member using its planning advice service is more likely to gain planning approval than someone who doesn't use those services.  This is a big claim.  It's also a claim that, without a very extensive, expensive and, so far as I know, not actually undertaken exercise, one the RSGB is not in a position to make.

So, for the second time in about six years, I've decided this is not a society that represents my values, wishes and interests.

I thought I was clever in joining the GQRP Club, until I received a very unwelcoming email from someone there, who clearly showed this was not the place for me.  I demanded a refund - and was as relieved to receive it as they were to issue it.