But to the topic at hand, AAUW’s “tradition” is that delegates go to Convention “informed, but not instructed.” Carrying that over to the new model, as a voter on the floor of a meeting, I’d expect someone who is a member by way of having his/her dues paid by an institution and being named their rep, to vote first as an individual member. S/he may have all kinds of information, opinions, and constraints based on her employment – but I can’t see that her vote would have any additional weight. The institution can, of course, sign up 100 (1000?) members and amplify its voice. Is that bad?

Is that along the lines of what you were thinking?

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Alone the reflection that we need to distinguish between a person who is a representative of an institutions communicating ‘as institution’ or merely airs her own personal opinion. And then if it is not clear how do we make it clear?

And when it comes to decisions and the institutions representative votes with two voices, one as her institution and one with her own opinion?

Or do we need a member to resign from her membership when she represents her institution?

I also like your idea, giving the BOD authority to work on affiliates/partern policies and not have anything in the bylaws except “AAUW is for people. And only people can vote, decide”.

It not an umbrella organization for various other Women’s organizations. The strength of AAUW are its people, will never be institutions.

“People are the ends, no the means.”