1. Help spread the word about the success of the AAUW Tar Heel (NC) Branch. I discussed this at the AAUW Convention Workshop on Alternate Leadership Structures (see the workshop handout which includes two pages on the THB). I believe that each state would benefit from starting such a branch (or, perhaps, reconfiguring an existing “online branch” to more closely match the THB model) to support those members who live far from all geographically-based branches or for whom the nearby branches aren’t a good “fit”.
2. Continue my 15-year effort to improve adoption of technology to advance the mission of AAUW. In 2001-2003, as a member of the AAUW Program Development Committee, I’d hoped to initiate publication of a “Technology ToolKit”. The world has changed a lot since then, but there is still a possibility of AAUW providing a framework to help members scale technology challenges for the benefit of AAUW and other aspects of their lives. This has been a multi-faceted journey, and I hope, in particular, to learn more about the new Site Resources program that AAUW is launching to support branch/state web sites and how I can support the members taking advantage of this.

I look forward to talking to many of you over the biennium.

I don’t usually comment on WordPress upgrades here, but the latest upgrade on WordPress.com is of particular interest — and I just got back from WordCamp Raleigh, so such issues are, perhaps, more top of mind than usual. (The upgrade is a preview of what’s coming in WordPress 3.2 for WordPress.org users.)

The WordPress team has done a fabulous job, as usual, but there’s one feature I’d like to write about – partly to help me understand it better.

This version of the software has changed the “full screen edit” mode to one that supports “distraction free writing” (again, see either the WordPress.com or WordPress.org discussion of the upgrade).

Well, I can see the point for blogs, and I’m sure I’ll get used to it eventually. But since I’m always distracted when writing — and posts are often short enough that often I don’t bother to open the full-screen editor, the new environment seems a bit too stripped down for me. In particular – what happened to the toolbar?  Who decided to delete most of the buttons and go to keyboard shortcut based formatting? Yes, if you click the “Help” icon you get an actually helpful table of keyboard shortcuts, e.g.

How many people expect real help to be behind such an icon? How does this change my elevator speech, “If you can send an email message with an attachment you can write a blog post since the edit screen looks so familiar.”  Of course, some people will never find the full-screen edit button and others may welcome the keyboard shortcuts. Is this a subtle push to keep the style sheet in control of the formatting? That may very well be a good thing (as you see, I’m writing to come to an understanding), but it’s still an odd cultural shift.

And, yes, the full screen editing for HTML mode is fabulous! (For me, anyway — for my users, not such a big deal.)

Side note:

There was a question in the final session today about WordPress as a CMS vs. a Blogging Platform. The answer was, as I recall, the equivalent of “yes.” Of course WordPress is very flexible and it’s both, but the “blogging” roots and mindset are pretty deeply embedded. It’s still the best for my applications, and I’m willing to fight through some oddities and annoyances even if I’ve got more complicated information architecture and access control issues than a typical “blog”. Just hoping I can bring along my friends.

The short version is that sometimes the staff falls for “inside the Beltline” thinking. My conversation was about a decision that had been made based on information needed by the staff. When I pointed out a change that would make the information much more helpful to members, the comment was “I hadn’t thought of it that way.” I think that’s the crux of the problem with these proposed amendments.

In the bylaws the members approved in June of 2009, the language that assets go to an “AAUW entity” was, I think, understood by the majority of voters to mean that the assets could go to AAUW, the AAUW Action Fund or any of the recognized “affiliates” of the national organization (i.e. branches and states).

But then in the fall of 2009 the affiliate agreement came out with the language changed from “AAUW entity” to “AAUW”. This changed the wording in the bylaws, but, from the point of view of the lawyers who drew up the affiliate agreement, evidently wasn’t a change because to them (with “inside the Beltline” thinking) the only “AAUW entities” that they “saw” were AAUW and the Action Fund, so why not make things simpler and just say “AAUW”. I’ve no idea how many branches have yet to sign the affiliate agreement and whether this language change is a sticking point for any of them. I made my peace with the change since it seems clear that a functioning branch can allocate its assets before it disbands (and sends only the final check to AAUW).

Anyway, I am in favor of these amendments for pragmatic reasons

• They bring the bylaws in line with the affiliate agreement, so no one is confused about what they signed.
• They set things up for a new round of amendments in 2013 that, I think, would honor the voters’ intentions in 2009

This new round of amendments could include language like

• In the event of the dissolution of the branch or the termination of its affiliation with AAUW
  • a vote of the branch shall govern the distribution all assets of the branch to AAUW, the AAUW Action Fund, or a duly recognized affiliate of AAUW, or
  • if there is no affirmative vote of the branch to determine what organization will receive the assets, abandoned assets shall revert  to ownership of AAUW.

Of course approving language like that in the bylaws would require a corresponding change to the Affiliate Agreement. It should also be clarified in the documents provided to branches that are preparing to disband.

Some say “defeat these amendments and get it right next time,” and while I hear that argument, I think the inconsistency between the bylaws and the affiliate agreement is confusing. Making the change to be “AAUW” makes it clearer that a change will be needed to ensure that what the delegates intended in 2009 (and what is, no doubt, common practice as branches disband and deliver their assets to a neighboring branch). We have no forum to propose changes to the affiliate agreement, but since the affiliate agreement should conform to the bylaws, let’s remove the obviously unclear language “AAUW entity” from the bylaws so we can propose new, clearer, language for 2013. And while this may make no practical change (again, a functioning branch can distribute its assets before it disbands), it just makes things simpler if the final check as the account is closed can be made payable based on the wishes of the branch members.

This article clarifies comments made in an earlier post on these and other proposed bylaws amendments.

Of course, if you want all the details, feel free to check out the 52 (!) page price list from the USPS (and even then you need to follow a link to get a definition of “nonmachinable”).

Here’s my current thinking on how to vote on these amendments

Vote No

3: Remove the term “member-at-large”

I’m sure the language here could be corrected so that we meet the understandable goal of emphasizing that we are all members of the national organization. But the proposed amendment changes the categories from

• Two disjoint sets: (a) branch members and (b) members-at-large  [Collectively called "members".] to
• (a) national members and its subset (b) branch members [Leading to the inelegant "national members who are not members of branches" to replace the current "members-at-large".]

This just seems unwieldy and redundant – an unnecessary change.

Since these amendments, as drafted by the Bylaws Committee and approved by the AAUW Board, are not subject to further amendments before the 2011 vote, let’s vote “no” and get this right next time.

5 and 7: Require states/branches to designate a member to record meeting minutes.

While this may seem like an innocuous change, it will add confusion. Even though the bylaws chair has said this does not mean that states/branches need to have a person assigned to this role as, say, a “secretary,” and need not report such to the national office, just putting this statement into the national bylaws will constrain some branches as they attempt to move towards more flexible structures. Certainly many branches now work with a rotating assignment for recording the minutes, and this would be allowed under this bylaw.

So this bylaw is just “advisory” without any thought that it would be actively enforced. It would seem that a better approach would be to provide states/branches with guidelines for basic nonprofit management. Adding this one rubric into the national bylaws clutters them without benefit to the branches/states that need the most help with their fundamental processes.

Vote Yes

1. Require proper use of name – legalese that seems appropriate
2. Remove reference to IFUW - appropriate change given that AAUW is no longer an IFUW affiliate — see Women Graduates USA)
4. Clarify status of Partner Member Representatives and Allow Two Representatives. This is a good change (though it would need an editorial fix if #3 fails. See above.)
9. Clarify methods used in voting – makes the wording more realistic
10. Clarify quorum requirement - wordsmithing that makes the section much clearer

6 and 8. Clarify that AAUW controls assets of dissolved state/branch organizations. — These may have generated the most heated arguments to date. There are a few different aspects here.

1. There is a Feb. 2011 legal memo posted with the link to these amendments that says the change isn’t needed (see page 5). I am not a lawyer, but it seems that the legal opinion hinges on the meaning of the words “AAUW Entity” (the language in the current bylaws).  In the memo, “AAUW Entity” seems to  mean “AAUW or one of the other national corporations.” Therefore, the memo states that the switch from “AAUW Entity” to “AAUW” is fine since it only said “AAUW Entity” before since the corporation that was called “AAUW” was a 501(c)(4) and so couldn’t accept the assets of dissolving 501(c)(3) branches/states. My guess is that to the members who approved the 2009 bylaws (without benefit of legal counsel), the words “AAUW Entity” meant “AAUW, AAUW Action Fund, or one of the AAUW states or branches,” and so this is a real change.
2. Given #1, I’m inclined to vote for the change since it makes definite that there is one “entity” to control the abandoned assets.
3. The argument then hinges on whether a disbanding branch/state has assets. To me, it is clear that a functioning branch or state could allocate its assets as it chooses (according to its bylaws, but certainly other branches or the state might be beneficiaries) and then vote to disband, leaving only a small amount to be handed over to AAUW. While the legal opinion was more concerned with 501(c)(3) branches disposing of their assets in a legal way, I believe it is also important that 501(c)(4) branches think about allocating their hard won 501(c)(4) assets (collected without benefit of a tax deduction to the donor) in a way appropriate with their mission before the official vote to disband. If approved, this amendment would clarify (even if it doesn’t change) the case when a branch (and even a state) just “goes away” without filing any paperwork or closing its accounts: The abandoned assets would revert to the national organization.
4. There have been some remarks that imply some members fear that AAUW would initiate branch/state disaffiliation with a primary purpose of seizing assets. Since the AAUW board members (who would need to approve this) are elected by the membership or appointed by the elected members, it seems highly unlikely that this would occur so suddenly that the entity in question couldn’t form a new organization, transfer its assets, and then disband. If this is a realistic fear, there are more serious problems that we’ll need to discuss in some other forum.

• Fall 2006 proposal for new volunteer opportunities (see page 2)
• Fall 2005 proposal for new committee structures

The 2005 proposal looks so similar to the one we’re now considering — and so few of the 2006 positions were ever filled — I fear we aren’t at the root of the problem: how to encourage more people to contribute. If we can’t do that, it doesn’t really matter how we arrange the deck chairs, does it?

Of course talking about this openly probably isn’t helping. But after this many years of reworking the same problems …

I’m posting here, not on www.aauwnc.org, because I’m speaking as an individual and may make some statements that the other members of the committee charged with looking at a new structure may not have heard or may disagree with. But this is the point of view I’ll be taking when I “speak” to the Tar Heel and Sandhills/Southern Pines branches to try to “explain” the proposal.

[Full disclosure of my involvement: I was an instigator of the ReConnection Process in 2002 and a member of that committee 2002-2004. I was state president trying to implement its recommendations 2006-2008. I (perhaps foolishly) volunteered to be on the 2010-2011 structure committee trying to pick up the pieces.]

From 2002-2004, AAUW NC went through a “ReConnection Process” to improve communication between the branches and the state organization.  While progress was made in some areas (streamlining the state board, increasing the number of branches attending state meetings) an underlying issue was not resolved:  the goals implicit in the state structure are not matched by the resources available to it.

By resources, I mean “time” and “money”. In fact, the financial resources of the organization are in very good shape, but as an all-volunteer organization (with a couple of small contracts for specific tasks), that is partly because no one has made creative, focused proposals on how to spend our money, so it sits in the reserve account.

The real issue is “time” — volunteer energy to drive the organization forward.

Examples of our deficit here:

• The 2007 nominating committee failed to find an enthusiastic candidate for treasurer, and a past-president of the state (who had been expecting to serve as support for the 2007-2010 president-elect/president from her branch) was pressed into service in that role.
• The 2009 nominating committee failed to find anyone to serve as president-elect or treasurer (but did recruit a pair of good leaders to serve together as program vice presidents and the reluctant treasurer from 2007 agreed to serve a second two-year term).
• The 2010 nominating committee failed to find candidates for president, membership vice president, secretary and a replacement treasurer, leaving the program vice-presidents, the still reluctant but capable treasurer, and the past-president as the only members of the executive committee.

We are also seeing problems filling appointed positions:

• No one has stepped up to be the communications chair or the editor-in-chief of the newsletter since the person holding both of those jobs stepped down on July 1, 2010. This leaves the production of the state newsletter in the hands of the executive committee with a couple of members supporting them in collecting information.
• No one has volunteered to lead the state’s public policy efforts. While national issues are covered well by the communications from AAUW, we are depending on communication from coalition partners for information on state-level issues with no good way to organize and distribute that information to the members.
• The position of “fundraising chair” has been vacant for at least two years. This hampers efforts to report to the branches on their support of the national organizations priorities.
• Other committees that are left leaderless (and, perhaps more important, have no one to carry out any of the tasks associated with them): College/University Relations and Diversity

All of the branch presidents are members of the board of AAUW NC, and were kept aware of these deficits in the elected officers. Understandably, perhaps, they were unable to help recruit candidates for these offices and so became the dominant block on the AAUW NC board — even though it is clear that many of them are not able or do not wish to devote much time or energy to issues of keeping the state afloat.

Therefore, it seems clear that the current state board structure is broken. An ad hoc committee was appointed at the October meeting to address this issue.

Stay tuned.

Facebook is all about pictures.

Yep, I can’t tell you how many of my friends joined Facebook only to view the photo albums posted there. Pictures get more comments and likes than status updates. And my “top comments” recent post was a video.

What does this tell us? Include pictures with the AAUW news and notes!

90% of twitter posts are from 10% of the users

Again the study is a bit dated, but since this follows the general rule of content creation in other contexts, it’s probably generally right. I’m not sure what this tells  us. Since I’m not a power user of twitter -

• I follow about 200 people, but just take snapshots of the whole list, without trying to use multiple lists for different purpose
• That means I’m not really taking advantage of twitter as a listening post
• I don’t make much effort to increase my followers
• I feel much closer to the “friends” on Facebook (where I made a conscious choice to allow them to read my posts), so I often send my tidbits out into the Facebook world rather than twitter

So who actually reads all of those posts? As Kivi Leruox Miller pointed out at NCTech4Good 2010, it’s perfectly okay to repeat yourself on twitter since no one catches everything you say each time you say it.

My current view is that as @nes49 I’m writing for a very few people. As @aauwnc and @ncwu I leverage the tweets to a broader audience (@aauwnc goes to facebook.com/aauwnc and to the weekly newsletter generated from that;  @ncwu gets archived for the NCWU e-newsletter).

Most people don’t click on ads in Social Media networks

Well, yeah. Most people don’t click on ads anywhere. But the numbers can work for you if your expectations are realistic. The AAUW Social Media Task Force discussions have some examples of using ads.

At the 2009 AAUW convention, I discussed an experience with Facebook events (see slides 13-17) and it might be instructive to run an experiment to see how running an ad improves attendance at an event.

Social networks are most effective when they address failures in offline networks

The AAUW Social Media Task Force’s Facebook page may be an excellent example of how offline networks need a supplement. How would all of those folks have found each other without something like Facebook? While I have AAUW friends from around the country because I’ve been active at the national level and have attended national conventions, the earlier way of connecting (e-mail lists) just doesn’t hold a candle to being able to connect with people on Facebook.

What I hear from the Facebook averse is a fear of more information overload and that they “just don’t have the time”. However, what I find with Facebook is that it is much easier to “keep up with” friends by skimming their short posts and comments. But the real benefit for me, again as a member of a communications team, is that it’s easier to put information out into the world where those who consider it interesting can find it. And I don’t have to worry about its being just “more e-mail clutter” that everyone will ignore.

Perhaps social media doesn’t make sense unless you are one of those who see its benefit as a publishing platform, who have things to say that aren’t directed to particular people, who want to get on board with this “anyone can be a broadcaster” new world. If that’s not you (yet), I recommend reading Clay Shirky — either Here Comes Everybody or the newer Cognitive Surplus (which I’m just starting).

It’s kind of a clunky application* but you can

• find all the submitted amendments
• read comments on those submissions
• make your own comments or amendments
• sign up to be notified by e-mail if additional amendments/comments are posted for a particular section

Thanks to the bylaws committee for their work (most of the changes are ones they proposed).

Start at the One Member/One Vote section of AAUW.org and click the Bylaws Amendments to get to the application.

*I’d expect at least a “filter to show only sections with amendments/comments” and “show all” links

1. Don’t register a domain name for the branch when a subdomain of the state’s domain will do
2. Use wordpress.com for hosting when that’s sufficient
3. Use Google Apps for hosting e-mail, calendar, docs, etc.

So I’ve been running tarheel.aauwnc.org from aauwtarheel.wordpress.com for some time. Rule #3 means setting up a Google Apps account that it tied to the domain and allows for addresses like info@tarheel.aauwnc.org. (Dreamhost.com – my regular hosting service – offers that for free with a really easy setup.)

That’s all worked like a champ. But one of my goals for this year was to “hide” the “wordpress.com” in the branch’s web address. For instance, when someone typed tarheel.aauwnc.org into their browser it would show up–but with the address of  aauwtarheel.wordpress.com. Since we’d gone to all the trouble of having branch-level e-mail addresses, that just looked unprofessional.

I’ve been going around in circles with Dreamhost support for weeks. The problem seems to be that rules #1 and #3 conflict with the way that WordPress.com sets up web hosting:

• If I want info@tarheel.aauwnc.org to work (using Dreamhost MX records to pass the mail to Google), I couldn’t set up aauwtarheel.wordpress.com so that it appears to be tarheel.aauwnc.org (with a CNAME record at Dreamhost)
• If I want aauwtarheel.wordpress.com to appear to be tarheel.aauwnc.org (setting up the CNAME record), I can’t have addresses like info@tarheel.aauwnc.org (because there’s no way to set up the MX records after adding the CNAME at Dreamhost and WordPress.com doesn’t offer MX records on a subdomain)

I considered the option of registering a new top level domain (e.g. aauwtarheel.org) since that’s exactly how openupaauw.org is working and it’s fine, but aside from violating rule #1, that would mean setting up the e-mail all over again.

What I ended up with was creating yet another subdomain, site.tarheel.aauwnc.org, and paying the $12/year to have it be the primary address on WordPress.com — i.e. aauwtarheel.wordpress.com now looks like site.tarheel.aauwnc.org. Nothing needed to change in the e-mail setup. (You might ask why I didn’t use www.tarheel.aauwnc.org – well WordPress.com strips all “www” prefixes.)

In summary:

• tarheel.aauwnc.org still works as the web address of the site — but now it looks like site.tarheel.aauwnc.org instead of aauwtarheel.wordpress.com
• All the e-mail addresses that have been set up still work

Does anyone have a better way to solve this problem?