After an engaging Twitter chat on Wednesday, December 5th, I wanted to provide a space for individuals to understand the differing viewpoints pertaining to the AFA Bylaw change. I have broken it down into sections to hopefully make the Bylaw change easy to understand. I invite anyone to write in the comment section if you have anything further to add.
The Background:
Before we get to the actual proposed change, it is important to understand what the current AFA Bylaws state. See the current Bylaws here: BYLAWS Specifically, Article III which articulates Membership in AFA. As you will read, only three (3) of the five (5) current membership classes are eligible to hold appointed or elected positions. This is important when the discussion of inclusion is brought up but we will get to that later.
I think it is also important to highlight that the current (outgoing) board has six (6) individuals who serve in a campus-based professional capacity and one individual who serves in a Headquarter staff capacity. The incoming board will have six (6) individuals who serve in a campus-based professional and one individual who serves in a Headquarters staff capacity.
The Proposed Change:
Now, onto the current, proposed Bylaw change. The petition proposes to change the following Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors (AFA) Bylaw by removing the stipulation that only campus-based Professional, Graduate or Emeritus members shall serve as President of the Association.
Current Bylaw: Article V, B, 1:
Each officer shall be a Professional, Graduate or Emeritus member during his or her term of office. The President-Elect and President shall be employed or enrolled in a graduate program at a college or university during their terms of office.
Proposed Bylaw: Article V, B, 1:
Each officer shall be a Professional, Graduate or Emeritus member during his or her term of office.
The PURPOSE of the change was to create equality among those within a single membership category.
The Differing Viewpoints:
Those in FAVOR:
Individuals who are voting in FAVOR of the proposed change believe that the leaders of AFA, regardless of position, should not be limited to campus-based professionals. As one person wrote in the Twitter chat, “It’s about qualified candidates being able to run and the membership being able to choose who they want to elect regardless of where they work.” It is also important to re-read the purpose of this change above, “within a single membership category.”
Those who OPPOSE:
Individuals who are NOT in favor of the proposed change believe that if the Bylaw is highlighting inclusion, why not allow ALL members to be able to run for President. As one person in the Twitter chat wrote, “I remain opposed because I want to guarantee that there is a voice for campus-based professionals among all the other umbrella groups.”
Vote Impact:
If the Vote Passes:
Individuals who do not work as a campus-based professional would be able to serve ANY leadership position within AFA’s Executive Board, including President-Elect and President. However, concerns about the “voice” of the Association and possible lawsuits that create conflicting interests were brought up in the Twitter chat.
If the Vote Does Not Pass:
If the proposed change is voted down, two issues would be evident. First, in the Bylaws, we would have same membership categories but different benefits. Second, individuals who currently serve on the Executive Board would not be allowed to ever serve in the capacity of President-Elect and President. As one Twitter chat individual wrote, “Not passing this clearly delineates that the Association does not view all professional members as equal partners in working with issues.”
The Gray Area:
In following the Twitter chat, there were two issues that became very apparent – inclusion and the Nominations and Elections Committee (NEC).
To address the inclusion piece, if you want ALL membership classifications to be equal, that would require a Bylaw change that is currently not part of the current proposed Bylaw change. Specifically, Affiliate and Vendor membership classifications would need to be revised to state that those members would, “Be able to hold appointed AND elected position.” Another point to consider is that if this proposal is voted down, are we being inclusive of who can hold the highest leadership position(s) in our Association?
Moving forward, if you have an issue with inclusion, you would either need to contact the person who proposed the Bylaw change and ask them to rescind the proposed change and create a new proposal OR you would simply vote no on the proposal. I guess you could also vote yes and then ask to revise or edit the current, proposed change.
To address the NEC concerns, I feel that is a chat for another day. However, in my opinion, I think people are frustrated with the NEC process. Specifically, there are candidates that are running un-opposed to leadership positions and voting members are asking why. I don’t think it’s so much the vetting process, but moreover, voting members want to see their options. Sure, there may be a “best” candidate but what about the other eligible candidates? As one individual in the Twitter chat wrote, “Transparency is the key to success of the NEC, boosting confidence in the process from stakeholders.”
Conclusion:
In closing, this is my interpretation of what I’ve heard both at the Annual Meeting as well as the Twitter Chat. If I inaccurately portrayed a viewpoint, leave a comment below. I think it is also important to state that if this proposed change passes, doesn’t mean someone other than a campus-based professional will ever serve as the President-Elect or President, it just allows them the opportunity for them to serve in that capacity. It removes a barrier and puts the decision in the hands of the NEC and membership.
As far as the future of the Association, if you have questions, ask. If you want to have a conversation, create a setting. Challenge the leadership. We preach the mentality of “not being a bystander” so don’t be one. I personally felt like I wanted to hear more about this conversation which is why the Twitter chat was created.
I hope this helps.
