There has been some talk recently on the subject of establishing an ARDF club in the USA: a nationwide club to promote and support ARDF activity. Some considerations for such an endeavor are presented below.
If you are not familiar with how ARDF is currently administered then a review of the current hierarchy might help with understanding the remainder of this post.
IARU/ARRL and OUSA Working Together
One option might be to charter a club under the Orienteering USA (OUSA) structure while leaving the overall administration of the sport unchanged from what it is today. The new OUSA club would promote ARDF as an IARU regionally-administered sport.
To form an OUSA member club, OUSA will require that the club’s mission align with its own: to promote and support Orienteering. Many folks see ARDF as a special form of Orienteering that adds radios to maps and compasses. Some of the OUSA leadership has in the past expressed the opinion that ARDF is just another form of Orienteering. This has allowed Orienteering clubs to extend OUSA insurance coverage to ARDF events. So, from OUSA’s perspective, they might be happy to accept a member club that focuses only on “Radio Orienteering”.
But the IARU does not define ARDF as a form of Orienteering. IARU Region 2 defines ARDF as “… a technical, sport activity within the framework of the amateur radio service.” And IARU Region 1 defines the sport as “… an amateur radio sport in which competitors by means of a direction-finding receiver and a map are to find a number of transmitters hidden in the competition area in the shortest possible time.”
Perhaps the IARU and OUSA could agree to disagree on how to define ARDF, but there are potential conflicts that are likely to arise at some point. Consider that OUSA requires its affiliated clubs to “agree to abide by the Constitution and Bylaws of the United States Orienteering Federation.” And if you read the OUSA bylaws they state the following:
“… competition includes orienteering meets that may be sanctioned by the Federation (“Class A” meets. Among the Class A sanctioned meets shall be one or more annual national championships, as determined by the Federation Board of Directors.”
OUSA “acting through appropriate committees, appointed and approved as provided in Article IX, shall provide for the selection of competitors to represent the United States in any International Orienteering competition or any other International or Regional Competition, subject to the rights of appeal and arbitration as provided in Article IX, Section B.6.3.”
In other words, OUSA requires its chartered clubs to consent to OUSA sanction of national championships and OUSA selection of competitors who will represent the USA at regional and world championships. If ARDF is a form of Orienteering, then an OUSA chartered club should look to OUSA to sanction championships and select USA team members. But if ARDF is not a form of Orienteering then a club promoting just ARDF is not a legitimate OUSA Orienteering club since it does not support OUSA’s mission. So there are potential problems regardless of which side of the argument one takes.
The ARRL and IARU are likely to take the position that ARDF is not a type of Orienteering sport at all, but rather a radio sport that can (when conducted with a map and compass) have much in common with Orienteering. That argument has merit. Consider that while Orienteering is almost always defined as a sport involving map and compass, we know that a map and compass are not indispensable in ARDF. Some forms of ARDF competition exist that do not involve a map or compass at all, such as ARDF for the blind. If that line of reasoning holds sway at the ARRL, then the ARRL is likely to offer only limited cooperation with any club whose mission is to promote Orienteering.
There are various ways that this conundrum might be addressed. But the most obvious ones could prove to be quite complex. For instance, OUSA might consent to “adopting” ARDF and appointing the ARRL as the team-selection and USA event-sanctioning committee. Or the ARRL could assign its authority in those areas to OUSA. Either way, it seems that a memorandum of understanding would need to be agreed to by both groups’ Directing Boards to ensure smooth operation and cooperation. Simply ignoring the issues could someday result in problems with insurance coverage, multiple USA teams being selected, or contested sanctioning of events. And there might well be other issues yet to be identified lurking in the bylaws.
While the benefits of being an OUSA chartered club are clear, for ARDF the choice might be murkier.
An OUSA-Only Approach
Another possibility would be for “Radio Orienteering” to be established under the IOF/OUSA umbrella with no official coordination with the IARU sport. This should require little or no cooperation between OUSA and the IARU/ARRL since a new ARDF organizational structure would come into existence. For this approach to succeed it would probably require recognition of a radio-guided orienteering activity by the International Orienteering Federation (IOF), perhaps as its own discipline among foot, mountain bike, ski, and trail orienteering disciplines; or perhaps as a sub-discipline of foot or trail orienteering. An OUSA-chartered ARDF club would then work exclusively with OUSA and the IOF to promote and administer the sport. World Championships would be IOF-sanctioned events, and USA Championships would be sanctioned by OUSA.
The IARU sport would, presumably, continue to exist independently. The IOF brand of Radio Orienteering would still be dependent on the IARU for the preservation of the radio spectrum utilized for the sport – so there would necessarily be at least some dependency on the IARU’s support.
Beyond the dubious eventuality of convincing the IOF to recognize a new orienteering discipline, it seems that the absence of coordination between OUSA and IARU would eventually result in the two independent Radio Orienteering sports diverging over time.
A Stand-Alone Club or Organization
Another option for forming a nationwide ARDF club would be to establish an independent organization. Such a club would not be chartered under an umbrella organization at all and would be free to create its own Constitution and Bylaws without consideration for any external organization’s requirements. The downside, of course, is that an independent club would receive none of the benefits associated with being chartered under a larger organizational umbrella. An independent club would also require more work and financial support from its membership in order to establish itself, and for it to provide the necessary support for ARDF such as insurance coverage, promotional materials, and such.
An ARRL Specialty Club
An ARDF Club might be formed under the ARRL umbrella as an ARRL Affiliated Club. The ARRL offers liability insurance to the activities conducted by its affiliated clubs, though it would need to be researched whether regular ARDF practices and competitions would be included as covered activities.
The ARRL allows clubs to specialize in certain activities, so it would seem that ARDF as an IARU/ARRL-recognized radio sport would be considered a legitimate specialty.
The ARRL allows regionally or nationally organized Amateur Radio groups to apply for affiliation, so a USA ARDF club would seem to be allowed. Though it might be the first such “nationally organized” club to seek ARRL affiliation.
There is also the requirement that at least 51% of the club’s voting members must be ARRL members.
Attempts to explore the possibility of affiliating a national ARDF group as a club or a “Regional or national organized Amateur Radio group” did not identify any issues that would preclude such affiliation. But inquiries were met with a lukewarm reception. Close coordination with the ARRL ARDF Committee and ARRL Regional Directors, and the IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator will likely prove helpful in order to gain approval.
Given ARDF’s current organizational structure, an ARRL affiliated club would seem to be the path of least resistance for establishing a national ARDF club and comes with a list of benefits.
Dual Affiliation
While the rules of affiliation seem to preclude having a single club that is chartered under both OUSA and the ARRL, there might be a way around that. Two very closely coupled clubs might be chartered: one under OUSA and the other under the ARRL. The clubs could share membership so that joining either club makes one a member of both. The clubs could also share (equitably divide) all income and expenses. Both club constitutions and bylaws would differ in order for them to satisfy the requirements of affiliation under their respective umbrella organizations.
The two clubs would “agree to disagree” on the precise definition of the sport in their constitutions, but would write their bylaws to ensure agreement and collaboration on all matters related to promoting and supporting ARDF. Neither club would be allowed to operate independently from the other on any matter affecting the sport. Board and Executive Committee meetings might be held jointly.
A dual club arrangement, while confusing, might make it possible for ARDF to enjoy the support of both the ARRL and OUSA while providing flexibility to avoid conflicts between the two organizations. For instance: the ARRL club might define ARDF as a radio sport, and be responsible for working directly with the ARRL ARDF Committee. The OUSA club might define ARDF as “orienteering + radio” and be responsible for coordinating with OUSA and promoting ARDF from a “maps and compasses” perspective. A practical example: The OUSA club might organize a national radio orienteering event and secure insurance coverage through OUSA, and the ARRL club might work with the ARRL Committee to get the event sanctioned as a USA Championship competition.
Could such an arrangement be made to pass muster with both umbrella organizations? Are there real advantages to all the added complexity? It isn’t clear to me. But perhaps this approach is worth considering.