On Behalf of Jim Morrison, NSA WI

Jim Morrison, on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:50 pm Said: Edit Comment

The Wisconsin chapter board has written a “white paper” of serious issues, concerns, and questions for the NSA people. The contents follow
Issues, Concerns and Questions for NSA-National
NSA-Wisconsin
The First Chartered Chapter of NSA

Background:

Recently, a great deal of information has been exchanged about possible chapter changes culminating with the Chapter Summit in November 2009. Although some of the ideas were thought to be good improvements, many of the proposed changes were met with deep concern.
One concern has been around for some time and was given increased emphasis during the summit: Membership. Our chapter, like many others at the Summit, has members who are very active in the industry and in the chapter but feel no connection with National. Some are former members of National who have come to question the value of NSA membership given the dues level and costs for functions and the resultant return on investment (ROI), especially in these difficult economic times. NSA stipulates we call these very valuable chapter members Affiliates. Yet, doing so classifies them with candidates and emerging speakers who have little or no experience. Their level of expertise and professional skills are not recognized or acknowledged.

Our board has considered several options to address this issue involving everything from losing these very active, contributing members to dissolving our chapter and forming a state association. Before we take any action we have decided to ask National to help us answer the following posed by our members.

Questions:

Why is it necessary to have membership in both National and a Chapter to be considered a member?

When joining other organizations with national designations, you become a member of both (i.e., Rotary, Lions, Optimists, etc.), yet the dues are collected at a local level and a SMALL portion of the dues is provided to the National on a per-member cost. Why do we need to have 2 different sets of dues, especially since the National dues are so much higher? Can the Service club model for dues structure be considered?

What is the value we get from National membership?

We get a website, a magazine, a CD of VOE, and resources for speakers listed on the website. There is a never-ending solicitation for attendance at meetings, which are very costly to attend. Many of the people who write the articles and present at the conferences seem to have less experience than many of our chapter members. More value is made available at our local level at a fraction of the cost. Why attend National seminars if there is little opportunity to come away with anything of value other than contacts with other speakers? What consideration has been given to staging shorter, regional meetings allowing more people to participate at a more affordable cost?

Why are the dues so high?

What other benefits are included other than those items identified above? Yes, there is a large staff to pay, but what does that do for us on the local level? Years ago, National routinely sent out potential member contact information received on their end for follow-up on our end. Through the years, that process has become cumbersome and ineffective. Yet it was a great tool for building up the chapter membership and, potentially, National’s.

Material on the website is dated in many instances. A returning member reports forms are not current. The contracts on the website are the same ones posted years ago. What value can we get from the site? What is the plan for improvement? What is the current usage from members?

We now use e-speaker for the NSA directory, a service that was previously included in our dues. If we want to add video, we can — by paying yet another high cost. This is an example of member frustration at diminishing ROI with increasing cost.

Solutions proposed at the Summit seem to many of us to be top-down driven, making sure National is sound at the expense of growing chapters.

The structure seems very inverted. What is the Summit result doing to address this concern? What is the chapter going to see as tangible improvements to offer members? We recruit at the Chapter level, encouraging volunteers to take local leadership roles, with the hope of moving them into National participation and even National leadership roles.

Most of our Professional members have gone through the local leadership ranks, with many of them moving to a National leadership role of some sort. They have moved beyond the want or the need to serve on the local level. That leaves this and other Chapters with a challenge and a predicament; the Affiliates become, in essence, the cultivated future leaders. However, we are not to consider or call them members. In any association, be it fraternal or professional, a legitimate sense of belonging helps the entity to grow from the inside out. From our Chapter perspective, this progression doesn’t seem to be recognized as a legitimate process by National. It seems National would rather we continue to set up boundaries and divisions rather than be inclusive and welcoming.

Summary:

When the branding initiative to call all chapters “NSA-WI”, “NSA-IL”, etc was ushered in, we eventually dropped our old identity (Wisconsin Professional Speakers Association) and replaced it with NSA WI. A few years ago, in an effort to broaden our membership and provide a higher ROI for our existing members, we created highly successful initiatives to foster a unique identity under the NSA umbrella. We pioneered a combination blog/web site, evolved Fast Track into Speaker U, developed the Executive Speakers School and many other projects. We were (and still are) pioneers in the speaking profession. Our chapter has always been on the cutting edge. Change for the sake of change isn’t a wise course of action. With that in mind we pose the following questions:

• How do any of the proposed changes continue to propel us forward as an experienced, successful Chapter? With any change, the devil is in the details. We are concerned about the potential increased cost to individual members as well as to Chapters.

• What truly is the issue of having non NSA members as Chapter members? We have and hope to continue to promote NSA events and membership at our functions.

• How would you fill leadership positions when fewer and fewer NSA members want to serve in that capacity? Simply dissolving a chapter is not an answer and does little to address the underlying problem. For the past few years, every officer and director in our chapter has been an NSA member. And each year, one of them decides to let their NSA membership lapse during the course of their term. To a person they have questioned the value of their NSA membership, making NSA’s problem our problem.

These are a few of the difficult questions posed by our long-term members who have become disillusioned with the National Association because of continually increasing dues, the high cost of attending meetings with presentations by people who often have less experience than they do, and little ROI in this very difficult economy – an economy that is hurting our industry and us as individuals. We hope that you will address these issues, and we would like to meet with any of the Association staff if that would be helpful. We hope to find a solution that strengthens the local chapters as well as NSA.

Submitted by:

Jim Morrison
President-Elect
NSA Wisconsin