Unification/Consolidation - whatever you call it - here is what I think

Since I have had the chance to step into the role as your Regional Vice President, I have been asked a lot what is going on with unification/consolidation between NASPA and ACPA. Specifically, questions have been asked about the resolution that was passed at the National Business meeting. It is my perspective that the resolution does nothing to “halt” talks as some have argued. It simply requests that the national advisory board not send the unification question to vote without further discussion amongst the regions. This includes discussions at our fall meetings, as well as the next National Meeting in Philadelphia.
There have been great conversations and exchanges on the NASPA website and a forum in the members only section.

Like many of you, I am still wading through this information, but here are my personal “I knows” and “I wonder.”

I know:
1. There have been eight subcommittees identified by both NASPA and ACPA leadership. Those committees include:
• Governance By-Laws and Structure
• Social Identities Groups (currently Knowledge Communities/Standing Committees)
• Functional Areas (currently KC/Commissions/Divisions)
• Membership Structure
• Conferences/Conventions; Geographical Organization
• Placement Services; and Publications/Scholarship
As a past RVP, Christine is serving on the Placement Services subcommittee, and I also know that Prakash Mathew (Geographical Organization) and Diana Doyle (Governance By-Laws and Structure) are also serving, so I feel good about our region’s representation.
2. The committee reports will be available to me sometime in July, and I will be doing my best to review and be prepared for conversations at the National Board meeting in July.
3. The colleagues working on these committees are taking this very seriously, and are without hidden agenda
4. Many of our Past Presidents and influential members are greatly concerned about a merger and have outlined many of their arguments on the forum listed above.
5. Recently, a number of collaborative efforts between the organizations have turned out some great work – specifically the professional competencies. So we know we can work together.

I wonder, so I will be waiting for the report:

1. Assumptions are being made by many that one organization = less expensive dues. At this point, this has not been reported to us. ACPA memberships at member institutions are $75 for professional members, NASPA memberships are $63 at member institutions. I’m not sure what it will look like when finished.
2. We have built a strong region – and I don’t exactly want to only have conversations at meetings with colleagues from my own state. ACPA has been built on a state model – which is a significant difference.
3. How will people get involved? With two organizations and two leadership structures, more people can get involved in leadership roles. How will that play out?
4. How will votes be handled? This concern has been raised by our Small College and University Division as well as our Community College Division. NASPA has a model of one vote per institution on all things except regional elections. This has allowed all of our institutions an “equal” playing field. ACPA has allowed all members to vote, which isn’t a bad thing, but it does raise the question of larger institutions driving the agenda.
5. Does one organization mean one voice? There was a call in the Task Force Report for a common voice. Many that have been vocal in the discussion have shortened that to a single voice for Student Affairs. I don’t believe that there should be a single voice, as we are all different and our institutions are all different. How can one voice serve us all?

I know that there are opportunities for collaboration that strengthen our profession, and possibly a unification is the right thing to do. However, at this time I am not ready to cast a vote, as I’m sure that there will be other questions that will arise. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.