You are here: Home > Pro Dev > NASPA Halts Unification With ACPA

NASPA Halts Unification With ACPA

by Jeff Jackson on March 10, 2010

NASPA Around 6:00 pm yesterday (March 9th) a message went out over twitter stating the Resolution to halt the unification process passes at the NASPA business meeting.

Below is the resolution; read it and share your thoughts.

Resolution
Discussion of the Possible Unification between NASPA and ACPA

Presented Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at the Annual Business Meeting of the Association in Chicago, Illinois

Whereas, the current discussion about a possible consolidation is important to the future of NASPA; and

Whereas, any discussion of a possible unification must take into consideration the tremendous historical legacy from which current association members and leaders benefit; and

Whereas, the current discussion about a possible unification has enormous programmatic, business, and financial implications for NASPA; and

Whereas, the final report titled, “Envisioning the Future of Student Affairs” that was written by the NASPA/ACPA Task Force on the Future of Student Affairs, while thoughtful and offering views about association organizational issues, it only just beginning to be circulated to the members for their review and consideration; and

Whereas, many NASPA members on either side of the issue are feeling rushed to make a decision without sufficient information; and

Whereas, most members and leaders of campus student affairs programs would not consider such a unification on our campuses without careful, thoughtful, rigorous, and open discussion and debate; and

Whereas, NASPA has been an organization that changes and adapts to the professional needs of its members and the colleges and universities it serves; and

Whereas, many NASPA members do not have enough information about why an association at its peak in terms of  programs, publications, members, institutional members, and financial strength, in a very tough economic environment, would consider giving up its identity and traditions to consolidate with another association and create an entirely new entity; and

Whereas, there will not be sufficient time for the members of the Board of Directors and the association to consider the reports of the eight committees considering issues important to any discussion of unification and develop a clear and compelling vision for a possible new association for the voting members to consider; and

Whereas, these committees are focused on: Governance, Bylaws, and Structure; Social Identities Groups (currently Knowledge Communities/Standing Committees); Functional Areas (currently KC/Commissions/Divisions); Members Structure; Conferences/Conventions; Geographical Organization; Placement Services; and Publications/Scholarship); and

Whereas, rushing a vote about unification may cause a major rift in NASPA between members and colleagues in the association that can possibly be avoided with more time to talk through the important issues before us;

Therefore be it resolved:

That the NASPA Board of Directors strongly consider postponing taking a vote in its July 2010 meeting on whether or not to ask the voting members of NASPA to vote on a possible unification with ACPA until after the national conference in Philadelphia in March 2011 to allow for discussions of any proposed new organizational structure, programs, and business plans at regional meetings, special forums, and the next national conference of the association; Further be it resolved,

That the NASPA Board of Directors hire a separate attorney to represent its interests, independent from ACPA;

And that further it be resolved,

That any consideration of possible unification be done after a full financial due diligence study that can be presented to the members as to the relative financial and business strength of the two associations.

Respectfully submitted by,

Michael Jackson, NASPA President, 2002‐2003
Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Southern California

Shannon Ellis, NASPA President, 2000‐2001
Vice President for Student Services, University of Nevada, Reno

Karen Pennington, NASPA President, 2003‐2004
Vice President for Student Affairs, Montclair State University

Theresa Powell, NASPA President, 2001‐2002
Vice President for Student Affairs, Temple University

James Rhatigan, NASPA President, 1975‐1976
Vice President for Student Affairs Emeritus, Wichita State University

Doris Ching, NASPA President, 1999‐2000
Vice President for Student Affairs, University of Hawaii System, Emeritus

Cynthia Forrest, Region I Vice President, 2001‐2003
Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students, University of New England

Linda Kuk, Former Region II Vice President
Associate Professor of Education, Colorado State University

Almeda Jacks, NASPA Foundation President, 2008‐2010, Region III Vice President, 1995‐1997
Vice President for Student Affairs Emeritus, Clemson University

Brian Hemphill, Vice President for Student Affairs/Enrollment Management
Northern Illinois University

Ainsley Carry, Vice President for Student Affairs
Auburn University

Kent J. Smith, Vice President for Student Affairs
Ohio University

Tony Ross, Vice President for Student Affairs
California State University‐Los Angeles

Ed Whipple, NASPA Foundation President, 2006‐2008
Vice President for Student Affairs, Bowling Green State University

You can download the resolution here

Tagged as: ACPA, NASPA

  • ericgrospitch

    I believe the concept that this has been halted is wrong. What the resolution asks for is that due diligence be done, both structurally and financially. It requests that feedback on the reports from the subcommittees to be discussed with the entire membership of NASPA and ACPA before being sent to a vote that requires a 2/3 majority of NASPA and ACPA members to ratify. I want good information on the pros and cons of this for members before a vote, and not simply a “we will figure it out” after a vote.

  • Gary_Ballinger

    Imagine…student affairs professionals weary of change…it's a shocker!

    I agree that due diligence is necessary.

    I do wonder if this resolution actually enforces the stereotype that NASPA has been saddled with in the past: that it is for senior level professionals and they have the power/control/influence over the entire organization and their members?

    Will this begin a grass roots movement of the hall directors, coordinators, directors, counselors, and advisors on campus to rise up or will they just go along with what they are told to do?

  • julieatdallas

    The repeated reference to “rush” throughout the resoultion has me concerned. With all the talk about unification, this is the first I heard they were trying to vote on this issue at this year's conference. (Maybe I just missed it previously.) I'm all for due dilligence, especially if that means members will actually be more informed. I do hope NASPA handles this in a way that doesn't make the organization look as pretentious as the resolution can be interpreted.

  • http://zackfordblogs.com ZackFord

    I'm not a NASPA member, and I'm kind of glad I'm not after reading this. They're halting unification because they're full of themselves and think there's no way they can grow if they have to compromise on anything. It's not like anyone in the field would benefit from not having separate memberships and paying to go to separate conferences for separate workshops on THE SAME WORK and THE SAME ISSUES.

    Whenever people know they don't have a leg to stand on and still want to avoid change, they say “we need to talk about it more.” Look at Healthcare, Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc. How many years will we talk about unification before they feel due diligence has been met?

  • ericgrospitch

    I think you are mistaken. What we don't know – and wouldn't know by a vote in Sept. is what due structure would be, what conferences would look like, what regions or state memberships would look like etc. You used a reference to Healthcare and that is an analogy that has been used by many. The due diligence is to answer some of these above questions before a vote. It could be that we have three national conferences a year one on the east, west and midwest. It could be that our memberships costs double — we just don't know. That is why we need the information before a vote. Does that make sense?

  • http://zackfordblogs.com ZackFord

    Honestly? No, I don't think that makes sense. You only answer questions about what a merger would look like if you're talking about a merger. They are GOOD questions, but they're only valid questions if you're talking about them seriously. It's not like the vote would happen and immediately the entire new org would have its identity. I think it will take a lot of time and work AFTER the merger takes place determining how best to move forward. Conferences, for example, might even still be “separate” for a couple years just because of how far out planning is for them. Halting everything now indicates to me that folks just don't want to bother with change or the work that goes with it.

  • janetbrugger

    I think there is merit in the resolution. There must be due diligence and careful consideration of the financial status of both entities, how a merge will affect that financial status, and most importantly, I wholly agree with the call for independent counsel to represent the interests of NASPA. To enter into a merger with one attorney representing both interests is a cause for major concern.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • kevinrguidry

    I wish there had been multiple resolutions to separate the legal representation concern from the others that are more controversial and subjective. I, too, agree that a different attorney should be hired; that seems 100% clear-cut and I don't know why it hasn't already been done.

  • http://twitter.com/JeannetteMarie JeannetteMarie

    My initial reaction after hearing about the resolution was that of a woman scorned. “You can't dump me! I'm dumping you!” But after reading the document I have a clearer understanding of the concerns. However, I think that there may have been other ways of handling it other than “halting” the talks. (As Eric said.)

    I would very much like to see a compromise. I dropped by NASPA membership over a year ago. It became cost prohibitive to maintain two memberships and I am very involved within ACPA. I feel that I have been very strongly mentored through ACPA and I never had the same feeling from within NASPA as I attempted to get involved. Now I wonder if that is a function of NASPA's size?

    Some things I would be interested in seeing and/or discussing:
    - Taking the two membership lists and merging them and removing the duplicates to get a very rough estimate of what the size of “one organization” would look like.
    - A compromise might be something like offering an auxiliary membership to each organization if you are a member of the other. Example: As a due paying member of ACPA I could have the option of purchasing a $100 auxiliary membership to NASPA. For that price I would get access to the web site, but no printed materials. No voting rights, but the privilege of belonging to two Knowledge Communities. And if I choose to attend the convention perhaps I pay a slightly higher price than regular members.

    It will be interesting to hear the responses from ACPA and I'm looking forward to more discussions.

  • http://twitter.com/PetePereira Pete Pereira

    Wow, lots of great comments here. Here's what I think: What's the big friggin deal?

    Similar to @JeannetteMarie, I've had a similar experience only it is with NASPA. My 1st conference was ACPA ('cause that's where new pros go, right?) but I didn't make a connection & went to NAPSA the following year & kept going back. I got involved at the regional level and have been satisfied with my experience.

    Like others have stated, I think there's nothing wrong with slowing the process down before committing to the merger. With that being said, NASPA did handle this poorly in some ways. The timing was bad & NASPA deserves to be criticized a lot for it. However, I think there should be more information provided (what will a new org look like? how many people are actually in both?, etc) and another lawyer to represent NASPA's interest.

    While I've only skimmed through the benefits of one organizations, it hasn't been enough to sway me to fully support one organization. It makes sense, but that doesn't mean I like it. One thing that I don't hear enough about is: do the pros outweigh the fact that by merging, there will be less professional development resources and opportunities? Also, I think the competition has forced both organizations to perform their best in order to create & retain membership. Also, one organization means one less coference to attend at both the regional & national levels. Lots of professionals are dealing with less professional development funds (or none) and it's a consequence no one's talking about. Instead, it seems like lots of folks think “Well, I can't afford both. So, I like the idea of one.” while I seem to have a different interpretation.

    I intend to keep reading a lot about this (or listen to a certain podcast this web site might know something about) to become more informed on the topic.
    I have accepted that I cannot afford to be a part of both organizations. I think others just need to do the same.

  • ACPAPrez

    Actually much of that resolution had been addressed prior to that meeting. Due dilligence? For an entire year the leadership of both associations have been meeting and planning. Between blogs, podcasts, and state and regional meetings both associations sought incredible amounts of feedback. Today there are leaders from both groups responding to what a new association might look like (subcommittees). Look here for information — http://www2.myacpa.org/au/governance/unificatio…

Previous post:

Next post: