At the start, I set the scene for the path of change that we have been on, especially concerning membership. That passage includes why we began with baccalaureate members, used degrees as leverage to gain support for women’s education equal to men. We have won there, extended membership to women of all accredited schools, adopted a preference for diversity, then admitted men twenty years ago – I being one – and more recently, those with associate degrees. Open membership has been discussed for years and perhaps we are soon there. I stressed repeatedly that given the effects of past changes, we are not likely to be drastically changed any time soon on the branch level.

The way branches change is how they recruit. With a potential market of 60 million degreed women, let’s rise to the challenge to bring in more graduates and swell the ranks.

My efforts were to elicit and answer questions in order to increase understanding about how and why the proposed bylaws are stated as they are. This meant widen the perspective on the issues and give more context, somethig of an intellectual exchange. Admittedly, this is not a discussion person to person in order to give more people more time to state their views or ask their questions.

I did invite additional questions at the conclusion of the session and several did talk to me about their concerns.

Truly, I regret that the proposed open membership for those who support our mission is taken as divisive. Certainly, it is all bound up with who we want to be and how we see ourselves and our perspectives on the possible effects of this change. I am not sure how the 75 people that morning divided up on the issues: they expressed a range of views and suggestions.

Because I am an AAUW member of a Minnesota branch, one who has attended every state convention for the last 20 years, who has traveled and spoken all over the state, was four years on the state board and served as state bylaws chair, and now serve in my fourth year on the AAUW Bylaws Committee I became the natural person to talk to the Minnesota convention membership about bylaws.

I did not feel that we had left a tempest behind. Some told me they were better informed to carry on the discussion in their branches. Each will decide.

When we get to St. Louis, we will have further rounds of healthy discussion. Then we will vote for the common good as our understanding and individual consciences direct. And as in the past, we will live with the results and go forward.

–Roger

I think your article articulates the change both in the mission and in membership far better than most of the presentations did including one from Linda Hallman, executive director from Washington, D. C.I I understand the desire to improve membership. It was pointed out that we have 60 million college educated women in this country, so that changing the membership status does not guarantee more members or more support on those issues we hold dear. Even the male board member who stood at the podium for more than two hours trying to convince us that our thinking was “passé,” made a useful if painful comment that rang true. He said all organizations have a life cycle. They rise, they fall and they die. It was clear that the membership who remained were not in favor of the change, but that the board was determined to have its way. When some branches said they will lose members because to the change the male board member just shrugged his shoulders and said that was unfortunate, but the wind was blowing in his direction. I don’t mind a healthy and intellectual discussion on the topic. I don’t know if that kind of exercise would leave people feeling less divided, but I thought our state convention board
created more of a tempest by having a patronizing male run the discussion on bylaws

1. Remember that this whole exercise is driven by the restructuring, a change that is necessary (if not sufficient) for the organization to survive (as we learned in 2007). That means we’re not really “changing” the AAUW bylaws, the bylaws of the 501(c)(4), but having an advisory vote on the changes to the Foundation’s bylaws, those of the 510(c)(3). I “knew” that of course, but hadn’t realized the implication that the charter that’s important is the Foundation’s. That never had the “uniting graduates” language. And, indeed, even while the 501(c)(4) had kept the “uniting graduates” language in its bylaws — because it was in its charter — as the organization changed over time, the “equity and education” had become more and more important.

2. So it’s a change. Some will embrace it. Some will grieve and then come to terms with it. Some will reject it. We can say that “some things are changing but much will remain the same” but I’m not sure those who at this point, after years of discussion that they may not have been following, will move from the third into either of the first two groups. I don’t, however, think compromise on this issue will lead to a stronger organization or help us to survive for the next ten years. We’ll see.