The Restructuring Process
By Cary Nelson
All of us who have been active in the restructuring process regularly wonder why it has taken so long. We also despair at how long it took to get detailed word out to our members. Happily, e-mail links to our draft constitutions— which mostly resemble the ones we already use—were distributed in December 2007, half a year before the scheduled vote on their approval at the 2008 annual meeting. The draft constitutions are also published in this issue of Academe. Although what I will report here may eventually be of interest only to some as yet unborn AAUP historian, it seems worthwhile to describe the restructuring process to the living members who will be advising their representatives.
The process was driven by a mix of necessity and opportunity. Just as the teaching profession has changed radically over two generations, so too have the demographics of the AAUP’s membership. It was time to bring our legal and financial structures into line with our evolving responsibilities and our member profile. If we were going to thrive, we had no choice. The question then was how to preserve the AAUP’s core values and yet make the Association more adaptable.
We had many interlocking questions to answer. They could sometimes be posed in a phrase, and the answers were sometimes no longer than a word. But the research required to get definitive answers— and the detailed memos necessary to present full rationales—was considerable. Typical questions included “Where would the best place be administratively and financially to house the staff?” and “What are the implications of a three-part structure for staff benefits?” Yet we couldn’t address those questions until we investigated the financial, legal, and political benefits of the various one-, two-, and three-part structures we discussed. We also wanted to know how these structures would mesh with tax and labor law and regulations. Was there any way to free non-collective bargaining activities from Department of Labor requirements? The answer to that question was “no,” though a full explanation necessitated a long memo. Questions like these required advice from consulting experts. Detailed discussions preceded and followed consultation. Our national staff managed the process superbly and produced a series of substantive research papers along the way.
Although the full Presidential Task Force on Restructuring held a preliminary meeting in December 2004, it didn’t begin intensive work until a year later. We saved a considerable amount of hotel and travel costs—but also slowed the process —by waiting whenever possible to meet in tandem with the Executive Committee or the Council. We divided for a period into one working group on governance and another on finance and membership.
Although the task force was eventually much more open and consultative than most of our committees are when drafting documents, we still followed the traditional AAUP practice of trying to get things right before public dissemination. Having helped draft two statements published in AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (the “Redbook”), I know that unrealistic proposals get included in drafts only to be discarded during discussion. Restructuring was no different. It doesn’t help matters to distribute ideas that should be rejected. Nor does it help to go public before you have answers to basic questions. You have only one chance to get the attention of 44,000 members and the press. It is best not to provoke a firestorm by distributing rough drafts.
With reliable drafts in hand, we steadily widened our circle of distribution, consulting the national Council four times, the executive committees of the Assembly of State Conferences and the Collective Bargaining Congress three and four times respectively, and the CBC semiannual meeting twice. The Committee on the Organization of the Association reviewed our plans thoroughly. We held an open discussion at the 2007 annual meeting. People made improvements at every stage, and we incorporated changes along the way. As a result, we have a plan that protects our interests and frees us to grow. That plan is supported by constitutions that are as good as we can imagine making them. Now formal approval is up to you.
|