November 15, 2007
Why I Voted “Yes”
Posted by Kevin | Print This Article
Perhaps there’s a slight irony in the fact that if a few people (Jill Cornish in Trends, Ben here) hadn’t argued so passionately for voting against ASAE’s proposed bylaws, I probably wouldn’t have even noticed that such a vote was being held in the first place. (ASAE, bless ‘em, are so bad at email marketing that about 99% of the emails I get from them get deleted without being read, so this one would have just slipped by.)
While I respect greatly the differing opinions on these issues, I did in fact login to the website and vote “yes”. (Since I just slammed ASAE on emails I will give them kudos for the simplicity of the online voting process.)
I don’t particularly care about the new membership categories, and am almost always in favor of a smaller Board for any organization. And while I appreciate and respect others’ concerns about the fact that this change would make it the last such vote to occur (vesting power to change governing documents in the Board itself), I support that proposal. I’ll explain why with one of my trademark sweeping generalizations:
In most cases, as they are usually written, the governing documents of an association are 80% irrelevant to the practical realities of the association’s operations, and 100% irrelevant to the association’s success.
Now, when I say they are 20% relevant to operations, that doesn’t mean they are relevant in a good way. I just mean that association staff and leaders all too frequently waste a lot of time and energy having to check and see if something is being followed according to vague prescriptions laid out 25 years ago by people who probably had a very good reason for doing something a certain way, though not necessarily a very good reason for deciding that’s the way it should always be done.
And I say 100% irrelevant to success because no association ever became a dynamite innovative organization because of their well-thought-out amendments procedure. Just as no one ever wrote “I Balanced the Budget” on their grave marker, they will never write “I Satisfied the Requirements of Section 9.7b” either.
The best kinds of governing documents an association can have today, in my opinion, are those that are flexible, adaptable, and short. Which is how I read ASAE’s proposed bylaws, and why I voted yes.
Others have argued that changing the documents so that only the Board can vote to change them removes the “power” from the members to control their organization. The word “disenfranchisement” has been used. Again, I appreciate very much the passion these people have invested in their association, but I must disagree.
First of all, these documents are so innocuous that I can’t imagine them needing to be changed on any regular sort of basis (other than the tendency of us association folk to tinker). More importantly, focusing on governing documents, or even the Board of Directors, as the “seat of power,” in my opinion misinterprets what organizations have become today.
Your power as a member (and your members’ power over your association) no longer lies in traditional old-school “things” like bylaws and prescribed leadership ladders. Your power lies in your own participation, not necessarily within the association as a structure, but within the sphere of activity in which the association also resides. Setting aside the fact that I hate “web 2.0/social media” hype, this is exactly the sort of thing that “web 2.0″ and its culture influences.
Ben’s exactly right when he says boards tend not to be representative of their organization’s members as a whole. It has ever been thus; the sorts of people who gravitate to board participation have more in common with people in other industries/professions who gravitate to board participation, than they do with the people in their own industry/profession who do not.
That doesn’t make them bad people, and lack of a “representative” nature doesn’t necessarily make them bad Board members. But what if they do turn out to be bad Board members? What if they suddenly start approving willy-nilly amendments that in a rare turn of events actually have an impact on the organization’s operations? Will the poor disenfranchised members be reduced to wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth?
Of course not. If people actually care about a decision that has a real impact which they feel is negative, then … They’ll start a blog! They’ll send nasty emails! They’ll make phone calls and start a network on MyFace or Spacebook or whatever those things are. They’ll get passionate and if they have a good point and care enough about it, they’ll find other converts who’ll all do the same thing.
If they get really ticked off, they can just start an organization of their own. It’s a lot easier to do that these days than it used to be. (An organization that, by the way, doesn’t have to compete with the original association. It could just as easily be an “association” designed merely to push a dissident viewpoint within the greater association as a whole.)
In the end, the barriers to influence have already been lowered beyond the abilities of any association to control. I have no idea what the ASAE Board intends with their bylaws. Whatever those intentions, I think the net result will be a more flexible organization that may perhaps be able to respond more quickly to the changing dynamics of our market. But I also believe that the audience of members raising their voices, and influencing those activities, will continue to grow, as well.
They might not be able to vote on bylaw amendments. But in the greater scheme of things, that’s just chump change.
Nice post. I actually voted yes, too. After reading Jill Cornish and bmart’s comments, I went back and looked at it again, but still believe the proposed amendments are pretty good.