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
Filed under: Uncategorized
From Marilynn Semonick:
As a past president and active member of the Michigan chapter and a past national board member, I was asked by our chapter leaders to attend the Summit as a representative to voice our collective opinions. Before the Summit, we had a meeting with our Past President Council to discuss the task force proposals. The majority of the past presidents were in attendance, and those who were not, called in. So, as I write this response to the proposal document I received from our CLC liaison, I’m attempting to reflect the thoughts from our past presidents as well as my concerns as a Summit participant.
My late entry into the conversation is my first piece of feedback regarding the process we’re currently using to move forward. In the future, please consider keeping those who invested time, energy and money into the process as stakeholders who need and deserve to be kept informed of the progress of their work. Since I wasn’t included in the follow up process, I received the document from the task force because our CLC liaison, Leslie Stambaugh, has worked hard to ensure those who were involved, stay included.
I was struck with confusion at my first read through of the document. I sincerely wondered if I had attended the same meeting that the content of the document contained. The words, “There was no violent opposition to any of the proposals” is misleading and honestly, confusing to me. At our table, people were as violently opposed to many of the proposals as appropriate in civil debate. I heard and felt the same strong resistance about several of the proposals when discussed in the whole group. I don’t know how much louder the resistance could have been expressed.
I realize several people have already voiced their concerns, so I’ll keep my comments as short as possible, and hope that the spirit with which I am writing is heard:
The proposal document begins by stating the objective/purpose of the proposals. Let’s PLEASE keep our rational thinking wrapped around the feedback that’s been received so far, and our heartbeat close to the emotions behind what people are saying as we ask ourselves if “strengthening the relationship” is what we’ve achieved from the process thus far. As I observe, we’ve created a boatload of angst, suspicion and misunderstandings – Unfortunate unintended consequences of this attempted change process. Since these responses continue, could we please consider stepping back to reevaluate the process?
During the Summit I heard strong opposition to the sense of “mandates” to chapters:
#3: Uniform Bylaw Template – especially when discussing standardization that would be provided by national. My notes reflect conversations about the suggested “template” piece; however, conversation strongly argued that the template should not be mandated by national, nor should approval be required by national.
Does, “There will be an expense of $500.00 for legal review to finalize the chapter bylaws prior to distribution” mean that chapters will be mandated to pay $500.00 for something many of them have adamantly expressed they don’t want?
#4: My notes do not reflect the proposal submitted via this document. It was my understanding, through the conversation on the main floor, that the NSA logo would be used by all chapters, AND chapters could continue to use THEIR logos, that aligned with national’s, as well. And, chapters were not restricted to using them on the newsletters only.
Stated in the proposal: “Potential downsides(s) of this proposal: Chapters may feel . . . NSA is telling them what to do.” This is a statement I beg we pay attention to and take very seriously. It is my interpretation that this statement sums up the spirit of the resistance. Perhaps it’s the tone with which content is delivered. The push back is coming from dedicated, hard-working, actively involved leaders within chapters whose behaviors demonstrate frustration and angst (again, my interpretation).
#5: WordPress usage in Webpage Template Standardization – My notes reflect, a strong response of the participants to the “opt-in” part of the proposal. Several chapter representatives argued that their chapters had lready invested enormous resources to create their current website, and perceive them as sites that may exceed that offered by WordPress. So, the conversation was concluded with acceptance of web design made available, and not mandated.
This is stated in the “Potential downside(s) of this proposal: Chapters . . . may resist using this due to the expenses already allocated or spent on local websites . . . extensive amount of staff time dedicated” already. Are we listening?
#8: I’m confused by this recommendation. Don’t chapters already have the “option to offer speaker development programs? Perhaps, at this part of the process, I’m paranoid and suspicious, so I’m looking for “what am I missing here?” What, specifically, does this recommendation change? Our chapter leaders are asking,” If this recommendation passes, will we be mandated to use . . .?” It’s the mandate issue that once again, continues to surface.
#11: “Which did not come from the Summit floor” – was stated in the report; however, the report does not include that the franchise model WAS discussed with strong opposition at the Summit.
The document states, “Potential downside(s) of this proposal: Some chapters are fiercely independent and may resist efforts to provide services.” My experience at the Summit and my notes reflect strong conversations about and opposition to the franchise model. If people are asked to invest in a process, let’s please hear their voices.
Again, I hope my comments are heard in the spirit with which I intend to send them. All of us have stepped up to the plate and, once again, responsibly stayed active in a process intended to strengthen the relationship between national and chapters. The task force has obviously worked hard and stayed diligent in gathering information and documenting content that was generated. Chapter and national leaders have been active in gathering information from appropriate stakeholders and voicing their concerns. I sincerely ask that we listen loudly to what is being said and how it’s being stated.
Is the current process getting the collaborative results we desire? If not, let’s step back, reevaluate and adjust. Because, in the end, it’s the community of NSA and chapters we’re all working so hard to sustain. If our tribe and it’s “why” suffers because of the “how” we are executing, do any of us really win?
Respectfully,
Marilynn Semonick
From Tom Davidson, SPHR, PCC:
While I posted this on the Chapter of the Future Blog several days ago, there seems to be so much activity in this forum that I thought it best to include my feedback at this point by email as well. It echoes many of the concerns being raised, and also encourages the Board to “step back,” revisit the original objective as they know it, and consider even more deeply the valid voices of dissent.
I would like to commend everyone taking positions on the various issues being addressed, particularly those brave and passionate enough to disagree publicly. In my view, the whole Chapter of the Future process had a rough (i.e., “non-negotiable”) and confusing (i.e., what was the real problem we were solving?) start; smoothed out somewhat at the Chapter Summit (an event that was well run but by design too brief to coalesce the information under review); and now appears to be rushed and dismissive of dissent. I would encourage a collective “deep breath” and recommend that the Board step back from the brink before acting on these recommendations and reconsider the problem this was intended to solve and if that problem is worth the kind of fractures that have become so evident in the thoughtful replies seen on this blog and elsewhere.
While I am concerned about the real meaning of the “franchise model,” I have less passion about some of the content being considered (i.e., dues are high but I feel the value is there; the name of ProTrack is less important than the fact that these programs continue in a quality way and foster Affiliates to progress, thus “growing the pie”; and I realize logos can get out of hand but is this really that important?). Moreover, I think the process is even more concerning at this point. I’m quite sure the staff and volunteer committee members have spent countless hours and suffered enormous consternation at times in the past few months. Simply preparing for our representatives’ trip to the Chapter Summit took a significant toll here in Virginia. Nevertheless, this investment of time, intellectual capital and momentum should not dictate that the result is a foregone conclusion. The Board might, in fact, consider this enormous effort to be a form of “sunk cost” and not feel compelled to adopt anything that does not help solve the original (and still un-quantified) “problem” that originated this process as reflected in the objective statement in the recent executive summary. I hope the Board has a shared understanding of what that was and will revisit it carefully at this important juncture.
My concern about the process was driven home by the dismissive nature of the “potential downsides” of the Proposal Summary, given in that recent document. In my view, the paternalistic statement condemns those resisting change as barriers to doing what’s good for them. It reads: “There will be the typical initial reaction to change over areas in which change is required in order to continue making progress.” To trivialize the dissenters even more, we are told that this (apparently immature) “reaction will either weed out those unwilling to change or provide motivation for those who simply must struggle through the change to see the benefit” (that we are not smart enough to see for ourselves, I gather). Finally, the loss of these “slower” members appears to be a small price to pay: “We may lose a small percentage of members when acting on issues such as the Speaker Development Program and Membership Dues.”
I hope there is more respect for the valid voices of dissent on the Board.
Tom Davidson, President
NSA Virginia