Dear AACRAO Colleagues,
After a lengthy, lively, and respectful debate at the Business Meeting in Philadelphia, the proposed bylaws revisions failed to receive the two-thirds majority of votes required for passage. Many members present supported the proposed revisions and many others objected to specific proposals. As I said at the meeting, people who care passionately about AACRAO can disagree about the best approach to ensuring its future. It’s a sign of a healthy organization. We will move forward mindful of the concerns of all of our membership.
In discussions in a Q&A session on the proposed changes, in the Town Meeting, and at the Business Meeting itself, as well as in conversations I had with many members before, during, and after the Annual Meeting, I heard support for and opposition to some, but not all, of the individual proposals that the bylaw revisions reflected. Everyone, including the most passionate opponents of some of the changes, supported many of the proposed revisions. People expressed appreciation for the hard work of the Governance Task Force, and for the thoughtful dialogue that preceded the Business Meeting.
Over the coming months the board will review the proposed revisions to the bylaws to identify the non-controversial items, such as the changes to make the language and grammar consistent throughout and to bring the bylaws into compliance with recent changes in District of Columbia laws. We will look for revisions that might both reflect the spirit of the original proposal and address the specific objections that have been raised. I noted that some objections were more about the number of changes being proposed at once and less about the specific details of the proposed changes. We will also take that into consideration.
At Philadelphia the bylaw revisions were proposed as a package for two reasons: one being the interconnectedness and, to some degree, the interdependence of the proposals; and the second being the language and numbering of the bylaws. If some of the proposed changes had passed and others failed, we could have been left with conflicting language, duplicate numbering or gaps. We will look at whether to disaggregate the proposals to ensure a more focused evaluation. The Board will consider these issues carefully, communicate broadly with and solicit feedback from the membership, then likely propose changes based on these conversations for consideration at the Business Meeting in San Francisco. As we share drafts and ideas with you, we hope you will engage in and encourage genuine dialogue.
I welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions!
Sincerely,
Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith
President
jvon@bu.edu