The RSGB - what now?

Events of the past few days at the RSGB remind us that things are not at all as they should be at this society, and haven't been especially good for some time. Whilst the person resigning has explained in some detail why he was leaving the RSGB to its own devices, the society itself seems to have made absolutely no comment at all, although Len Paget, in his 'private capacity', has sent side-swipes over the resignation in a very personal and rather ugly way.

Only as recently as 2013 did the RSGB resolve the financial scandal that hit it a couple of years previously. Whilst it is said to have recovered the money, the lack of oversight that allowed £41,000 to be spent with apparently no real challenge was clearly a serious cause for concern - and change.

At much the same time, we had the Luso tower at Bletchley Park debacle, leading to what was presumably a large financial loss - it was advertised for £13,500 some years ago, but the price paid by the RSGB for it from Luso might have been as high as £31,000.

But we moved on. Or, at least, some of us did. Many of the faces at the top of the RSGB today remain the ones that we've seen milling around for years. They're all getting on in age now, as this screengrab (RSGB web site, accessed today) shows - and some of those pictures are themselves years old:

Mostly old photos of now much older retired, white men.

I'm not sure that the RSGB might have found itself with Board members - who hold a total liability in the event of failure, of a whopping £1 - who can't detach themselves from committee chairs. Some of us worry that the society has become perceived as 'theirs', rather than 'ours'.

My views on the RSGB, as a non-member who won't consider joining until there is fundamental change, are as follows:

(1) There is poor ethnic, age and gender balance within the society. This has existed for a long time, and been reported many times on this blog. The imbalance is also true of the hobby in general. It's no good relying on the latter to somehow explain the former; we need the circle to be broken.  Having diversity at the top is the best place to set the example and show we are inclusive, not exclusive.

(2) There is a feeling that those at the top have overstayed their welcome. I'm sure they've tried their best, but there comes a time when we should carefully reflect and be humble, and wonder whether someone else should now have a go, and might even be more capable of making this a society fit for the present, and for the future.

(3) The society's failings are often assisted by a mostly elderly membership who 'just want the magazine', and no longer have the energy or interest to worry about society politics. That's fair enough, but because we have so few younger members, there's nobody much to pick up the slack.

(4) The company status has permitted the society to be more opaque that I would like. It sometimes will respond to enquiries of what might be 'contentious' in nature, but it doesn't have to. For example, I pointed out to the present and former GMs of the RSGB that they could, if they wanted, waive their right to privacy and publish exactly how much they are paid.  Both declined to do so. Is that right, in a member-subscription society?  I don't think so, at all.

In the end, the society is a society of members, and should be fully accountable at all times to that membership. There are AGMs and accounts, of course, but these don't seem to have brought about change - not least because those who attend meetings are probably from a very niche subpopulation of the community - the radio version of political 'wonks'.

(5) The society looks and feels tired and irrelevant. Although the pandemic saw many more people take up the hobby, those will now be able to spend a lot more time outdoors than when they got bored and signed-up for an exam course. So I think we'll see this as merely a blip that will soon return us to the slowly-declining curve of interest and membership. 

Unless the society wakes up and makes itself look relevant to newcomers in an age of smartphones, then it will quickly fade into obscurity.  Some might say this would be a good thing, if replaced with something better.

(6) The society doesn't seem to offer anything much in return for membership. I joined EURAO because it offered, in return for the normal 10 Euro membership, free multi-million pound public liability insurance. Critics would say that the elderly membership of the RSGB are unlikely to want that, because they are much less likely to be out /P. But for EURAO, it was an overnight, spectacular success in attracting a large number of new members. 

(7) OFCOM and general representation. Many believe that the relationship between the RSGB and OFCOM has not resulted in improvements to the hobby. By its own admission, the RSGB has also stopped lobbying - if it ever did - for improvements in planning law that benefit our ability to actually install the antennas that allow us to enjoy the hobby in the first place. 

Similarly, there has been no progress in challenging OFCOM's refusal to deal with RFI from telecomms equipment, now blighting endless numbers of operators. RadCom continues to review and advertise expensive radio equipment whilst it stands at the sidelines, watching the environment for operators become ever-more difficult.

Well, that's enough for today. I'd be the first to say that real, meaningful and fundamental change isn't going to be easy. But it's not that hard, either - if we accept there are real problems that stand to harm the future of our hobby. In that respect, I hope that something more than a 'you asked, we ignored' exercise emerges - and soon!