The process to complete the Proposal was intended to be inclusive of members of both associations, to take into account significant issues and organizational structures and to enhance the New Association for the future success of our profession. A Consolidation Steering Team (CST) was formed, which is composed of the executive committee members (past, current, and vice/elect presidents) and executive directors from both associations. Since the work of the CST has spanned multiple terms of office, past presidents have remained engaged in the process beyond their terms of office. The role of the CST is to oversee and coordinate all aspects of the process, including the timeline. There were eight subcommittees comprised of NASPA and ACPA members established and charged to address various topics critical to the structure and important features of our professional associations. A total of 80 volunteer NASPA and ACPA leaders were involved in these subcommittees, whose work and recommendations provided the foundation for the final Proposal. During the course of this process, there have been opportunities for members to provide input into the Proposal as well as provide their feedback and opinions at town hall meetings at the national, state, and regional conferences and conventions. Information that has emerged from this process can be found on each of the associations’ websites.
Maintaining a strong, geographically organized structure is essential to providing member access and avenues for involvement, addressing regional issues, and providing professional development in a consolidated association. Area gatherings contribute to member satisfaction, provide greater leadership opportunities, enhance networking options, and offer more affordable professional development experiences. The suggested establishment of eight (8) districts is based on an organization that takes into account and balances the following factors: total distance, location, and population density of states and provinces; size of membership; commonalities of institutions; and history of existing relationships within and across proposed districts. In cases where contiguous states currently have large membership bases, decisions were occasionally made to place those states in different districts in order to form the most robust districts possible. In addition, regions outside North America were aligned with districts in order to intentionally reflect the New Association goal of maintaining a global perspective and relationships.
MEMBERSHIP BY ASSOCIATION AND PROPOSED DISTRICT (as of Spring 2010)
(Numbers for U.S. States only)
Please note that district names are as designated within the subcommittee report and would likely be changed upon review during the transition/implementation process to reflect the New Association’s international nature.
|ACPA only||NASPA only||ACPA & NASPA||Total District|
State associations and regions that currently operate under the auspices of ACPA or NASPA would dissolve with the dissolution of ACPA and NASPA. Where there is continued interest, state entities and their governing bodies would be re-formed and operate within districts under the New Association. State entities would not operate as separate 501(c)3 organizations; those state associations which currently have separate 501(c)3 status would need to dissolve in order to be recognized as part of the New Association. Specific mechanisms to foster communication, shared decision making, and leadership representation within districts would be developed as part of the transition/implementation process.
Some of the proposed Communities of Practice (CPs) incorporate emphases that have been part of existing Knowledge Communities and Commissions (e.g., services for adult learners are incorporated into the Commuter and Off-Campus Services CP). We assume that, as higher education and student affairs continue to evolve, over time new CPs would be established and some others may no longer be needed or relevant. Within CPs, we understand that some networks/interest areas have not been listed. As with the review of districts, in the transition/implementation process additional CPs would be considered. Specific processes for forming and disbanding Communities of Practice would be developed as part of the transition/implementation process. Suggestions about additional areas to be considered for development of Communities of Practice can be shared at www.naspa.org or www.myacpa.org.
A New Association, and the resources that come with it, would enable an enhanced focus on professional development at the local level. For instance, the New Association proposes two new staff positions that would be dedicated to supporting the districts, enabling volunteers to focus on program/content rather than logistics and event management. Additionally, closer coordination between districts and the international organization will result in a less duplicative and more strategic and accessible deployment of a wide variety of opportunities for all career levels. As an example, stronger district meetings would especially enhance affordable professional development for new and mid-level colleagues.
The size of an international meeting with the New Association would not significantly impact our choice of venues. In consultation with professional meeting planners, we discovered that a meeting of the New Association (with our anticipated attendance numbers) would not be considered “very large” or problematic in having a number of cities available to host us. Additionally, we heard examples of how we could make the annual meeting feel more intimate than have past ACPA/NASPA Joint Meetings (such as the 2007 meeting in Orlando); for example, by providing stronger tracks for interest areas.
Placement services for members of the New Association would include both onsite services at the annual meeting (and possibly as a summertime “stand-alone” initiative) and resources that would be available to members year-round. These include online career development resources, access to discounted recruitment services, and searchable job boards. In the proposed organizational chart of the staff, a full-time position that neither association has been able to afford previously has been included to manage placement services for the membership.
Members are able to provide feedback in several ways. One way is to go to either NASPA’s or ACPA’s website to offer your input. Each organization’s website has the information on the proposed consolidation for you to read and give your candid opinions, ideas and reaction to any part of the proposal. Another way to provide input is to contact the following members of the Consolidation Steering Team (CST): Elizabeth Griego, NASPA President; Susan Salvador, ACPA President; Patricia Telles-Irvin, NASPA President-Elect; Heidi Levine, ACPA Vice President; Mike Segawa, NASPA Past President; Tom Jackson, ACPA Past President; Diana Doyle, NASPA Past President; or Patty Perillo, ACPA Past President. Finally, you could contact NASPA and ACPA executive directors Gwen Dungy and Greg Roberts.
The CST is counting on its memberships to become well informed of the proposed consolidation by reading the Proposal for the Consolidation of ACPA and NASPA (Proposal). The proposed consolidation is a very important matter to our profession and will have significant potential impact on our role as future leaders in higher education, our professional development and broadening our global network. Individual members of the CST will be sharing the feedback that they receive with the rest of the CST.
For NASPA members, we want you to be aware that any feedback sent will be shared with NASPA’s Board of Directors, who will decide in December whether to send the proposal for a membership vote. NASPA’s Board passed a resolution in July, 2010 to forward the question of consolidation to a membership vote based on the outcomes of the due diligence and proforma reviews and following discussion at Regional conferences. The December, 2009 ACPA Governing Board vote which authorized the work of the CST further stated that, pending satisfactory completion of the proposal, the consolidation question would be brought to a membership vote. If the vote goes to the membership and the result is in favor of the consolidation, feedback from both memberships would also be shared with the new Board of Directors and President and the transition/implementation team in order to consider your comments as they begin the planning for the implementation of the New Association. All suggestions would be carefully reviewed. At this time, any proposed changes to the Proposal will be held for the transition/implementation team to be reviewed if the vote affirms the consolidation.
If the NASPA Board votes to forward the question of consolidation to a membership vote, membership voting would take place between March 15 and April 15, 2011.
Decisions regarding the existing Foundations and potential establishment of any new Foundation would be made following consolidation by the Board of Directors.
Existing memberships would automatically transfer to the New Association. Upon the anniversary date of their renewal, members would be billed by the New Association at the new membership rates.
Any vote of the membership regarding the question of consolidation would not happen until after the 2010-2011 slate of leaders are elected for both NASPA and ACPA. The 2010-2011 slate will be elected, per the respective associations’ bylaws, and if there is a membership vote in favor of the consolidation, these elected leaders would be instrumental in any transitional process.
The cultural elements of each association are important and valuable. The consolidation is intended to retain core aspects of each. The New Association will provide opportunities to thoroughly review and consider ways to incorporate those parts determined to be core for each association.
Some members may be uncomfortable with or adverse to change if they believe there would be a discontinuation of traditions, culture, or a dilution of their voice and values that they enjoyed through either ACPA or NASPA. If consolidation is approved, one area of focus for the transition/implementation team would be to gather member input into recommendations for how best to move forward with a New Association while preserving and honoring the history and traditions of the current associations.
The identification of Board roles/positions was made with the specific goal of creating a streamlined Board of Directors whose primary responsibilities involve fiduciary oversight, strategic planning and policy development. Programmatic and advocacy roles were positioned within the Leadership Council, and in no way reflects an intention to step away from our commitments to inclusion and social justice. Each Board of Directors member carries a share of the responsibility to carry these values into the work and decision-making of the Board. The placement of the Equity and Inclusion Representative on the Leadership Council positions the member leaders in this role to advise and inform the Board, and also to work in close collaboration with those other leaders in New Association who are directly involved with the activities of the association. These include not only the association’s professional development initiatives but also carrying out advocacy initiatives in support of members, students and the broader higher education community.
We did not determine the social identity groups (SIGs) that will exist in the new association. Instead, we drew upon some of the literature on social identity groups and proposed a framework grounded in this literature which could be used by an implementation team convened should consolidation be approved. We intentionally did not create a list of possible SIGs for the new association because doing so conflicted with the guiding principles we identified based upon the literature we reviewed. It would have been premature on the subcommittees part to prescribe which SIGs should exist in the new association. The concept of SIGs is grounded in the idea that these groups are socially constructed, contextual, fluid, dynamic and evolving in the historical, political, and social systems from which they emerge. Some of the SIGs that exist today in NASPA and ACPA were not in the social consciousness five or ten or 20 years ago in either organization, and we propose that there will be SIGs in the future that were never considered today. Therefore, it is not possible to compile a comprehensive or definitive list of SIGs that should be recognized by a new organization. Instead, we recommended in our report that the SIGs in a new association evolve organically from the membership. Likewise, we emphasized that SIGs in a future new association may represent multiple and/or complex identities unlike how they are currently constructed in both NASPA and ACPA at this time.
Social Identity Groups will evolve in the new association through the combined efforts of the implementation team and the members of the new association. The implementation team will need to draw on the academic framework we have provided and the members of the new association, while also considering the history and current relevance of SIGs in both NASPA and ACPA. A formal process should be identified by which SIGs can be identified, created and supported.
ACPA - College Student Educators International
ACPA is a registered trademark of the American College Personnel Association
National Center for Higher Education • One Dupont Circle, NW • Suite 300 • Washington, DC 20036 • USA
telephone: 1.202.835.2272 • fax: 1.202.296.3286 • e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2004-2011 American College Personnel Association (ACPA) All Rights Reserved