On Behalf of the NSA/Wisconsin Board of Directors

The NSA -Wisconsin Chapter Board has decided to withhold completing the Chapter affiliation agreement. The board will wait for the final results of the Chapter of the Future task force and NSA board before reaching a final decision. The original proposal had numerous onerous provisions that if implemented, would have a major impact on the Wisconsin chapter and future relationship with NSA. We await the final report from the NSA board and hope for a favorable and positive set of recommendations. All comments and questions on this should be directed to Jim Morrison through any of the outlets listed below.

Jim Morrison
James N Morrison & Associates
PO Box 10801
Green Bay WI 54307-0801

Web Site: w ww.jimmorrisonspeaks.com
E-mail: jnmspeaks@aol.com
Phone: 920-434-4540
Cell: 920-621-2083
Fax: 920-494-4075

Words from NSA President Phillip Van Hooser, MBA, CSP, CPAE

February 13, 2010

 To all NSA Chapter Presidents,

I am writing you today from the 2010 NSA Winter Conference.  Despite the many winter weather challenges that have befallen various sections of the United States in recent days, almost 300 of our professional colleagues, including, hopefully, several of your local chapter members, have converged on Nashville for a weekend of professional education, interaction and inspiration. 

In advance of the arrival of the general membership, your NSA national Board of Directors met for our annual winter board meeting yesterday.  As you well know, there are currently many unique pressures facing our industry, and by extension our members.  Our board agenda was packed with issues that have the potential to affect NSA, as an organization, for good or for bad, for years to come.  Included in these critical issues for consideration was the “Chapters of the Future” proposal.

While I don’t need to revisit here all that has gone on in past days regarding this particular issue, each of you, as leaders of your local chapters have been intimately involved in this on-going discussion, on one level or another, for several months now.  I know it’s an important issue to you.  How do I know?  I know, based on the face-to-face conversations that I have had with many of you during my Presidential visits to your chapters.  I also know based on the dozens of emails and phone calls I have received from chapter leaders around the country.  (So many, that I could not possibly respond in detail to each and every one.  Please forgive me if you were offended by a lack of personal response from me, your President.)  Believe me, your national board of directors and I have heard you.

Just a few short weeks ago, on November 19th, in advance of the 2009 Fall Conference, a NSA Chapter Summit was held.  To our knowledge, it was the first time in the almost 40-year history of the National Speakers Association that such an initiative had been undertaken.  Dozens of chapter leaders were invited to Phoenix to share their unique input and insights.  Facilitated by NSA President-Elect Kristin Arnold and supported by various volunteers, including members of the Chapter Leadership Council, the half day-long Summit yielded what was hoped for…and what was dreaded. 

We hoped to solicit chapter leader thoughts—good and bad—regarding chapter-related issues facing the future.  You, as a group, did not disappoint on either account.  We heard what you liked and what you disliked; what you wanted from NSA national and what you wanted NSA national to stay away from. 

But, we also got what we dreaded.  Dreaded was the thought that some of you might question our motives for undertaking this issue in the first place.  Let me say clearly that your national board’s motives have been and continue to be pure.  We accept our responsibility to strategically face the future of our association with realism, while working to advance the NSA brand nationally and locally, thereby advancing the professional opportunities of NSA members everywhere. 

That brings us to our winter NSA board meeting.  The results from the Chapter Summit and the eleven proposals in question were presented for board consideration and action.  After an extended period of thoughtful and passionate discourse, it became apparent to all of us that this issue was too important to rush through any or all of the proposals in short order.  We came to the realization that more time was needed to carefully evaluate all the information that is now available to us.  As is my Presidential prerogative, I decided to take the following actions:

• In the days ahead, I will appoint a five (5) member task force made up of current NSA national board members, each of whom will possess extensive local chapter experience. 
• This task force will be charged with the responsibility of considering input received during the Phoenix Chapter Summit, coupled with the strategic necessity and intent of advancing NSA’s vision and mission on the national and local levels. 
• The task force will have available all comments that have been posted on the chapter one blog, as well as the various messages and concerns that have been shared with Kristin Arnold and others, by many of you, subsequent to the Chapter Summit.
• This task force will be responsible for submitting their findings and recommendations in proposal form directly to me.
• In turn, I will present these findings to the national board for consideration and appropriate action during our July 2010 national board meeting. 

I want to thank every chapter leader for your individual contributions to this initiative.  The information and perspective that each of you has offered is invaluable as we join hands in our continued efforts to advance the cause of NSA and its members as we move purposefully forward into the future.

I want to thank Kristin Arnold for her time and efforts.  In consideration of her many responsibilities leading up to assuming her NSA Presidency this coming summer, she has given more of herself than should be reasonably expected.  That is why I am freeing Kristin from service on this soon-to-be appointed task force in order to allow her the ability to focus solely on preparing for her work ahead. 

 Like me, I’m sure you all are anxious for these pending issues to be resolved and to have your many questions answered regarding the future working relationship between NSA national and the local chapters.  As anxious as we all are to complete this work, I simply ask for your patience in the months ahead.  I ask you to let this task force do the work they have been assigned.  I have the utmost confidence they will serve to the best of their ability.  I look forward to reporting their findings in the months ahead.

It is my honor to serve as the President of the National Speakers Association.  I look forward to seeing you all in Orlando in July.

All the best!

Phillip Van Hooser, MBA, CSP, CPAE
President, National Speakers Association (2009-2010)

On Behalf of Dorothy Erlanger, Past President NSA VA

From Dorothy E. Erlanger Past President NSA VA Dean NSA VA 2009-10 ProTrack

I don’t know if there is still an opportunity to have a ‘voice’ in the discussion before the very hasty final decision time, but this is important enough to at least attempt to be heard.    

First, I am glad to see Leslie Stambaugh’s comment regarding the Chapter Summit that ‘we must not have been in the same room’ because it reflects so perfectly our Chapter Summit representatives’ feelings – the summary is completely opposite to the sense and expressed wishes of the chapter summit discussion on the most fundamental issues.  All of the chapters have put a lot of time, money and effort into this entire process. To say that seeing ‘results’ which do not reflect the input, efforts, written comments or phone discussions is frustrating to say the least.   

Without repeating the very eloquent and passionate comments of others who have already weighed in, here is a side-by-side comparison of Chapter Leadership and Summit input vs what is up for a decision.  

from the Summit and Chapter communications	‘on behalf of Kristin Arnold’ recommendation  & communications
Decentralized model (VERY strongly felt and stated)	Franchise
One name for professional development, but with option for subtitles, other localization, customization	One name, no exceptions, no localization
Enhanced information availability, resources; leverage what is out there for chapters who can benefit	Centralized dictates for all
CLC as key organization in chapter leadership, liaison – one of the most valuable resources and development elements that NSA provides	No CLC; substitute a Chapter Advisory Board; control mechanism (note, this was stated last summer and reiterated in the recommendations we received – so far it’s being soft pedaled but it is a very worrisome  part of the picture)
Model of chapter bylaws available as opt-in support where desired	Mandated standard bylaws
Phase in decisions and changes with continued discussion, particularly on tougher, more fundamental issues	Decide NOW
Chapter/National relationship 1)Support 2)Enhance local capabilities, particularly for newer and/or smaller chapters 3)Collaborative	National/Chapter relationship 1)Enforcement 2)Standardize model for all 3)Paternalistic – Now, now (implied, children) , don’t overreact – We know better than you do; just listen and go along
Improved/enhanced resource availability to be used as needed	Centralized models, information, usages, website

Is NSA facing challenges in membership?  Of course.

Does that mean that there are fundamental flaws in structure?  Of course not! Every national organization that I am aware of is facing similar challenges.

Do these challenges justify wholesale, drastic changes to an organization that we all feel very strongly about?  Not unless you want to drive away many who will no longer feel a connection and commitment to a top down, controlling organization.  

In closing, one central question:

                Does this reflect the spirit of Cavett?

Final Data: Survey on Proposals

Dear Fellow NSA Leaders and Friends,

Here are the final data from my “unofficial” survey. Thank you all for participating and sharing your perspectives. These results represent the opinions of leaders (presidents, immediate past presidents, or other summit delegates) from 85% of our NSA chapters.  Final Survey Data

Although any survey data must be weighed with reason and experience, I believe one overwhelmingly popular notion among chapter leaders was that when possible opt-in or voluntary offerings should be made with background rationale and a supporting business case instead of mandated change requirements.

A second common belief was that the vast majority of chapter leaders do not support a franchise model as articulated: Only 22% were in favor of this change. A key reason seems to be that the word “franchise” carries a strong connotation that the franchisee has no control or influence in the relationship. Instead of a sweeping high-level change, we might all benefit from clearly defined, specific proposals with well supported, compelling benefit statements that invite chapters to voluntarily participate–because of the added benefits the proposals yield.

Here are a few examples, and then I’ll be done:

1. Only 19.6 – 21.7% of respondents support a mandated Bylaws template, while 83.3 – 90.9% would support a laundry list of items that must be included in Bylaws. NSA still gets consistency among chapters, but the chapters retain a feeling of ownership in their own governance.
2. Only 29.3 – 33.3% of respondents support a restriction to ONLY use a standard NSA logo. Support more than doubles to 68.4 – 72.3% simply by grandfathering those few chapters who have already invested in a customized chapter logo (which contains the NSA logo). The NSA logo is still present in all cases. The vast majority of existing chapters and all new chapters will use the desired standardized logo: This is an 85-90% win in practical application, but it eliminates the majority of dissenting opinions.
3. Nearly half (45.5 – 46.3%) our chapter leaders like having an eSpeakers option for their chapter directories. This is good. What is interesting is how the favoring percentage almost doubles to 81.6 – 85.0% when we ask eSpeakers to offer NSA members with free accounts a video and one sheet upload capability so all member profiles on a chapter (or national) directory are equitable. Even most with paid eSpeakers accounts realize that all profiles on an association directory should look the same. This does require eSpeakers to adjust a couple things, but there will still be plenty of value between the free and paid accounts to be worth the upgrade for most. The opportunity to up-sell their product to all our NSA members is more than worth the effort and concession we would ask eSpeakers to make.

Well, as promised I am at the end of my soap box. Thank you again to my fellow chapter leaders who participated in the survey and thank you to Kristin, the Summit Team, and the NSA Board for their tireless efforts to make NSA even greater than it is now. I am hopeful all of this has brought us to a place where value laden options can address clearly articulated needs and strengthen all of NSA. We’ve made important steps so far and I applaud ongoing efforts to improve our association and sooth some ruffled relationship feathers.

Chapter of the Future Proposals – Final Survey Results with Narrative Comments

A fellow NSAer emailed me the other day and said this situation seems to have created “a tempest in a teapot.” His observation is accurate and the process is far from ended. Even so, I suggest to each of us as I did to my friend that we all look forward to the nice cup of cocoa at the end. Mine will be another cup of french vanilla. Mmmm….

Keep Smilin’
Marty

Marty Val Hill
Live Your Legacy

NSA Mountain West Immediate Past President
and Chapter Leadership Council (CLC) Member

(These are my opinions and not necessarily those of NSA, the CLC, or anybody else).

On Behalf of Steve Iwersen

 I fully understand that the need for creating a congruent and valued experience for the members of our association is of utmost importance.  And I truly appreciate the efforts of each person who has taken on this monumental task of facilitating the discussion. 

Unfortunately, it “appears” that the team charged with the assignment to recommend the Chapter of the Future is ready to move forward.  But, the chapter voices still need time to discuss the real issues and the process.

 

What are the real issues?  Templates, dues, directories, by-laws, and chapter models?  Those are methods that we are making into issues. 

 

The real issue: National encourages Chapter Membership; what then is National doing to increase the quality and value of the Chapter experience for NSA members?

 

I believe that the intent of most of the recommendations leans toward building value in chapter membership.  The resistance seems to be sparked by a perception that NSA is more interested in building a Brand.   I’m not convinced that is true; however, what I do believe to be true is that participation in the local chapter will decrease if “managed” and will increase if it is meaningful.

 

Better defined parameters and guidelines for NSA Chapters are necessary. Providing quality resources and tools for chapters will enhance the value.  The specific recommendation of a “franchise model” is not ready to go forward, because there has not been sufficient definition, plans or discussion on how it enhances the individual’s membership.

 

When we ask most NSA members what value they receive from their chapter membership, the standard response is “community.”  Our national leadership team needs to listen to the “heart of NSA” a little longer before taking action. 

 

Steven Iwersen

 

Oh Behalf of Susan Trivers

NSA has a wonderful tradition of honoring its legends and stars. And who are these people? They are those among us who stand out for their uniqueness, creativity and individualism. Conformity and uniformity do not define them. Their audiences gravitate to them because they inspire hope and visions of their own aspirations. Through whatever delivery method–keynotes, breakouts, training, consulting, coaching, products, humor and serious content– our most successful NSA members stand out from the crowd.

Voting in favor of the proposed franchise model would be throwing out the 40 years of belief in the value of individuality that has personified NSA since its inception.

As with any association, NSA exists to serve its members. Without members, there is no NSA. The background and justification for the Chapter of the Future initiative is “to extend the brand of NSA into the local marketplace.” This would be a worthy goal IF the word “marketplace” was defined as the vast array of people in businesses, associations and government who search for and book speakers (of any type).

Unfortunately what “marketplace” clearly means in this Chapter of the Future vision is the marketplace of NSA itself. You want the NSA brand as you envision it to be accepted and lived by the chapters. What value does this bring to any speaker and why would uniformity among the chapters entice any working speaker to join? When speakers do not receive a return on their investment of dues, they will leave or not join in the first place.

The NSA Chapters grew out of the desire to make it possible for experts who speak to gather locally to share their experiences and best practices. The founders recognized that what we do is special and that the personal support and relationships between us would support our special work. Local groups would add value to membership in NSA by making these gatherings accessible and frequent.

All of this thinking is focused on one idea: helping speakers grow their businesses to create more business for all. By creating more business for all, NSA could serve the businesses and associations who need our expertise for the benefit of their employees and members.

Nowhere in the discussions, summits, reports and recommendations about the Chapter of the Future does this idea—supporting NSA members and their clients—appear.

This concept has been all about NSA, the organization, headquartered in Tempe. The extensive use of resources, both volunteer and paid, consumed to get to the point where 8 motions will be presented at the Feb. 11, 2010 Board meeting has been devoted to turning away from what NSA is all about.

The statement on the background of this is disingenuous at best. That “it appeared” that the recommendations of the Chapter of the Future Task Force were leading to the franchise model was no accident. Conformity to headquarters’ requirements is what this has been about all along, starting with the original list of non-negotiables and continuing through these various recommendations, such as requiring approval from headquarters for chapter newsletter mastheads.

I am a chapter president (NSA-DC). For the past three years I have chosen to receive all inquiries from members, candidates, guests and strangers so that I get an up-close-and-personal education about what’s going on. The inquiries are always about “what will NSA do for me? In other words, if I join NSA and NSA-DC will I be better able to fulfill my vision of being a successful working speaker?” No one has ever asked about how much like other chapters we are, or about the NSA brand as it pertains to NSA. They want to know if belonging to NSA will help them get more business. None of the Chapter of the Future work answers that question in the affirmative.

NSA-DC is, when measured by numbers and financial health, a successful chapter. Yet the board struggles to get things done, to provide exceptional customer service that meets the needs of our members and to recruit new people into our leadership pipeline. Those are the real issues chapters face every day. This franchise model will add delays and bureaucracy to an already over-worked board and do nothing to help us with our real challenges.

Your thinking that a $25 penalty for not joining a chapter will encourage members to join their chapters is preposterous. Dues for NSA-DC are $110.00 per year for an NSA member. So they can pay the extra $25.00 to NSA and save money by not joining a chapter.

What is really troubling about this particular idea is that it doesn’t address the real objections that I hear all the time when I ask NSA members to join our chapter: “I can’t go to another meeting; I travel too much; I have family obligations; I am overwhelmed, overworked, overscheduled.” Do you honestly think that $25.00 is going to overcome these objections?

What has worked for us is talking about how belonging to NSA-DC helps them learn how to grow their businesses, provides networking, and an opportunity to spend several hours with people who really do understand that they are overwhelmed, overworked and overscheduled. We tell them they can get the best of the best in the business right in their own backyard, on a monthly basis. That’s value, not coercion.

The other main member benefit we’ve been working on is to increase awareness in the metro DC area about the existence of NSA-DC and our Find a Speaker directory. We are local experts, available, easy to meet and interview, with no transportation expenses, and with insight into the world of associations, government and business that are centered in DC. Every single experienced speaker I’ve told this vision to is excited and wants to support it. That’s a huge value of belonging to NSA-DC that far exceeds $25.00. And nothing in this Chapter of the Future franchise model addresses this.

I urge you to vote against the franchise model and all the specific motions that underlie this concept. Voting against these motions means you will be voting for the health and well-being of NSA and the Chapters. While there may be opportunities for improving the operations of chapters, these motions are not them.

Imagine corralling the energy, creativity and commitment of the NSA board and staff and chapter members for a nationwide marketing campaign that reaches each and every business, association or government organization and educates them on the exceptional value they get by engaging experts who are NSA members. That would be a Chapter of the Future initiative that would cause non-NSA speakers to flock to the association and would grow Chapter membership rolls. This campaign would extend the NSA brand into the marketplace in a way that honors and continues the purpose and mission of NSA.

Sincerely,
Susan Trivers
President, NSA-DC

On Behalf of Leslie Krauz Stambaugh

Sorry I am emailing my response to the to the proposal’s original email list, but I haven’t figured out how to get this out on the blog and am painfully aware that there is not much more time before the February 11 decision date.  I attended the summit, facilitated a table of eight+ participants there, and read the proposal that resulted from it with great interest.  But I can’t help but wonder if we were all in the same room together. 

At the summit, I heard enormous agreement in favor of the present decentralized model for chapters – and I heard agreement for a template for uniform bylaws, a standardized logo, and a standardized website that chapters could adopt only if they chose to do so.  There was discussion about the templates’ usefulness to new chapters and to those with limited funding and the fact that those who have already invested in custom bylaws or logos or websites, in some cases, already have solutions that are likely to far exceed what NSA probably will have the resources to offer.  I also heard strong opposition to the franchise model and the kind of centralized requirements that are being recommended in this proposal — as close to “violent opposition” as I have ever heard in NSA. 

As a result, I had a lot of trouble learning that the Board will be told that most of these recommendations were “voted on by 66 representatives of chapters nationwide” and that “there was limited argument and wide spread support for each of the recommendations that made it to the final voting.”  I  do not think it can honestly be said that were given the opportunity to vote on recommendations stated as they are presented in the proposal and I may be wrong, but given what I heard and saw on the summit floor, I do not believe those recommendations would have passed had they been stated using this wording.  Recommending “opt-in” solutions meets the need of smaller/newer chapters and allows national to provide the service, demonstrate how well they can really meet the need, and make a case for greater opting-in later, if they wish. Why push universal adoption now against so much opposition?  

My chapter’s past presidents met to review the original proposals before our chapter representatives headed for Arizona to the Summit.  After much discussion, we all agreed that the franchise model was not a good one for national or for the chapters.  I agree with that conclusion even more now after seeing the actions suggested in Recommendation 11 and thinking about the overhead this model would add to NSA and the implications of enforcing “compliance” on the chapters.  In addition, the resources to provide the administrative help, expertise, and creativity chapters need are not as available in the national office as they are at the chapter level, where the stake in the outcome is much more immediate.  Centralizing, furthermore, is likely to discourage innovation and buy-in at the local level – something I think this association now nurtures and profits from.  Finally, I think we need to be clear among ourselves about what kind of branding we want for NSA.  A lot of things are being recommended here in the name of branding, and I’m not sure that they represent the kind of branding we want or need.  We need to be branded by the excellence of our members’ performance and by NSA’s ability to help us achieve and be recognized and rewarded for that achievement. Most of the recommendations in this proposal, in my mind, are not really targeted to meaningful branding and appear to be geared, instead, to helping those chapters that are under-performing and need more targeted NSA support.

I have seen the other replies to this proposal and have talked with some of leaders who attended the summit. I do not believe NSA has the buy-in it needs to make these kinds of changes to chapter functioning without significant costs to chapters, especially to those that are now the most successful, in what looks like an attempt to support those that are not.  Implementing the recommendations in this proposal without an extremely solid base of support puts NSA at great risk of damaging its relationship with one of its greatest resources, its chapters.  I commend the Board for reaching out to chapter leadership before making these decisions and hope they will listen to what those closest to the chapters have to say.   

Respectfully,
Leslie Krauz Stambaugh

Thoughts from a chapter president…

Hello there everyone,

 I have stayed a little quiet on this issue, but have been reading all of the valuable input and responses. I think I’ve remained quiet partly out of respect for the fact that since I helped to compile the document, there may be the belief that I am biased in some way, and partly to allow myself time to digest all the feedback. What I am about to share is strictly my opinion as a fellow chapter president of NSA Central Florida, who has a very strong board and a history in our chapter of 25 years of success in governing ourselves, including a Speaker’s Academy that is a major revenue generator for our chapter. In fact, the below is the same information I shared with Marty in his survey that he has created, which I thought was a brilliant idea, by the way. 

 In seeing the survey, the feedback, the comments and the strength of the convictions of so many, my real concern is that I truly don’t believe National is in any way looking to force feed anyone anything. However, I see a lot of what I would call resistance to growth and change and what I would also call “turf wars”. We are all entitled to have them, but I thought the goal here was to gather input from as many as possible and then to support each other in the transition process for the betterment of our chapters. I don’t think there is a great deal of truth to the “Top Down”, National is going to require us to x, y, and z mentality or way of thinking.

 I also very distinctly remember all of these issues, except the “franchise model” being discussed on the Summit floor and everyone had a chance to share, vote, rebutt, or discuss. I am puzzled that there is so much seeming vehemence around some of these issues, when at the summit there was very limited disagreement. Perhaps instead there was very limited understanding or an underlying current that I did not pick up on and a reticence to share information openly. I’m in favor of much of what was discussed and believe that if NSA were trying to force the chapters into conforming, then two things would NOT have happened: 1) they would not have paid for the room, food, time on the schedule, and allocation of resources to the effort we are calling the Chapter Summit meeting. 2) they would have enacted these items and others without a vote and without any input and merely announced the changes. On the “franchise model” issue, this seems to have caused a great deal of inertia and emotion and I think I took the term to be more conceptual than literal, more of a way of describing what we migth look like in concept, versus a model that is actually just like a true franchise. Perhaps I missed it completely.

 My impression is that national and our leaders, are trying to figure out how best to help the chapters and how best to help us grow and be even stronger in our synergy and our offerings than we are now. The model we use is outdated and many chapters do a brilliant job of self governing, whereas others would benefit greatly from more support at a national level. The goal I have always believed is to HELP the members of the chapters, encourage more membership in the chapters (i.e. the dues increase to incentivize chapter membership) and to support us in ways that make sense financially, practically, and logistically. That’s my take anyway as a chapter president.

Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts and for sharing yours.

On Behalf of Dennis Stauffer

I can live with any of these proposals, depending on how they are implemented. However, I remain skeptical about the implementation. What troubles me is the recurring tone throughout this discussion on ALL sides that too often seems to assume that others who we disagree with are not as loyal/committed/enlightened/understanding as we are. Unfortunately, one of the places (although not the only place) this keeps happening is in the phrasing and explanations drafted into some of the proposals themselves. I think I’m not alone when I say that it’s often that phrasing – more than the proposed changes – that is at times upsetting. I believe this tone is inadvertent but nonetheless it keeps happening. So I fear that it reflects an underlying attitude that isn’t changing.

I’m not worried about those who would undermine NSA, because I don’t think they exist. I’m worried about those who think they may need to somehow save or fix us in spite of ourselves, because they apparently believe such members and chapters do exist.

 I’ll give just the most recent example:

In the documentation in support of the added resolution on going to a franchise model, the only downside mentioned is that some chapters are “fiercely independent.” Is that really the only negative implication you can think of? Aren’t there any other things to be cautious about if we go down that path? And if you can’t think of any other potentially troublesome effects, what confidence do we have that the implementation will be done with any sensitivity to the many real concerns folks have? Will any critics simply be dismissed as “fiercely independent?”

 Furthermore, we “get it.” We recognize that the franchise approach (which I personally think has some merit) is so broad and vague that it reopens the door to many of the proposals that have generated so much controversy. The franchise model was on the of list of options as one choice among several. To float it now as somehow representing a consensus is more than a little disingenuous. If the other proposals amount to a franchise approach then it’s redundant anyway. Do the stuff that was supported and let the franchise approach emerge.

 There is plenty of room for positive change in NSA and I applaud those who have undertaken this project, but the communications on this have been disastrous. From day one, the universal question that’s been asked throughout NSA has been: What’s the real agenda, here? That’s not because we’re all paranoid. It’s because we’re bright people and we’re picking up on the tone as well as the content. (And if that many of us are picking up on the same thing, maybe it’s real.) Unfortunately, after all of the dialogue we’ve had, that question remains.

Quantitative Data, Anyone?

I am posting an unofficial Survey Monkey link here to allow you to weigh in on the 11 final recommendations as they are currently written, in a more quantitative form.  This survey will offer a quick and easy way to let us know whether the handful of comments we’ve already seen are representative of the silent masses.

I think the board deserve to know quantitatively what the chapters think about each item before they have to vote on them–rather than just “hearing about it” afterwords. I’ll post this data here on Feb 11th (the day the board meets), so everyone can see how the numbers look.

Here is a link to the survey:  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5LYS97V

Keep Smilin’

Marty