Public Comment Regarding Ongoing Consolidation Discussion

Fellow members, as you can see, the Proposal is a work in progress which has been readily available on the NASPA web site but the Plan which is what we're being asked to vote on is less readily available. Since both are not in fianl form I don't understand why one is so readily available and the other is not.

Therefore if you'd like to see the Plan as it stands now, here is the link to it in the Board section of the NASPA web site:

http://www.naspa.org/about/boarddocs/1210/Plan.pdf

Some who favor consolidation have stated that this is just a natural evolution for NASPA and that NASPA won't go away. Not so if we vote for the Plan (i.e., in favor of consolidation)according to point 2 in the Plan which states ". . . ACPA and NASPA will cease to exist."

So we're being asked to approve the Plan (to eliminate ACPA and NASPA.) Then, while a Proposal for what "New Association" MIGHT look like according to President Griego, exists that may or may not in fact be what it will look like because it will be "reviewed and vetted more broadly by the membership" likely over the next two years.

In all candor, I have to ask a not so rhetorical question: Have any of you ever been asked to cast a vote so impactful - which would eliminate two long standing professional associations - for an alternative that is still not in its final form? I certainly haven't and therefore I intend to vote NO and I would encourage others to do so to avoid giving up a vibrant, successful, known quantity (NASPA and ACPA) for what approaches "buying a pig in a poke."

The lack of inclusion of a dedicated space for women's professional development in student affairs is unfortunate, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and our allies also hoped and expected for explicit recognition in the new association. The professional path of being a women's center or a LGBT center director is unique, and deserves its own community of practice. To echo Gail, the Journal about Women in Higher Education is an important home for scholarship on gender in our field, and should be reconsidered for retention.

A "comment and question' period for the new proposal would be ideal, so that the membership can weigh in on (and suggest modifications to) the proposed structure before the vote. Thanks for considering.

On a more personal note: while I hold memberships in both NASPA and ACPA, NASPA has been my home association for the past 10 years. It has been the association that I have committed my professional volunteering time towards by serving in leadership positions at both the regional and national level. Moreover, I have always valued NASPAs commitment towards being an inclusive association. I have always felt included and that I belonged within the Association. This was true until I found out that graduate students were not going to be allowed to cast a vote regarding the consolidation. For the first time, I felt truly marginalized as a member. Again, I understand the bylaws and the governing structure do not afford graduate students the opportunity to vote. However, I believe the only right thing to do, the only inclusive thing to do, is to create a format that will allow NASPA graduate students to voice their opinion regarding the consolidation of the two associations.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Consolidation Committee for their work in putting together this thoughtful document regarding the consolidation of the two organizations.

That said, if the consolidation moves forward, I urge the committee to reconsider its omission of Women's Centers and Programs in its list of Communities of Practice, and the question mark it has placed over the Journal About Women in Higher Education. NASPA's Center for Women and WISA have done important work in creating a professional home for colleagues who work in Women's Centers and Programs; the consolidation, as proposed, negates that work and eclipses NASPA's and ACPA's historic links to the associations organized by deans of women. Having worked with NASPA's Center for Women since its beginning and served as its past chair, I think this is a serious oversight.

Roger W. Sorochty VP, Enrollment and Student Services The University of Tulsa

When will the financial prospectus that underlies the consolidation proposal be released to members? What assumptions, if any, were made regarding institutional memberships moving forward?

I like the social identities group and think people will naturally assemble into subgroups within these broad groups.

I think the Communities of Practice are comprehensive. I am particularly happy you used CAS Standards to guide their formation.

Task teams could play important roles and could replace some of the ad hoc workgroups that have popped up. Like that there may be a more ongoing examination of competencies, etc. by a standing group.

Emphasizing the international scope of the association is appropriate and welcomed. That said, are you prepared to address concerns about conference location? Could the association have a viable annual conference outside of the US?

I think making the regional conferences topical, institute like is a good move. I think partnering with other associations to host these meetings will be good. For example, if AFA has an annual conference in St. Louis in 2011, could the regional meeting be held in conjunction. "New Association" has to think of how to not duplicate and to also meet the needs of the members.

I think this proposal also permits extensive and meaningful involvement by members. The role of governance is well explained and I can see how many can support the overall goal of strong management for the Association.

I've appreciated the transparency of the process as well!

By renaming the Community of Practice 'Advocacy about Social Identity' or something to that effect, the New Association will have the opportunity to provide a forum for administrators who work in advocacy related areas that will enable them to explore how to support students' intersecting dimensions of identity.

I'm not sure I agree that Spirituality / Religion makes sense as an entity separate from Multicultural Affairs in the "Communities of Practice" list. Many institutions keep these separate, but many combine them, just as LGBT student services are sometimes with multicultural units and sometimes not. If Spirituality and Religion are kept separate, then I would propose that Women's Issues and LGBT Student Services also be separate (indeed, LGBT services has separate CAS standards).

I am also concerned with New York's placement with the Northeast District. The public transportation systems make it much easier for downstate New Yorkers to collaborate with the Mid-Atlantic district than not. I acknowledge, however, that the same is not true for upstate New York. Is there anything that mandates the entire state must be kept together?