I’ve vision of an AAUW that allows groups to call themselves branches only if they are really advancing the mission. Other names could be found for other clusters of folks who are hanging together for other reasons, but could we come up with a way to enforce the “use of name” without (horrors!) layering on yet another set of bureaucracy?

When Pat Nichols talked about “speaking truth to power” did he envision (did we envision) holding current branch leaders accountable for progress towards the mission? [Where, really, is the power vested in the organization??]
When Jackie Woods challenged branches to “deliver programs that reflect 21st century trends” and “be advocaces for equity, access and change”  what was her vision?

Can we make changes that allow us to have a significant affect on the society around us? Or are we limited to measuring “activity” and will we continue to be focused on process?