Last Friday all NASPA Members received a copy of the report on Unification for NASPA and ACPA. There was a lot of hard work and effort put into that report and I applaud everyone who had a hand in making that happen – countless years in the making, we are finally at this point.
I am not going to go into nuances of the report yet as I truly want everyone to take the time to read the report – there are some breakdowns However I do want to share one idea with you as you review the report, and that is this –
Both ACPA and NASPA will cease to exist as we know them, and for some on both sides of the table that is the only concern. However I want to challenge you to think about this report in terms of what is best for our PROFESSION, and make your own decision from that framework.
Does the report help you determine that, or see a possibility for the future? I hope so, but I am looking forward to seeing many of you in Omaha in a few short weeks to discuss in more detail. If you can't be in Omaha or are looking for other ways to comment, you can through the NASPA Unification Blog or if you are a graduate student there is a specific blog just for you - to ensure that we hear what our graduate students are saying.
I encourage you to take the time to read the document – it’s important for NASPA and it’s important for our profession.
Posted with permission from Roger Sorochty (message will be in three parts due to length)
ReplyDeleteAfter carefully considering the “Proposal for the Consolidation of ACPA and NASPA” I have concluded that I will vote against consolidating.
In order to offer a perspective from which I have reached this decision, those reading this might want to know that I completed my Masters degree in Student Personnel Administration (as many such degree programs were called at the time) from Syracuse University in 1972. My Ph.D. in Educational Administration was awarded by the University of Ottawa, Canada, in 1976. With the exception of the period between 1981 and 1985, my entire career has been in higher education with all but five of them in Student Affairs administration – and with twenty-one of those years as a senior student affairs officer.
Consequently, my comments are offered with the deepest respect for our profession and especially the students we serve (both undergraduates and graduates) which is why it’s such a joy to come to work every day. I’ve made this point to help readers understand the perspective from which my comments later regarding voting privileges as proposed in New Organization come. Hence, it’s probably best to start there although my other concerns with the proposed New Organization also include what is to me an unwieldy organizational structure which has implications, in my opinion, for reducing effective and meaningful involvement in New Organization.
cont:
ReplyDeleteVOTING CONCERNS:
On page 9 of the proposal, student membership is defined as “All undergraduate and graduate students” and the benefits of being a student member are described as including, among other things, the privilege to “vote on all associational elections and business.” As noted at the bottom of page 9, associational business includes voting on the bylaws as this section refers to special procedures when it comes to such votes – which, in my opinion, present their own problems.
Now, please remember what I said earlier about my respect for students. My comments here are made with all due respect for students – both undergraduate and graduate. However, the “tag line” under NASPA’s logo on its web site says; “Student Affairs Administrators [emphasis added] in Higher Education. “ The “tag line” under ACPA’s logo on its web site says; “College Student Educators [emphasis added] International.
Elsewhere in the “About Us” section of the NASPA web site the organization’s Mission is stated as follows; “To provide professional development and advocacy for student affairs educators and administrators [emphasis added] who share the responsibility for a campus-wide focus on the student experience.” In ACPA’s “About” section on its web site, its Vision Statement says that “ACPA leads the student affairs profession and the higher education community in providing outreach, advocacy, research, and professional development [emphasis added] to foster college student learning.
Again with all due respect to both undergraduate and graduate students working toward completion of their master’s degrees I don’t believe they should have the privilege of voting based on those statements and if New Organization is to be what it says it wants to be in its Vision Statement on page 7 of the proposal; “New Association will be the comprehensive, all-inclusive, career-spanning, international student affairs association for professionals and faculty [emphasis added] in the country and internationally.” As NASPA and ACPA now define themeslves and as stated in the Vision Statement for New Association, I don’t see how we could consider New Association to be the premiere professional association envisioned if students had voting privileges.
Please understand that I agree with the statement later in the Vision Statement which says that “ . . . New Association welcomes and engages all student affairs professionals, faculty and students . . . “ But that’s very different (and yet could still be very meaningful) from granting students the privilege of voting.
Here’s the best analogy I can offer. Like many others who will read this, as a senior student affairs officer I have staffed the Student Life committee of every board of trustees with which I’ve worked for over 20 years. I have also been able to attend other board committee meetings and have been expected to be in attendance at every board meeting – but in all cases without any voting privilege. And yet I’ve felt that I’ve been engaged and have contributed to the work of those boards and hence the universities they and I have served.
Frankly, even after the awarding of my master’s degree, I don’t think I viewed myself as a Student Affairs professional. However, I realize that some people enter a master’s program after having been in a professional Student Affairs position for some time rather than directly from an undergraduate program as I did. Therefore, I could be supportive of granting voting privileges to individuals with a master’s degree and at least three years of full-time experience in Student Affairs.
final cont:
ReplyDeleteORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:
The overall organizational structure of New Organization seems unwieldy to me and, hence, one that would limit, not expand, one’s meaning full, effective involvement. While I’m not as familiar with ACPA’s organizational structure as I am with NASPA’s, it seems to me that New Organization will have too many layers with a good bit of authority residing with the board. For example, note the role of the board on page 10 if a vote on a bylaw change is split between the two groups of voters.
NASPA now has regions and New Organization would have districts which, while geographically different, would be similar. NASPA now has Knowledge Communities (and ACPA has Commissions) and New Organizations would have Communities of Practice which would be similar. NASPA and ACPA members can now be involved at the state and regional/national level in the Knowledge Communities and Commissions. However, beyond the similar Communities of Practice, New Organization would also have Professional Identity Networks and Institutional Identity Networks. In my current role I could see being interested in one of each. Additionally, though, New Organization would also have Social Identity Groups and in my current role I could easily see myself being interested in at least two if not three of them.
With all of those various opportunities for (and levels of) involvement, I question how one could become meaningfully involved. Now, for example, a young professional (including a graduate student) can hold a position on a NASPA Regional Advisory Board with direct access to the Regional Vice President who chairs it and who is a member of the NASPA Board with direct access to the Executive Director and President. That’s two degrees of separation (levels if you will) between a young professional or graduate student and the top leadership of NASPA. There would be far more levels in many of the areas in which one could become involved in New Organization.
The other aspect of the organizational structure that is troubling to me is the fact that, as stated on page 15 of the proposal, New Organization would “Hold one annual international meeting [emphasis added] in order to provide opportunities for the full membership to come together for keynote speakers, networking, mentoring and fostering the continued development of the profession.” I don’t mean to be sarcastic but, really?! I would ask those of you who have attended one of the joint ACPA/NASPA meetings scheduled every ten years to reflect on those experiences and determine if those events were more productive than the separate annual national meetings of ACPA and NASPA. Additionally, while many of the meetings would likely be within the United States, scheduling some of those outside of the United States would, in my opinion, be detrimental to participation for many members.
With much affection for students and the Student Affairs profession,
Roger W. Sorochty
from Natalie Timson:
ReplyDeleteThe report was very thorough and showed the time and commitment by the leadership of both organizations concerning this initiative. I'm not sure that I have formed a full opinion either way as to whether unification is the right way to go, but the whole thing screams hot mess to me. (To use my unprofessional lingo.) In fact, I have no intention of renewing my NASPA membership this year because I feel like the organization is in turmoil. I would rather continue to put my energies into UMR-ACUHO and the greater ACUHO-I organization than jump aboard the NASPA, ACPA, or New Association ships. Until things shake out, I just don't see a place for me there. Had I been heavily involved in either organization, perhaps I would feel differently. However, as someone who has attended three ACPA nationals, a NASPA national and a NASPA regional, I just don't feel like continuing with either organization at this time. My money, my time, and my energy is better spent on the specialized Housing organization rather than with this. A few years down the road, after things shake out, perhaps I'll feel differently. But now is the time for me to continue to grow professionally and make an impact on my profession. I feel like I can best do that in other arenas. Also, it would be difficult for me to encourage graduate and new professionals of the value of the two major organizations at this time. So I worry for those up and coming having a stable professional place to call home. If unification happens, my hope for everyone is that it is quick...rather than the three year option they have. Folks need to move on and know what they are joining. Right now, that is really unclear. I wish you the best at the IV-West conference and hope you are hanging in there.
Comments - posted with permission from Dr. George McClellan
ReplyDeleteColleagues,
There have been repeated calls from NASPA leadership for feedback regarding the recently-released report outlining the proposed New Association that would be born of a merger between ACPA and NASPA. In response to those calls this message is being shared with you, your fellow regional vps, and members of the NASPA Board that may have a particular interest in the thoughts below. Specifically, the following are concerns with the proposed merger as described in the report:
1. I suspect that attending the conference is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) reasons people join ACPA and NASPA. Hence, I'm assuming that what the report has to say about the annual conference is going to matter. Despite suggestions to the contrary during the early discussions about consolidation, the recently-released document envisions a single annual conference. We all know that the joint conference previously held once every ten years was an event that we looked forward to in the year or so preceding the event and then cursed once there and for several years after. While willing to live with such an experience once every decade, I have serious doubts that we will want to experience it annually. The size of this annual meeting will necessitate that we limit ourselves to selecting from a fairly limited list of cities which are among the more expensive locations in which to hold a conference. Though the report seems to infer that the conference might move outside the U.S., the reality is that it is very unlikely given that relatively few members have the passports that would be required for such an event. Finally, I for one will wonder about the wisdom of having my staff spend precious travel funds to go to a conference where I wonder about the impact on quality given the emphasis on size. I might instead encourage my staff to stick with their 'specialty' group where they will get a more personal experience in an organizational environment that more readily facilitates involvement and leadership at a national level.
2. The report calls for a shift from a volunteer-led association with staff support to a staff-led association with a volunteer advisory board. That's not a shift that I find attractive. Gwen has done a great job of modeling the role of a highly effective executive director who speaks out on our behalf on a variety of issues but is always clear that others are the elected officers of the association.
Dr. McClellan Cont:
ReplyDelete3. The report also imagines a governance structure that is overly complex and which has the potential to minimize the voice of marginalized populations or those concerned with emerging issues. Certainly the members of the Asian, Native, and women's communities within ACPA are finding that to be their experience since ACPA reorganized to a similar structure several years ago. Also, the proposed governance structure diminishes the influence of the voting delegates which, in addition to undermining what has for many years been seen as a strength of our association, may serve to marginalize small and mid-sized institutions (see below). Having helped form 3 of NASPA's knowledge communities I cannot imagine how I would go about helping a new group pull together in the proposed structure.
4. Until now I have recommended that the universities where I have been SSAO pay institutional dues to NASPA. The discounts on conference registrations and other benefits have not fully offset the cost for those dues, but NASPA's structure emphasizing the role of the voting delegate has helped my universities (one small rural public baccalaureate and the other a medium regional public comprehensive) to stand on equal footing with the largest and most prestigious of institutions when it came to matters of association policy and decision-making. The new structure undercuts that equality, and therefore it is highly unlikely in the future that I will encourage my institution to pay dues.
Dr. McClellan final:
ReplyDelete6. The report indicates that the two existing foundations will merge into a single entity and that somehow there is a new role or new possibilities that will open up as a result of this merger. While those comments have remained vaguely defined and therefore difficult to evaluate, there is a concern that ought to be given serious consideration. There may be some who have contributed to one or the other of the two foundations in the past who feel that they should be able to ask for the return of their donations given the change in purpose. Just as certainly there are those who have future pledges (some of substantial size relative to the existing endowment) in estate plans that will withdraw their pledges in the event of a consolidation of foundations. The members of ACPA and NASPA deserve and need the whole story before they are asked to cast their vote.
7. The financial reports on ACPA and NASPA should be released so that members may evaluate whether or not the proposed merger makes financial sense. In addition, the simple pro formas that have been shared in support of the merger do not provide sufficient information regarding suppositions about members (individual or institutional) or the sources of data that informed those suppositions. All of that information needs to be shared with members as well.
NASPA President Elizabeth Griego summed it up nicely during one of the SSAO audio town halls when she said the question ought to be would the proposed New Association offer substantial enough benefits to move forward. I believe the clear answer is that it would not, and I am certain that I am not alone in that assessment.
Thanks for your time in hearing these concerns, and thanks for your leadership to our association.
Posted with permission from Ruth Stoner, KU
ReplyDeleteFrom the conference, one 'wake up' item that I did learn in the many conversations about unification was: With the statistics comparing ACPA and NASPA, I totally understand that they are a 'stable' organization and will be around quite awhile. What concerns me is that they are bringing smaller numbers, considerably less $$, fewer staff members to the new organization and they are going to move into 'our' place in Washington; yet, it appears that they are expecting a 50-50 representation in all venues and at each "table". That just does not seem quite right to me.
It also concerns me that a "President" well be appointed/selected - will it be a search? And the President will then 'select' and 'make the appointments' of all other staff members in the organization. Does that mean that none of the current NASPA and ACPA staff have 'job security' ?
That does not seem quite right to me either.
I don't like the way the districts have been made smaller (fewer states) yet equal number of people to make up the districts. It impacts diversity in the region. We are just adding more people 'like ourselves' for the most part. That concerns me more than 'being aligned with Texas'.
There's a lot going on in NASPA - above and beyond the unification stuff. Just reflecting on the all the things that Gwen and Elizabeth shared on Wednesday morning and they did not even 'mention' unification.
Just imaging all the more that could be going on to improve the lives of our students and professional development for our members if we did not have the major distraction of unification. Also, it will take 'years'
to get a new organization in place . . . will it be worth the time, energy and effort?
That's my two cents worth on that topic.
Bottom line - I did not hear anything to convince myself that the organization is going to be a 'better' organization than what we already have.
Posted with permission from Josh Overocker
ReplyDeletePlease remove me from your mailing list. While I understand and support your right to make the other side heard, I feel strongly that the “preserve NASPA” campaign is one that limits the future of what NASPA can be.
While the former NASPA presidents feel that our current governance is easy to navigate, I am at least one member who feels that we are stagnant and cumbersome. While I have a personal friendship with our RVP, if I wanted to address concerns with NASPA, I would likely email the staff in the national office. Without their support and guidance, I would not know where to begin to make changes to NASPA. How is that different than what is proposed? We have knowledge communities that represent “pet projects” but are missing one that represents one of the largest functional areas of most Student Affairs departments, Housing & Residence Life. We have dedicated members who worry that we will ruin the organization that they have unarguably worked diligently to build and make stronger if we make changes to it. And, quite honestly, we have a membership base that espouses a commitment to educating our future, yet firmly stands in the way of educating our future professionals on the role of voting in our organization. Why is it that we are afraid of allowing graduate student members the opportunity to vote for those who will represent them next year when they are professionals? I firmly believe that our professional organizations must be as flexible and proactive as our campus departments. This means looking beyond what is good now or in the short term and focusing on those things the perpetuate the strength and relevance that NASPA currently enjoys. If we have learned nothing from our friends in the corporate world, particularly those in Detroit, we must have learned that.
Thank you for your commitment and passion towards the success of NASPA. But, in this case, I must respectfully disagree about the best course for the future.
Sincerely,
Josh Overocker