AHDI Proposes Blueprint for Great Governance
If you are an AHDI member, you may or may not be aware of the upcoming decisions related to governance structure in our association. I had the opportunity to attend a webinar this week about the “Blueprint for Great Governance,” or BGG as it is referred to. As you may know, if you live in a state that has a State/Regional Association, or if you are a member of the Online Association of AHDI, you have a delegate who is elected to represent you in decisions made in the House of Delegates that impact members. What struck me last night is that, other than the webinars being offered by our national leadership, I really don’t see much discussion happening within the general membership about this. The changes are significant, and yet it does not appear that the information is really getting out to the grassroots members as it could for input. So, perhaps we can have some discussion here.
Let me be really clear here. I am not in association leadership this year. This isn’t an “official” AHDI communication. It is simply one member’s attempt to get some discussion going so that informed decisions can be made!
One of the things that this document addresses is that most members really don’t care about governance issues. I agree with that point. Not too many are interested in bylaws and policies and procedures. What I DO think members are interested in, and frankly MTs in general, is a way to continue their education and remain relevant in the healthcare documentation industry. You can read the BGG document here.
One thing that was discussed is whether our membership numbers are dropping. The response was that no, the actual “practitioner” category of membership has stayed pretty steady over the last few years. What IS increasing is the number of “members” we can now count because of the Benchmark Knowledge Base product. Each of those subscriptions comes with an associate membership to AHDI. The hope here was always, again, that we could convert those members to active practitioner members, however, it does not appear that has happened.
One question relates to finances of the changes. Dues would all be collected in one place (perhaps through AHDI). Would that result in a dues increase? No one really has that answer right now. A question that may be raised is whether all of those associate members through the KB will have the benefit of changes paid for with a dues increase to the practitioner. It just isn’t worked out yet.
What this proposes is that we create a “district” structure, where we have six districts across the US and Canada. Within that, the district will elect a board of governors, who will be the leaders for that district. The State/Regional associations and local components, or chapters, will then be under the guidance of that district. The House of Delegates will be dissolved (although, nobody really wants to use that word, still I’m a believer in calling it what it is), and each district will now have a seat on the national board of directors. The idea here is that it will streamline volunteer opportunities and make a better use of resources. The State/Regional associations and local chapter can continue to meet as they always have, although their funds will now be handled by the board of governors for the district. Last night’s meeting also made it clear that the states and local chapters will need to function around one of four main areas–membership, credentialing, education, and advocacy. It appears that many of our components are already doing this, however, based on the reports last night, some are not. There would be no officers per se of the states or local chapters, however, each “community” would now have a leader. This would avoid recycling of leaders, who may then get burned out. I think it is important to note here that the association often sees the same people running for office over and over; at the same time, it is important to note, as someone did at last night’s meeting, that sometimes those volunteers run again because they have a passion for what they do, not because they are “the only one” who can do it. Both are true, I believe.
The House of Delegates is expected to vote on this change in less than two weeks at the meeting in Austin. One question I did pose last night is when we would actually see the resolution they will be voting on as it has not been published yet. HOD policies do say that resolutions should be submitted no less than three weeks prior to the seating of the House, although they also allow for resolutions to be brought forward at the time. One charge to our delegates is to “Familiarize the members of the component association with the issues on
which action is expected, and solicit the opinion(s) of the members on these issues so that the viewpoint of the constituents may be adequately considered during the deliberations of the HOD.” Two weeks does not seem a very long time for any delegate to make this happen if they do not have the actual report yet.
I don’t know how regions will work. Some states now struggle to get attendance at their meetings. What happens when that meeting is now two states away? Will people still show up? I think some will, however, some may not be able to attend.
Another question that was posed was what happens to the “local only” members in the local chapters. The “local only” membership means that you can belong to a local chapter without holding membership in the national association. When it was created, it gave chapters a way to allow someone who was not a national AHDI member a way to get folks engaged. The intent, of course, was always that it would then attract those people to join the national association once they had a taste of what the association was all about. Clearly, with these changes, this category will go away. I must say I had mixed reactions to allowing this in the first place. It felt like we were “giving away” something that should be reserved to members of the national organization. Still, it was an idea that was passed by the House of Delegates based on membership input. I wonder if the House will now reverse itself on this one.
The timeline, as explained on the webinar, is that the House will vote on whether to move forward with this structure in August. If the vote is to move forward, the appropriate bylaws changes will be made and the actual vote on those bylaws changes, which will enact the change, will then happen in November. It is anticipated that perhaps this will become effective in January.
This year may very well be the last year our association has a House of Delegates. I leave it to you whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. What I think is yet to be seen is whether we will continue to have state/regional associations and local chapters. It would appear with this new structure that, while there may be local “groups” or “communities,” the notion of an actual organization in our local areas will soon be seen as redundant and disappear. What we will have, in the end, may be one national organization, divided into six districts, with multiple committees across the country.
My reason for posting here is that I just haven’t seen much real discussion about these changes and I hope we can have some here. Are you an AHDI member? Are you aware of these proposed changes? And what are your thoughts? I look forward to our discussion!
Related posts:
- AHDI Releases Resolutions for House of Delegates
- AHDI Meeting: House of Delegates, Day One
- Countdown to AHDI Meeting
- AHDI Meeting Update
- AHDI Meeting Wrap Up
Tagged with: AHDI • medical transcription • professional associations for medical transcriptionists
Filed under: Professional Development
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Kathy,
Thanks for a very insightful, accurate summary of the restructuring move. I have to say I agree with everything you say here. A couple of points I would make is that (1)perhaps all individual members have not heard first hand about the proposal, even though Townhalls have been open to any member. (2)I suspect the grassroot members will be hearing much more about this now that the component and state/regional association leadership, and the HOD, has been given several looks at the plan, several times now, and I hope ready to speak to their members on he subject with an assurance of understanding. Meetings with specific regional leadership (and anyone else they care to invite) will be held this and next week. The FAQs are available on the website for anyone to access.
I would also comment on “dissolving” the HOD. I assure you and other past leaders this is not proposed with any smugness or any sense of frustration but with a great deal of respect on my part for what this structure has seen through the years and with utmost respect for those, including 2 good friends here in Oregon, who crafted this body. Are we dissolving representation of the members? Not really. We are also basically “dissolving” the structure of the BOD under this plan: no sacred cows here! By combining the best of our efforts, and reinforcing and emphasizing the opportunities at local, community levels for members, I hope to see this serve as a reconnection for those singular members with good, solid purposeful requests for their volunteer hours and to their benefit.
Thanks for your insight.
Barb
Yesterday’s webinar was full of information and I thank the presenters for their insight. But this is waaaaay above the heads of most of us in the organization. Quite frankly, I don’t care about bylaws and administrative stuff. In fact, I never really understood the need for the HOD. I think it’s time we stopped relying solely on volunteers and started paying professionals to do the association management. Yes, it costs money, but I think it would be money well spent.
We also might want to re-think our educational needs in terms of experience rather than geographic area. I’m thinking freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. So many times I attend a session and it’s either too basic or too advanced.
Barb mentioned our gathering in Phoenix. Our local chapter dissolved for lack of participation and we are now part of AHDI-West. We are having a non-structured, non-AHDI-sanctioned, ‘bring your own coffee’ event in September. It all started simply with an email and finding free space. Some of the attendees will not be AHDI members. This is our opportunity to preach to someone other than the choir about how important it is to band together. Now that we have no formal structure people seem more willing to participate. I’ll be interested to see if we can find the passions that might be lying dormant.
Barb, thanks so much for stopping by and for your comments. Be assured I am not offended by these ideas, I just think they need to be talked about more. With dissolving the HOD, I get it that there is still representation; it just means that there would be 6 representing the membership directly (even though I DO realize the BOD also represents the membership) instead of the current 35-40 that we have. Streamlined communication will be critical for all informed. That does concern me a bit; if a delegate has a challenge keeping up with 1-3 states now, can they actually keep up with 8? Perhaps the shared responsibilities will help that. You correctly said last night that we have had discussions about dissolving or restructuring the HOD for years now. I don’t think it is any surprise that many of the current leadership have wanted this for a long time as they have been pretty vocal about it. In the end, what I hope is a plan that is well thought out (which means it needs more details that we have now before it is selected as the way to go) and serves the membership well. To be successful, any good business restructuring should be done with a detailed plan on how things will move forward, and yet one that is flexible enough to change as needed for the benefit of the business. Thanks again for your comments!
Crystal, great comments and thanks. My state association has dissolved as well this year, although sadly I never even knew it was happening until someone outside of my state told me about it. Through some clerical error, AHDI had listed my address as NC so I never got the information or the ballot, even though all of my publications have been coming to Colorado for over two years. I think putting this on the table more for discussion so that people really understand what is being considered is important. I think it’s great that you’re working to bring people together. I also think it’s much easier to find someone willing to attend a “bring your own coffee” event than it is to find people who will actually be engaged and do the work. That is always a challenge and always has been.
I have attended several BGG town hall meetings, and I have some concerns about this restructuring. At every town hall meeting, the concept seemed to change a little. I must say it’s a little difficult to keep up with. Since I am unable to attend ACE, I really have no idea what the final concept will be that will be voted on.
I agree that we have leadership problems, but I feel we will continue to have leadership problems regardless of what the position is called. I’m not sure it will matter if the “chapter” is now called a “community.” Someone will still need to be the leader or nothing will get done, and leaders always need help. If we have lack of interest now to get involved, calling the structure something different will not necessarily get everyone interested to become involved. In California, as our many chapters closed, the volunteers left too. Having the components more or less forced to dissolve now with this restructuring will just speed up the demise, rather than fading away naturally, so to speak.
Several years ago, there was a lot of talk about restructuring all the states into regions. A lot of people dragged their feet on this and the concept went away. However, this has been happening across the United States now as state associations have found it difficult to continue and have chosen to join with other states to form a region. I think we now have more regionals. It wasn’t forced on components but the components found their own way to make the concept work for them when they were ready (emphasis on when they were ready).
The recent FAQs that I have state:
Q: Will we still have local‐only membership option?
A: No. Local‐only membership will no longer be an option as local chapters evolve into the new structure. Local‐only chapter members will be encouraged to become national AHDI members.
Q: Will there be an increase in membership dues?
A: AHDI professional individual dues were decreased in 2003 to $135 and have remained the same for over 7 years. A membership dues increase or consolidation (in the case of members
who pay local dues) is being considered. The current proposal includes a raise in national dues to either $150 or $160, with $10 or $20 back to districts, $5 to AHDI for administrative costs.
As for an increase in membership dues, very few members belong to a component/chapter that charges dues. For these very few members, this increase will not be much different than what they have been paying all along. But for the majority of members who have not participated in a component/chapter and have not been paying $150 or $160 yearly for AHDI membership and component dues, it will be an increase and may possibly cause more members to leave.
Lisa, thanks for adding to the discussion. I share the concern about a dues increase, especially in our economy today. I also realize that no business can continue to operate on what it did seven years ago so that’s a challenge. We do certainly have some increased revenue with all the added KB members, but I really don’t know what that is to even add that to the mix. I appreciate you sharing here. I do think discussion is important to this process!
I have been attending the BGG webinars for several months. They have been open to all members, have been publicized but are not heavily attended. It is unfortunate that more people are not attending, but perhaps that is also a sign that this is indeed a direction we need to go. It is apparent across the country that finding leadership for the day-to-day running of chapters and state associations is getting harder and harder, for many reasons, and while I happen to live in a state that has been able to continue to thrive, (Pennsylvania), it is not without its problems. We have seen 2 out of 4 local chapters fold (one may merge) but the overall numbers in the existing chapters is relatively small. With the BGG, in whatever final form it is in, the existing chapters could still hold meetings based on continuing education or study groups or a myriad of other things, they would just have to run it by the regional board. On the upside, they would NOT have to find officers, not cringe when election time comes around, not worry about insurance, newsletter ads, annual auditing, compliance paperwork, banking issues, etc. As it is, many people who attend an educational meeting head to the door when the “business meeting” starts – I often wonder if one reason is they do not want to be “volunteered” to run something! Let’s look at the plus side of this proposal, from the eyes of the local chapters. It may be the best thing they ever saw come their way. They can now be more focused on what is important to them as individuals, as practitioners, as educators. They will have directors and staff at AHDI to look to for guidance and help. They can get into whatever they are interested in, continuing education, students, alliances, etc. And as for people who are currently members of local chapters and not AHDI, they can still attend functions, and will be encouraged to do so, but at a non-member rate. Sometimes that is just what ends up attracting a new member, an opportunity to be a part but not commit. (Think Sam’s Club or Costco – you can shop there as a nonmember but you pay a little premium.) We had a very successful local chapter meeting this winter, on a horrible weather day, almost 70 people for continuing education at a hospital. It cost us nothing to run it and we charged a minimal fee to cover breakfast. Guess what? Over half of those attended were not AHDI members or even chapter members. What attracted them was the meeting – the speakers – the people. We can, and should, continue to do those things at the grassroots level with the BGG. I think it is a win-win situation for the struggling chapters if we look at it from the plus side. The current situation is not perfect and the proposed situation is not perfect but by and large I think the proposed BGG (and it is still a work in progress) is a positive move and a responsible move. It needs a bit more “tweaking” and it will never please everyone, but I think we should all keep an open mind. IMHO.
I have to admit that I’m more than a little nervous about the changes proposed within the BGG. I think last night was the third of the webinars/town halls I had attended, and there will be yet another within the next week or so with our regional and local leadership. I’m hopeful that in a smaller, more intimate setting, meaningful dialogue that addresses member concerns and frustrations will take place in a somewhat different manner. Yes, there have been opportunities to ask questions – and to have some of them answered – but the “feel” of these meetings has all been one of an informational meeting and they have each projected that the BGG is a done deal, despite the fact that the House has yet to vote to move forward with it. Not once, when concerns have been raised, has anyone in leadership responded with the acknowledgement that yes, you have raised a valid concern and this is a problem with the new plan, or that anything needs to be taken back to the drawing board and re-thought. There is simply the continual message that this is the only salvation for our association and it must be done right now or we lose everything. The only exception to that is the multitude of areas (most of the financial questions) where, admittedly, details have yet to be determined. At least we are aware that some parts of the proposal are yet to be determined.
An example of what I am talking about was from last night’s webinar, when a local meeting was characterized as “sitting around and talking about Aunt Susie’s surgery,” or something along those lines, and I found that to be an odd approach to the very real concern that many of us struggle to continue to provide relevant, professional content for our members at every meeting we have. There may be some components with a different type of focus, but I cannot point to any meetings I have attended in the last 20 years in this association that I would say were completely unprofessional and a waste of my time. Our volunteers work very hard to keep professional values and new, exciting content at the very center of everything we do. I had stated Monday evening in a question/comment that basically it sounds as though local and S/R components provide services and content that meets the needs of our members as we understand and perceive those needs, but the BGG is forcing us to adopt only the four initiatives stated as being “acceptable” for the national agenda, and what members need or want is no longer a viable consideration. The visceral reaction to my comment brought two thoughts to my mind: 1) That what I was saying was totally misconstrued, as I was not at all saying that what we do at the local and S/R level is “less than” what AHDI is asking us to place our focus on; and 2) that there is a disconnect of sorts between how local and S/R components and their leadership interface with members and how that is viewed by higher profile leaders in this association.
I admit that there seems to be some wiggle room provided within the four stated initiatives that would allow us to continue to have meetings at the local and S/R level similar to what we do now. Our members want continuing education and networking opportunities. They want those to be delivered conveniently to them, and they don’t want to have to work very hard personally to see any of that happen. I totally get that the BGG takes care of part of that by making “governance” go away at the local and S/R levels. What concerns me considerably, though, is that with our new “communities,” it will never again be business as usual, no matter how much we are placated to think otherwise. Community organizers, if that is what local leaders are ultimately called, will no longer have treasuries over which they and their boards have autonomous control. Everything we do, whether a continuing ed meeting, a holiday party, or a study group, will have to be “blessed” by our district – who will be struggling financially to make the funds at their disposal stretch to cover travel expenses back and forth for governors, etc., to participate in the meetings built into the new structure. We thought we had our hands full at the S/R level funding one delegate – I’m afraid this new structure will be an even bigger nightmare. I have a feeling many requests for funds to support “community activities” will not be granted, whether for financial or political reasons, but that’s just my personal opinion. Without a local treasury, we will be calling on members to front venue deposits, food costs, and the other costs of holding meetings, and I would anticipate our efforts to continue on locally will begin to seriously falter based on finances alone.
Last night, someone asked how we explain to our local members what this means for them. The answer given was once again the “rah-rah BGG” stock response that says, focus on the many wonderful new volunteer opportunities – in essence, explain away any negativity with a blitz of positive support for the BGG and that will take care of whatever questions we have.
Ironically, for several years now we have been encouraging our members to celebrate our strengths in the area of critical thinking, yet when we start using critical thinking strategies on trying to dissect, digest, and assimilate a governance plan for our own association, those skills don’t seem to be appreciated as much. The reality for us at the local and S/R level is that we have many, many members who will not understand these changes and all they will see is that their dues are going up – and for what? They will also see that they no longer have a strong local leadership board to whom they can turn for guidance and to help them navigate the strange waters of associational life. Local members (and non-members, too) may find the wherewithal to email or call a local chapter officer they have met at a meeting, but many are hesitant about approaching an at-large national BOD member who is supposed to be representing their concerns. We have talked about doing away with redundant layers of governance, but I’m not sure that all of the fallout of doing so is a good thing for our members.
One last word, and then I will stop. Kathy, I really appreciate you providing this forum for objective discussion and I hope that more will join the conversation. My last, and perhaps biggest concern about the BGG is the rush with which it is being handled and pushed through. I don’t understand telling delegates not to disseminate the information a month ago, but thinking now that 2-3 weeks is adequate to help members understand what all of this means. I don’t understand why we MUST act now, why the sky suddenly seems to be falling when membership, according to our BOD, is higher than it has ever been, and why we cannot take more time to analyze the ramifications of this proposal and do it more thoughtfully and carefully – and respectfully of our members. To me, we are saying that members and their concerns are not very highly valued – although the spin, of course, always contradicts that. But if the BGG is a good, solid idea, and if it really is what our association should do to poise ourselves for sustainable success, then the plan will stand ANY test of time or close scrutiny to which we subject it. There are too many unanswered questions right now, and those need to be fully explored and satisfactorily answered before moving forward.
Judy, thanks for your post and for stopping by to comment. You have some good examples of things as well. For what it’s worth, I don’t think any proposal for anything in an association ever pleases everyone. I do think, from what I have heard, that there is more than just a “bit more tweaking” still left to do. That may come out in the resolution when it is published, and perhaps it will answer some of the questions. Hopefully it will come in time for the membership to actually hear from their delegates and provide some feedback.
Miriam, thanks for jumping in with your comments. I think it is this kind of discussion that we should be having all around so people can put their concerns on the table. I would agree with you that there have been times in the BGG webinars for questions and on the first one I attended I actually sent a note to the organizer saying I appreciated the transparency that she used in dealing with things. I also had the impression that this is a “done deal,” although to her credit, Barb did state last night that it IS possible that the HOD will not pass this. No one really knows until the votes are cast. As pointed out last night, this leaves components wondering whether to hold elections or not to meet the November deadline. I would personally say to this that I don’t think that one is as big of an issue as during my time on the board, most components did not have their elections until well into the fall (and some not until the first of the year). Now waiting until November for a vote for something that takes effect in January could be a bit more challenging. I think these are the kind of things we do have to address.
The one thing I saw in your note that I was saddened by is the notion of “we must do this or we will lose the association.” I heard that message as well last night, and I’ve heard it many times before. In any organization, group, heck even websites like this one, the idea should be to build a “tribe,” meaning a group who are there because they want to be and are invested in the success. You only do that with engaged members of the tribe. If you haven’t read Seth Godin’s book “Tribes,” I certainly suggest it for anyone in leadership these days, whether in business or associations. It is a fascinating read. In the mentality that says “we must or we lose,” we operate in fear. I have never chosen to operate my life that way as I don’t find it terribly productive. And yet, it’s there.
Great discussions and I hope we see more. For all of you, please remember, you can link to this post, share it on Facebook, Tweet it, or anything else that you can think of to spread the word and involve more in the discussion. Thanks for taking your time to be involved!
Okay, I’m going to jump in here just to show you all how truly ignorant I am of all of this. You mention, for example, different initials for things that I have no idea of. What I CAN tell you is that, like Judy, I am in Pennsylvania. I attended my first local chapter meeting in November (or maybe it was December) 2009 and joined at that meeting with membership being effective beginning in January 2010. At that meeting, they set the date and location for the NEXT meeting, which I heard NOTHING more about until the day I received an email telling me it was CANCELLED. And since THAT time, I have heard nothing more about our local chapter or anything about ANYTHING other than what I read in here! The chapter I had joined met in a conference room at Warren General Hospital (Warren, PA), and there were probably 20 or so people there. There was talk at that time that “we” would soon be having to make a choice of whether to keep our local organization, in which case we would have to get more members as there was dwindling interest, or we would have to choose between (as I understood it at the time) totally disbanding or we would join with other local organizations and become a regional organization.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what is meant by “regional?” Are we actually talking about local joining with many other locals, or are we talking about State joining other States? This is all very confusing to me.
The local chapters have low memberships, and same people are doing all the same work year after year. That is what it sounded like at the meeting I attended. The President or Chair or whatever her title was had been doing it for a long time, and she simply said this (THAT, I guess, since I think it is in the past) was her last year. She wasn’t going to go do it anymore, although she’d be around to answer questions by the new person. (If that was in 2009, I have no idea who the “new person” is right now. As far as I know, there wasn’t an election of any type…at least as a new member, I never received a ballot or even asked my opinion.)
I’m at a loss to understand all of the politics and economics going on behind what is happening. It just seems to me that no matter WHAT subject you are talking about, the bigger the organization behind it, the LESS input individuals have, the less input local organizations have, the less FUNDING there is to go around (even if there is a jump in the dues) and the fewer people who are RECEIVING the funding, the MORE grumbling there is going on because, as they say, you can’t please everyone….and the bigger the organization and the fewer the people who have input, the more likely that you are going to please fewer and fewer!
I think it would be BETTER to keep the organization the way it is, or at least similar to how it is, and to find ways to help local organizations boost membership and input to the State organizations. There should be ways for tele-conferencing so that local organization leadership can creatively put together joint meetings when presenters can be shared along with the benefits AND costs of the presenters. There should be better cooperation and understanding between local organizations and State organizations and whatever National organization we have, and the State and National organizations should not tell US what we have to do but rather get input from as many members as possible and be guided BY it! (Duh….isn’t this something like “taxation without representation” or something similar in theory?)
My husband belongs to a professional engineering organization where nearly every incoming member is given a “duty,” and as the years go by, these members “rotate up” so that after a number of years they end up reaching the point of being the chairman. NOBODY gets burned out, there is still someone within that organization who has done it in the past to get assistance from if and when it is needed, and membership keeps growing!
I KNOW that over the years “engineers” have definitely gained an acceptance and respectability as a “career” that we haven’t (as MTs and even CMTs and RMTs) achieved yet, but who is to say what can be achieved if we just keep on trying? Not that I have a lot of extra time–in fact, not much at all–but I can’t see why I would consent to letting some far-away bunch of people that I don’t know and who don’t know me think that THEY can make the best possible decisions for me and my career and the FUTURE of my career. It’s tantamount to setting up a country within a country! We’d be setting up “The Department of Medical Language Processing” (or some such nonsense) as something like another department of the federal government, probably within the Department of the Interior, ultimately led by the President of the United States, who ALSO probably doesn’t have a CLUE as to what in the heck we are concerned about!
So….did I just let y’all know how truly ignorant of this topic I am? Probably. ‘Nuf said.
Sherry, it doesn’t seem you misunderstand as much as you think! Right now we have the national organization (AHDI), state/regional associations (regions meaning two or more states go together to create a regional association instead of a state association) and local chapters (like the one you attended). What this proposal does is make “districts,” where 7-8 states are together instead of 2-3, and the district would be responsible for all of the administrative things like bylaws, collecting dues, dispersing funds, etc. The state/regionals and the local chapters would not have officers any longer, although hopefully there IS a leader somewhere to organize, but around those four initiatives. Funding for any meetings would need to be approved by the district as they would hold all the funds. We also right now have a House of Delegates, which means if you have a state or regional association, those members are represented directly by a delegate elected by the membership from that area. With this proposal, the House would dissolve and be replaced by one person from each district having a seat on the national board of directors. That would mean the 35 or so that currently represent the members directly would be replaced by those six people having a seat on the board.
I know it’s sure confusing for a new person. I am sure also sorry that your chapter has been nonresponsive. I love what the engineers do as it engages people. Any organization must have engaged members to be successful, in my opinion.
Thanks for jumping in here! Your thoughts DO matter and I appreciate you sharing them.
Kathy:
What are the “four initiatives” you mentioned? I have an idea, but I’m not sure.
The four areas are membership, credentialing, education, and advocacy. Hope that helps!
So….are those 4 areas in which the local groups, however formal or informal they may be, supposed to work on in a volunteer capacity, whether now or in the future?
I guess that each member actually works on “education” personally (with continuing education credits, etc.?) and each member SHOULD be helping their chapter by trying to bring in new members. The advocacy and credentialing are 2 areas I’m not sure aren’t more of a legislative or legal type of issue? How would an individual attempt to address those 2 things? (And correct me if my assessment of the other 2 areas are incorrect or incomplete.)
Here is the list I have -
Four requirements for AHDI affiliation
1. Credentialing
Cert Study groups
Outreach to encourage MT credentialing to employers, schools, and individuals
Promote and advocate a fully credentialed workforce
2. Education
Provide continuing education to members
Promote and advocate the education approval program
Bridge local students into the community/network/chapter
Promote involvement in association conventions and regional meetings
3. Member Development
Recruitment and retention
Engagement in projects
Leadership succession
Promote and encourage student to post-grad to professional and KB associate to professional
4. Advocacy
Promote local, regional, and national lobby days
Organize regional or local Congressional meetings
Establish strong alliances with allied health associations
Hi Kathy, and everyone. Just finished doing a fireside chat with the newly forming Mountain State Regional group and really had expected that you might have been on that call. I believe the invitation went out to the current leaders of CO, MT, WY, and NM. Nora, Char, and Brett I do thank you for attending and asking your questions and this is an ongoing discussion. Actually, I think it was a good call. We spent a little time drilling down some things like treasury and where people would fit, etc. I am glad that we could fit in some of the smaller chats to potentially allievate some anxiety or the fear of change. Okay, now I must get back to my paying job. LOL Bonnie
As a general member I would have to say that if this new structuring is such a hot idea then it will still be viable after slowing it down a bit. But, if I had to bet on it, “cynical old Nae” would guess that this new plan is already being moved into place regardless of these “few weeks” we are magnanimously allowing the general membership to provide input. This smells, feels, tastes like a done deal.
If folks get all swimmy-headed just because Kathy used the “dissolved” word, I reckon they aren’t going to react much better when I flatly say that I bet the pressure being placed on those HOD members and anyone else in leadership right now to “drink the Kool-Aid” with a genteel smile probably feels a bit like being squeezed in my cattle chute while we hustle them right on along to market … and that is coming from somebody who for years has openly said the HOD needed to go … and I sure don’t think expecting less people to do the work of however many are in the HOD, 30-40? is a really commonsense approach to the situation either.
Around here you can’t even get a permit to cut down a tree without some mighty detailed economic/environmental impact statements being circulated for, quite literally, months to a year. If I am reading all this correctly, our leaders are now proposing to alter the entire makeup of the organization without having even finished working out the basic economics. Seems to me like at the least we should have learned that lesson by now … its not like we can’t all point at some rather spectacular flops the organization has embarked on that started out just like this one appears to be doing.
Nae
Wow – so much to say about this, especially some of the comments.
When I read Miriam’s comments, I hear many of the frustrations that have been voiced over the years. What is boils down to a communication disconnect that AAMT/AHDI has suffered for many, many years.
As for raising the dues – well, another indication that the organization is disassociating itself from practitioner members, who have been getting paid less and less and being asked to do more and more. If I was still a member, I’d be asking why the association feels it should be paid more. Especially in light of the view from most MTs that the association isn’t returning much, if any, value for membership.
I remember a time when the association wouldn’t have made such a move without first knowing the financial impact. The impression I get is one of desperation – keep throwing enough things at the wall and hopefully something will stick.
There’s just so much wrong with this picture, I feel the need to blog – but I’ll likely get accused of picking on AHDI again (like I care!).
Thanks for stopping by, Bonnie. As you know, I wasn’t actually invited to that call as I do not hold a leadership role in Colorado. Still, one of my concerns is that there is nothing going to to the members even talking about this “newly forming Mountain State Regional group.” I get all of the notifications from the Colorado Google group, it’s not there. The only thing that was there that was titled something close to that was a board partner update webinar, which was clarified to be simply that, a board partner update, not a planning meeting. What was reported back to the membership was only that the vote to dissolve Colorado had been taken and it would be dissolved. Nothing so far about anything moving forward. I do understand that is in the works, sadly I learned it from someone who isn’t even in one of our states. This is the kind of communication breakdowns that I think make decisions like these so very critical. The webinars have been good, however, it’s pretty clear some members still have no idea what’s even going on with this. Small group chats are great to clarify things, however, the real value is in distributing information to the membership that is being impacted. Thanks for joining us here!
Nae and Julie, thanks to both of you for stopping by and adding to the conversation. As I understood the conversation, the financial impact is being put together, however, is uncertain right now. There will be costs to making such a big change, and some have suggested that it may even mean chapters and state/regionals will have to change their names, which may or may not mean any future contracts they have for meetings and such have to be redone. The policy on resolutions used to require a financial impact statement, but that is no longer in the policies. Next week is the deadline for the agenda to be published, however, resolutions are, by policy to be submitted three weeks prior to seating of the House. That doesn’t mean this new resolution can’t be considered, as resolutions can be brought forward at any time, it just means it will probably have to be added to the agenda by vote of the House at the meeting.
We often criticize delegates for not communicating with the membership, and there are certainly times when that has been the case. In this case, however, it appears they do not have the final proposal that they are being asked to vote on so it’s not really possible for them to distribute it and get feedback.
“We often criticize delegates for not communicating with the membership, and there are certainly times when that has been the case. In this case, however, it appears they do not have the final proposal that they are being asked to vote on so it’s not really possible for them to distribute it and get feedback.”
Lord love a duck! Who, in their right mind, at this point, thinks the delegates actually have any control of what is going on right now?
Nae
“We often criticize delegates for not communicating with the membership, and there are certainly times when that has been the case. In this case, however, it appears they do not have the final proposal that they are being asked to vote on so it’s not really possible for them to distribute it and get feedback.”
I could understand that being a viable rationale if it was a truly emergent issue, but apparently this thing has been being talked about for a year now. And a resolution still has not emerged? If one cannot be articulated after all the webinars, townhalls, and other meetings that have been held, then I have trouble accepting that “it’s not really possible for them to distribute it and get feedback.”
What I wonder is, how many delegates will use these next 3 weeks they have before ACE to get on the phone, run surveys, and create opportunities for meaningful dialogue with their members to get what input they can? I have a feeling right now that AHDI is continuing to consume our delegates’ energies by having them attend more and more meetings – trying to rush to hammer this thing out so they can get it before the House – and most don’t have enough hours in the day to do all that’s demanded of them for the webinars, plus do a paying job, plus take care of their families, plus talk with their members. So in that equation, members are getting left out. And yet again, we reinforce the very real perception that what they think and would have to contribute on this is of little or no value.
Voting on the BGG at this year’s HOD (or even in November, if the details have not been ironed out and all reasonable questions answered) seems foolhardy and not based on sound business principles, in my opinion. In the rush to push this thing through, we must make sure what the fallout will be, and be absolutely positive that it is what we want.
Miriam, I agree that we should have a proposal by now. What I meant is that if delegates don’t have a copy of what they are to vote on, then it’s pretty hard for them to get it out there for discussion. You make a good point about volunteers. All of us, no matter what role in the association, are volunteers. Those on committees and even on the board and delegates do have paying jobs that they have to take care of. I remember too well those days on the board when I wondered how I would get it all done. It is a definite challenge. I do think making informed decisions, no matter what they are, is important. Without the information, it can’t be an informed decision.
Hello everyone! We are still trying to get back to “normal” (WHAT is normal?!?!?) after returning from our trip. Our bodies are still recovering from West Coast time and Alaska time. It’s so hard to get back into your routine after it changes so dramatically for a period of time!
After reading Kathy’s blog and the various responses, here are my thoughts on a few points…
1) Crystal said something interesting that the association might want to think about. She suggested having paid professionals manage the association instead of volunteers. I think having paid folks running the show instead of volunteers has the potential to improve things. Many homeowners associations have stopped letting residents run their associations and they’ve hired (paid) management groups to run them. Having lived in a neighborhood where this transition took place, it was a HUGE improvement. In this scenario, the residents still had a role in many things and had a major voice in how things were run, but the paid professionals did the bookkeeping and managed other tasks.
2) How the association is structured is really of no concern to me….whether we have districts, no districts, whatever. What IS important to me is that we have an association that is run efficiently and addresses the needs of its members. The structure that will best achieve that goal is the one we should have.
3) Like Kathy, I am not a fan of “local only” memberships. I feel that members need to be part of the “big picture” as well as the local picture in the association.
4) Kathy wrote that, “the notion of an actual organization in our local areas will soon be seen as redundant and disappear.” Wow. I REALLY hope that this does NOT happen! There is SO MUCH benefit that members get from their local chapters….IF, of course, they take advantage of joining them and being involved in them. For me personally, people from my local chapter and other local chapters have played a *huge* part in my professional development and networking. The key here is that I met these people THROUGH the local associations.
Well, that’s it for now. I could probably write more, but these were the things that immediately stood out for me in the discussion. Hope everyone is having a great weekend!!
Sue, great input. I think for the most part, the average member really doesn’t care about governance issues. I am quite interested as I scroll through comments here that what I seem to see is a pattern that says “don’t threaten our local organizations.” Not much that says we want to keep the House of Delegates. That may be a sign that it’s served its purpose where members are concerned, I don’t know. As I understand it, the local organizations can continue to meet, it just won’t be a “formal” organization, as the only formal organizations we will have are the districts. I think, with Crystal’s comments about paid staff, there is some consideration to having all of the funds managed by the AHDI staff, although the actual decisions about how those are allocated would rest with the board of governors for the district.
The decisions at this point will come down to how the delegates vote in the House of Delegates next month. What I hoped here was to get people started thinking and talking about it because it didn’t seem there was much of that other than the webinars that AHDI offered. Once an actual resolution is published, it may answer some of the questions people have about what it looks like going forward.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the HOD is voting on this – in what will apparently be their last act?
I have been reminded many times that we elect the delegates to make decisions and that the delegates do NOT have to vote the way the members want.
Lisa – I think that’s another huge problem here. I think members elect delegates THINKING they will represent them on the issues. Just as we are being led to believe that at large BOD members will represent the interests of all members in the new governance structure. If there is this much ambiguity in what the delegates’ roles are, then there’s no wonder we’re all confused.
If my delegate, or my at-large BOD member, is NOT there to vote according to my interests, opinions, or values, then how are they going to be represented? Do I have a voice in this association, or don’t I?
I just have to ask – why are you still a member of the association? What value do you find in it?
I didn’t join MTIA when it was first formed years ago because for a $1,000/year membership, I wouldn’t have been allowed to vote. If I don’t feel I have an adequate voice, I don’t feel my money is well spent.
So what do you feel you’re getting for your money?
Julie, I can’t answer for anyone but myself, but the greatest value to me is the relationships that I’ve been blessed to build over the years, the networking opportunities that come through involvement in component life, and the continuing education that sharpens my skills. Yes, I can get CE’s in a multitude of places now besides depending solely on AHDI meetings or publications; and I enjoy social networking and the worlds that have opened as a result. However, there is nothing that can take place of the friendships and business connections that have developed in my life these last 20 years through my involvement in the association. As you know – as we all know – transcription can be a lonely, difficult job, and there is just something about the camaraderie that develops through sharing interests, working shoulder-to-shoulder on projects, and participating in activities together that is very edifying, at least it has been for me.
Staying involved in a local component and a growing regional association is a key piece of the “magic” for me – perhaps it is the danger of losing that connection, and seeing our next generation of MTs have to manage without it and knowing what a void that may be for them, that fuels my passion for wanting to be sure changes we make are done the right way and with members, and their needs, always our central focus.
I want to comment on this one as it’s an age-old question. What delegates, and even board members, have always been told is they are charged with making decisions in the best interest of the association. Unfortunately, that is not always what’s the absolute best, or even perceived best, for any individual state. One thing we have always said as an organization is that “you may get more information once you get to the meeting that you didn’t have and may mean you change how you feel about an issue.” And therein perhaps is the flaw. If we have that kind of information, let’s get it out and share it before it’s time to vote. That allows for truly informed decisions on everyone’s part. What I DO agree with is that once a decision is made, leaders have a responsibility to support it, no matter how they felt or voted on it. I don’t want to see a “rift” within the leadership of the organization and think that’s important. In this particular case, the decision isn’t made yet, no matter how much it may feel like it is. So discussion is important so everyone has all of the facts.
It is indeed how it has always been when we discuss dissolving the HOD. It is the HOD who will have to vote to dissolve themselves. On that note, however, what I find very interesting in these comments is no one really seems to be too upset about that part. What I believe I hear people saying is “don’t mess with my component.” As Miriam said above about her reasons for belonging, it’s about the “tribe” we associate with. When we fear that going away, it is a threat and we get nervous. With the lack of real interest from membership about the House of Delegates, and the lack of information from delegates (whether they have it or not, in many cases there isn’t much communication there), perhaps the HOD is an idea that has served its purpose.
“If my delegate, or my at-large BOD member, is NOT there to vote according to my interests, opinions, or values, then how are they going to be represented? Do I have a voice in this association, or don’t I?”
I have to admire that you still have faith in that and I do mean that.
I would have to say, NO, I don’t think any general member has had a voice on what goes on in this organization for a very long time. That went away years ago when the duties and responsibilities of the HOD POP book got rewritten to remove that pesky sentence telling them they had an obligation to listen to and vote the way the majority of their electorate wanted them to. My local chapter is certainly one of the more functional ones, the more financially secure ones, but does any of that common sense carry over to the national level? If you were asking me I would say flatly no, and I really can’t see folks there being really eager to turn that money they are so good at raising and using productively in this state to the national organization, to have to petition them for permission to use the money they raised in the way they feel is needed here locally. And, even if this whole plan goes hooey, and the organization “fails” as keeps being threatened … nothing can really stop those local volunteers and members from meeting, doing their projects, making friends if that is what their hearts really feel needs to be done. So, speaking just for me, I don’t think that is the important question right now.
I fully understand this concept of the BOD/HOD voting for what they think is best for that nebulous thing called the “organization.” It is a really dandy concept if the BOD/HOD are the only ones footing the bill to operate that organization. But they are not are they? When all is said and done, they are expecting the folks who collectively pay a lot of the bills with their membership checks to be happy about being bypassed while these few make that huge decision to change the entire organization … not to be tacky, but if they really felt that is what the members wanted/needed to survive why are they so darn reluctant to tell them exactly what is going on instead of dressing it up in airy fantasies about what “might be?”
Where is the properly thought out, structured, fiscally responsible plan for doing this that members can see? Discuss? By our own admission there is not one, and will not be one in even a minimally effective amount of time to take it to the general membership for thought and consideration, so just how much do we really care about what those members think? I would have to say not a whole lot. We are told we will have only a cobbled up version that is “subject to massive changes” once voted on, that delegates will get when? A day, a week, before they have to vote on it? If this is the first example of how those “few” are so much more qualified to run the organization, of their planning abilities, I would have to say that it is falling really, really short of the hype about their abilities. I would have to say that those who really are being allowed to vote better start looking at that utter lack of planning with cold hard realism not pink wishes and puppy dog tails.
Nae
Nae