In this issue’s column, I am responding to the planning committee’s article in the December Bulletin. Three suggested changes were described in this article. I agree with two of them, but strongly disagree with the other.
Understanding the qualifications of your representative (trustee) is very valuable. In the past, candidates had only a small number of words to describe what they would bring to the office. Having a way for them to speak to the skills and knowledge that they possess in key areas will help voters make an informed decision. I only wish that candidates running for president, vice-president and secretary/treasurer would also be asked about their skills/knowledge. Asking trustee candidates to fill out a survey describing their skills and knowledge is a great idea.
Changing how the chairman of the nomination’s committee is selected makes sense. Selecting a seasoned regional president to serve in this important role will help recruit great people to run AANR.
The last proposal from the planning committee about restructuring the board is a different matter.
Currently on the AANR board, there is a trustee that represents each region. Additionally, there are trustees that represent each of the club sizes. Within the last 10 years, this structure was created to have trustees to represent individual members as well as to represent the needs of various size clubs.
Last summer, an original proposal was presented at each of the regional conventions. In this proposal, the club trustees were eliminated. At the AANR-NW convention, many concerns were raised.
A new proposal, which was sent to the board on October 9, 2013, was a very different proposal. In this proposal, there would be 10 trustees. These trustees would be elected by all of the AANR membership. There would be a trustee from each region, as well as 3 at large trustees.
With this proposal, the trustee from AANR-NW would be chosen by members in other regions. So, if there were two candidates from the Northwest, even if a majority of AANR-NW favored one candidate, the other one could be chosen to represent their interests. This is my major objection to the restructuring proposal. This also means that clubs will no longer have representation. For example, the board could be composed of trustees that have no experience with a certain size club. Different size clubs have different needs.
I am also concerned about the time and effort being put into restructuring. AANR membership is down. Lack of membership and lack of membership dollars threatens our ability to continue our mission “To advocate nudity and nude recreation in appropriate settings while educating and informing society of their value and enjoyment.” I would prefer that we spend these efforts on increasing membership.
We must always be willing to change and grow. When a change is proposed, we should consider it and how it will solve the problems we are facing. However, change for change sake is time consuming and can lead to unintended consequences.
