Change

Only about 1% of the AAUW members ever attend convention, but many more are extremely interested in what happens.  As someone who’s been on communications teams at the branch and state level, I’ve been passionate about getting information out “to the folks back home” since my first convention in 1999. At first (1999, 2001), I was concerned about posting information of my personal activities (e.g. IT 2001 campaign), but then I started documenting the North Carolina delegation (2003, 2005, 2007). Those were mostly posts I did from my room after all the events were over.

In 2007, in response to the culture change to have more information immediately available, we also tried using twitter to get information out from the floor of the convention. Louse (@weegspin), Kate (@skeggy), and I (@nes49) were pretty much shouting into the void, though — there was no real way to get the word out to the members that another information stream existed. See the report on that experiment.

This year, however, there was a rich “twitter stream” on all aspects of the convention. Staff and members both contributed, and while there was limited “conversations” with the folks back home, at least the word got out to many who were able to follow along. See the transcript.

What changed? Here’s my list:

1. Facebook happened. In the spring of 2007 a student from Alabama had started the first (and still the largest) AAUW Facebook group. After the 2007 convention, a second group was started by students from Illinois Iowa to help unite the younger members.  Starting in the fall of 2007, Facebook started attracting the “not so younger” members who were able to find each other, and they started conversations on how to use Facebook to advance the mission. The 2009 convention itself had a group.
2. AAUW started a blog in early 2008. The staff’s use of “web 2.0″ technology to raise awareness and support conversations legitimized the use of “putting unfiltered information into the public domain” in addition to the tightly controlled e-mail lists and the properly more formal research reports and www.aauw.org in general.
3. In late 2008, AAUW committed to sponsor the Feminism 2.0 conference, and that conference in February, 2009, demonstrated the possibilities of both blogging and micro-blogging to forge connections and build support for a wide range of issues on the feminist agenda.
4. So by June 2009, we had folks with blogs, facebook profiles, twitter, flickr and more who were ready to report back to the members at home about all that was going on. More than that, they could find each other and share photos, comments, and updates. I don’t know all that went into the staff’s decision not to publish a daily “newspaper” about the convention — but I think the coverage was pretty good without that extremely labor intensive project. Of course we’re still using e-mail lists and other tools to gather information for state newsletters and web sites, and more will be coming out in the next few weeks. But I think we did a credible job of getting the flavor of convention to those who couldn’t attend but were engaged enough to follow the information stream.

Again, I’m just seeing part of the elephant, but I have to give credit to Linda Hallman who took over as ED in January 2008 for supporting a culture that allowed this experimentation by the staff. Thanks, of course, to all the staff members and volunteers who participated. After such a big disappointment with twitter in 2007, this 2009 information sharing has been great.

I wonder what things will look like in 2011…

There are fewer than 1000 members who will be attending the AAUW convention in St. Louis this weekend — but the interest around the country is amazing. So some of us are planning to tweet, blog, post on Facebook, and otherwise get the word out as the convention evolves.

I’ll be traveling with my trusty laptop — this is old faithful’s fourth convention (knock wood). [See posts from 2003, 2005 and 2007.] But because Internet connectivity at convention is limited, I won’t be lugging that with me during the day — no e-mail or web (or Facebook), but I will have twitter.

On twitter we’re using the “hashtag” #aauw09, and folks at home can follow that at

• search.twitter.com or with other tools, like
• http://wthashtag.com/Aauw09 (”What the Hashtag”) — summary stats and a transcript [Thanks, Peggy!]  or
• twitterfall.com, and put #aauw09 in the search box (or use this link), then check back on that browser window every once in awahile.

If you want to post a comment or a question from home, some of us will be “listening” for that. You can post general comments to the #aauw09 twitter stream, but you can also send targeted messages (use “D <twittername>”) to reach a particular person. No promises, of course — there will be times when phones are turned off and we’re concentrating on the interactions with the wonderful members we see once every two years. But it may be a way to reach out to convention attendees and add your voice to the conversation.  You may just want to ues e-mail or Facebook to post your comments — some people will be staying in touch all day, and others will pick up those messages over night.

If you’re going to be in St. Louis and will depend on your phone for access, you have lots of options if you’ve entered the age of the “smart” phone. But if, like me, text messaging is the limit of your phone connectivity, how do you follow the #aauw09 conversation from the floor of the convention? Again, you may not want to keep up with all of that — but I’m exploring some options and if you have a suggestion, let me know. If any of my experiments pan out, I’ll let y’all know what I’m using.

We had an interesting dinner at my house last night — did get the required two contacts elected for next year.

But…

Let’s define “hard core member” as “life member or someone who has served on the state or national board in the last 10 years”

At the meeting we had

• 10 hard core (2 who met both criteria)
• 2 others

In the branch we have

• 15 hard core
• 20 others

So we’re facing not just the challenge that AAUW is so many different things to different people, but also that the group that coalesces to make decisions about the branch may share some underlying assumptions that may not have been articulated to the members who are new or who aren’t active.

Personally, I’m making my bet on the Tar Heel Branch, but there are those who want the community-based branch to succeed. If you have strategies, surveys, or other ways to elicit “what do branch members want” from the silent majority of members, do pass them along.

Okay, I hate robocalls as much as the next person, but I just became aware of the service Simple Blast - an affordable way to send a recorded message to phone numbers.

Since the community I serve includes many without Internet access, I’m wondering if this would be a welcome option. Years ago, we maintained “dial a message” accounts, and people could call in to get updates. That’s still possible, of course, but puts the motivation on the individuals which is problematic, especially if the news isn’t distributed on a relatively frequent, regular schedule.

• So what applications would you see for this kind of service? Reminders on meetings? Public policy alerts? General e-newsletter summaries?
• What opt-in procedures would you use before putting someone on a call list?
• How large would the list be before you’d be tempted to use this service (rather than spending the time to make the much more welcome personal calls)?
• What other questions should be considered before using such a service?

Thanks, all! Facebook and change.bbvx.org comments are welcome.

We’re about three weeks away from a historic vote that will change the structure of AAUW and update some of its practices. This week, we released a voter guide for the election of the board members who will give life to the new bylaws — see election2009.bbvx.org.

Reading those comments makes me believe that the board really was divided on some of the issues that are in the new bylaws — the open membership, in particular. While several of the candidates speak strongly in favor of one-member/one-vote, there is a “whatever the delegates decide” attitude towards dropping the degree requirement for membership.

OF COURSE, the delegates will decide - that’s the only way to change the bylaws. But that wouldn’t have prevented the leadership from saying “this is the right thing to do for the organization, and here’s why…” But they haven’t.

Back last fall, the only argument for that stand that made sense to me was: “If the issue is left open, more people will register for convention, and it will be less likely to lose money.” But now I have to think that there has been real dissension at the board table on this issue and the compromise “let the delegates decide” was the only way to move forward.

The key finding of the strategic process: What’s been hurting us is lack of mission clarity. Where is that in our discussions this spring? The lack of clarity wasn’t just because the Association and the Foundation were two separate organizations — many groups have allied membership and charitable organizations. Why did we never articulate the degree requirement as a liability as we try to emphasize the mission of “advancing equity for women and girls” and leave behind the 1899 purpose of “uniting the alumnae of different institutions”. Why do those who cling to the 1899 purpose think we will be able to implement the Phoenix Rising vision of the organization with that requirement in effect?

To maintain our power to effect change we need to be able to say “If you support equity for women and girls, join us” not “If you support equity for women and girls AND you have a degree AND you don’t mind associating with those who refuse to work side by side with those who don’t have a degree, join us”.

I don’t think anyone wants AAUW to remain as it is — those who support the degree requirement, do, I think, see a loose federation of branches with a smaller national organization and a focus on philanthropy rather than advocacy. Those who see advocacy as a 21st century theme that will unite members (branch members and individuals) in the ongoing fight for equity, have no problem with expanding our base to include all who are affected by inequities.

I’ll admit that the first group may have a better long term strategy — philanthropy will always be needed and small groups are a human need. What of the second? Will the second strategy put the organization out of business in 10, 25 or 50 years? We can only hope equity will be achieved, and if so, we can fold in good conscience. On the other hand, for the short term, the drastic declines in membership argue that the first group’s message just does not resonate with the members we’d need to recruit if the organization is to survive as more than a shadow of its current self.

So I’m in the second group, but I realize the delegate body may choose to push AAUW in the first direction. No matter the outcome of the votes on the pieces of the bylaws, I will vote to pass the package — but I may not be around to see how it all turns out.

If you support mission clarity, if you want AAUW to survive, please support open membership, one-member/one-vote and the other bylaws changes that will put the new organization into a position to move forward with one powerful voice.