Proposed Changes to Alumni Council Bylaws

[debbeidel4alumnicouncil]

I have made some Facebook posts about some of the proposed changes to the Alumni Council bylaws. Council meeting where these changes will be discussed and voted upon is Friday morning. I thought I would try and put my top concerns here on the board to solicit your feedback and advice. My goal is to represent alumni to the Council and the Alumni Association. Whether you are an AA member or are thinking about whether you should join. Sorry this is a little long.

1. I have twice asked if we will discuss the changes and vote section by section or only as a whole. I have been told that the leadership "does not know" as they are consulting with professionals. Only an hour is devoted to this very important task and the changes are numerous.
.
2. A significant concern is that currently 9 council members are appointed by the president (3 per year). The proposal is to increase the total number of appointed members to 30 (10 per year). This would put the AC at a total of 107 members, rather than 86. Ten members would be appointed each year - interestingly 10 members are also elected each year.

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed.

4. The proposed revisions give the Executive Committee the right to increase or decrease the number of seats on the AC. This change leaves open the possibility that the Executive Committee could decide unilaterally to eliminate the 30 elected seats.

5. There is a proposed change that will restrict attendance at Alumni Council meetings to Alumni Council members only and invited guests (invited by leadership).

6. There is a proposal that Robert's Rules of Order will be optional on the part of the President.

7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final.

8. The propose bylaws changes eliminate the phrase that indicated that the Executive Committee acted with the consent of Council. Now the Executive Committee can act independently and needs only to report to Council.

9. There is a proposal that the Vice President, rather than the Immediate Past President, will chair the Nominations Committee. This is better but nothing else changes on the Nominations Committee.

10. There is an entirely new section about Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Removal of Council members. Think "Lubrano clause"

 

[91Joe95]

What an absolute crock of shit.

They literally don't have to represent a single alumni if they don't want to. It's all about perpetuating their power.

 

[psu00]

From what you report it seems like a power grab by the council and gerrymandering election results. Want to elect 10 alumni members for change? No problem. We will appoint 10 that want the status quo. They cancel out and the 'pesky alumni' are controlled (all while Psu can brag about their elected membership process).

The fact they've only allotted 1 hour to serious structural changes tells me this will be a 'ram through' session like on the BoT. That's an awful short time for lots of big structural changes. And why do these changes suddenly need to be rushed through now?

They say they are consulting with professionals? I would like to know who specifically. And what relation these 'professionals' have to pSU.....because we've been told by Roger they are completely separate.

Speaking of Roger- please ask him if his recent press statement on the alumni reps "power grab" regarding the council election was screened/ approved or edited by anyone at PSU (lawyers/ PR people etc). I'd love to know the answer since he claims he is separate from the university.

Giving the exec committee the right to increase or decrease seats is a MAJOR flaw. This will lead to the same abuses we see from the BoT exec committee who are unaccountable to anyone. This allows the exec committee to gerrymander the group.

The fact they want to restrict attendance is the opposite of sunshine laws and is very questionable ethically for this AA association. What are they afraid of exactly?

The nomination committee screening of all candidates is nothing short of a Soviet, Chinese, or North Korean approach where they brag about open elections but fail to mention only certain candidates who have the proper orthodoxy will be allowed to actually stand after proper "screening". I can't believe they even seriously suggest going down this route.

Finally, I certainly hope you point out to them this power grab by the council exec committee is very clearly flawed and guarantees many many abuses. I would love to hear how any democratic group or association could ever agree to such a blatant power grab by the executive committee guaranteeing that the will of the executive committee and not the alumni always wins out. Heck, ask why we even have an alumni council in the future with these changes?

This post was edited on 4/15 9:57 PM by psu00

 

[Achowalogan]

I am embarrassed to even admit that I am a lifetime member of the PSU Alumni Association..absolutely, this organization does not represent me...seems to be the right arm of Frazier, Masser, and Company...

 

[canuckhal]

Don't understand how anyone could vote in favor of items 1-8. I don't have enough information about 10 from your post. Hope you vote no.

 

[debbeidel4alumnicouncil]

I intend to vote no and convince as many others as I can. I worry that there will be enough time to discuss the real implications of these changes. Thanks to everyone who commented so far.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Originally posted by debbeidel4alumnicouncil:
I have made some Facebook posts about some of the proposed changes to the Alumni Council bylaws. Council meeting where these changes will be discussed and voted upon is Friday morning. I thought I would try and put my top concerns here on the board to solicit your feedback and advice. My goal is to represent alumni to the Council and the Alumni Association. Whether you are an AA member or are thinking about whether you should join. Sorry this is a little long.

1. I have twice asked if we will discuss the changes and vote section by section or only as a whole. I have been told that the leadership "does not know" as they are consulting with professionals. Only an hour is devoted to this very important task and the changes are numerous.

It seems more time needs to be allocated for discussion and voting should be done on an item by item basis. If not enough time is available to discuss each item, those not discussed should be tabled and discussed/voted on at the next meeting.
.
2. A significant concern is that currently 9 council members are appointed by the president (3 per year). The proposal is to increase the total number of appointed members to 30 (10 per year). This would put the AC at a total of 107 members, rather than 86. Ten members would be appointed each year - interestingly 10 members are also elected each year. I would vote no on this unless someone could articulate a good reason for increasing presidential appointments and also describing the benefit of 108 members vs 86 in light of of the other proposal which would allow the executive committee to act independently and without the approval of the council.

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed. Less than 5% of eligible voters voted in the trustee election. That's hardly a mandate for the 9 elected trustees. Adding the immediate past president as a Board member IMO adds by proxy another alumni elected trustee thereby broadening the alumni voice.

4. The proposed revisions give the Executive Committee the right to increase or decrease the number of seats on the AC. This change leaves open the possibility that the Executive Committee could decide unilaterally to eliminate the 30 elected seats. I would vote this down unless modified to limit a decrease in seats.

5. There is a proposed change that will restrict attendance at Alumni Council meetings to Alumni Council members only and invited guests (invited by leadership). Sounds reasonable and likely limits the number of potential free loaders. :>)

6. There is a proposal that Robert's Rules of Order will be optional on the part of the President. I would vote in the negative!

7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final. Works for me.

8. The propose bylaws changes eliminate the phrase that indicated that the Executive Committee acted with the consent of Council. Now the Executive Committee can act independently and needs only to report to Council. Seems to be a more efficient way to operate.

9. There is a proposal that the Vice President, rather than the Immediate Past President, will chair the Nominations Committee. This is better but nothing else changes on the Nominations Committee.

Seems appropriate if the immediate past president will now have a board seat. Eliminates a conflict of interest.

10. There is an entirely new section about Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Removal of Council members. Think "Lubrano clause" A must have but should only be used in the most egregious of circumstances.

If this were an all up or down vote, I would be voting down.

This post was edited on 4/16 12:29 AM by Cruising Route 66

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

This is a sham. I am a life time member of what? The is a dictatorship. More people should be elected that appointed. I think this is anti democracy and I hope the legislature steps in very soon.There is no fiduciary on the BOT or the alumni board except those who are elected.

 

[kgilbert78]

Originally posted by Cruising Route 66:

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed. Less than 5% of eligible voters voted in the trustee election. That's hardly a mandate for the 9 elected trustees. Adding the immediate past president as a Board member IMO adds by proxy another alumni elected trustee thereby broadening the alumni voice.


7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final. Works for me.

This post was edited on 4/16 12:29 AM by Cruising Route 66

A comment on your comments to nos 3 and 7.

3. I disagree that this adds another alumni-elected member by proxy to the BOT. IF the past president was not elected to Alumni Council by the alumni, then they are not "alumni elected". Currently there are appointed members of Alumni Council--these proposals add more. Thus the past president could well be appointed and not elected.

7. This allows the Nominating Committee to eliminate anyone they don't like. As they have already done (I'm not arguing the case of the BOT members running--a reasonable argument can be made that there is a COI there). This would/could perpetuate control of Alumni Council by a small number of members--this is no different than the so-called "free elections" held after WW II in Eastern Europe. You could vote--but only for the candidates pre-selected by the Presidium. I am not going to argue against standards--they may make sense. But this proposal gives a lot of power to the nominating committee.

 

[psuguy04]

Serious question: What benefits does the Alumni Association actually...

...provide?

Do those benefits outweigh the BS that goes on with it? To me, it's not even close. I'm glad I never joined.

 

[pmjoe]

Is this list of proposed changes to the bylaws posted online somewhere? If so, can someone provide a link?

I would suggest everyone get on social media today: Facebook, Twitter, etc. and make as much noise as possible.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

10% off at the bookstore and the golf course...


Other than that, nothing although I never went to meetings or got involved in the chapter in any county I resided, so to be fair I don't really know. Perhaps somebody who is active in the organization can elaborate. I am a life member but I don't have anything to do with the organization, nor would I now want to. It seems to be working out well for both sides.

 

[Maddog]

I have been a Life Member of the AA for over 35 years, and I am disgusted with every one of these proposals. Please express my opinion during the meeting.

 

[PSU73]

Oh (my) what a tangled web we weave....

1. Why can't they answer this question? This says all one needs to know about the "leadership" and council members role. As has been suggested in another post, "leadership" is waiting to be told what to do, not planning to do what is right.
2. What reason is given for increasing a super sized council already, by another 24%? A council that large cannot be effective in gaining the input of its membership when such matters such as you have detailed here will only be allowed 1 hour for discussion. Now increase the council to 107 and try to discuss the same. Makes no sense.
3. Agree with your position. It has been stated elsewhere that this appointment would represent another alumni elected trustee, but that would not be the case unless that person in fact comes from one of the 30 elected by alumni. If it would be one of the other eligible candidates from the remaining 56 members (potentially 77) then it could be an appointed individual, or a person not elected in the same broad manner as the currently alumni elected trustees.
Also, while 5% of alumni casting votes sounds small, 5% of a very large number still represents a very large number of voices. Substantially more voices, and input than can be garnered by a small committee, or a single person i.e. President.
4., 6., 7. This is progession towards, if not achievement of a sham for a cabal/dictatorship where structure of itself, appointments, governance, etc. are no longer controlled by the apparent governing body itself.
8. Has merit in certain matters but not unilaterally as it would then usurp the remainder of the council on every matter, thereby relegating them to bystanders. See comments as for 4, 6, 7 above.




Originally posted by debbeidel4alumnicouncil:
I have made some Facebook posts about some of the proposed changes to the Alumni Council bylaws. Council meeting where these changes will be discussed and voted upon is Friday morning. I thought I would try and put my top concerns here on the board to solicit your feedback and advice. My goal is to represent alumni to the Council and the Alumni Association. Whether you are an AA member or are thinking about whether you should join. Sorry this is a little long.

1. I have twice asked if we will discuss the changes and vote section by section or only as a whole. I have been told that the leadership "does not know" as they are consulting with professionals. Only an hour is devoted to this very important task and the changes are numerous.
.
2. A significant concern is that currently 9 council members are appointed by the president (3 per year). The proposal is to increase the total number of appointed members to 30 (10 per year). This would put the AC at a total of 107 members, rather than 86. Ten members would be appointed each year - interestingly 10 members are also elected each year.

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed.

4. The proposed revisions give the Executive Committee the right to increase or decrease the number of seats on the AC. This change leaves open the possibility that the Executive Committee could decide unilaterally to eliminate the 30 elected seats.

5. There is a proposed change that will restrict attendance at Alumni Council meetings to Alumni Council members only and invited guests (invited by leadership).

6. There is a proposal that Robert's Rules of Order will be optional on the part of the President.

7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final.

8. The propose bylaws changes eliminate the phrase that indicated that the Executive Committee acted with the consent of Council. Now the Executive Committee can act independently and needs only to report to Council.

9. There is a proposal that the Vice President, rather than the Immediate Past President, will chair the Nominations Committee. This is better but nothing else changes on the Nominations Committee.

10. There is an entirely new section about Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Removal of Council members. Think "Lubrano clause"

 

[Tom McAndrew]

good stuff, deb ... some thoughts on this ...

1. I have twice asked if we will discuss the changes and vote section by section or only as a whole. I have been told that the leadership "does not know" as they are consulting with professionals. Only an hour is devoted to this very important task and the changes are numerous.

Hard to fathom the rush to make so many changes when the Bylaws have not been changed since 2005. The number of changes being advocated pretty much demand that they be fully aired, ruminated over, discussed, etc. Seems to me that Alumni Council would be better served if they discussed the proposed changes at this meeting, then held further discussions, and voted on them at the fall meeting. Trying to address all of this in 1 hour is a disservice to the Council members, to the AA members, and to PSU.

2. A significant concern is that currently 9 council members are appointed by the president (3 per year). The proposal is to increase the total number of appointed members to 30 (10 per year). This would put the AC at a total of 107 members, rather than 86. Ten members would be appointed each year - interestingly 10 members are also elected each year.

I always wondered how an 86 member Council gets things done. Seems as though a lot of its actions are simply rubber stamping what the Executive Committee advocates. Increasing the Council to 107 members, with the increase being in members appointed solely by the President, borders on insanity. In pure numbers, it changes the composition of the Council from 10.47% appointed by the President to 28.03% appointed by the President. The strength of an organization is usually the diversity of viewpoints, perspectives, backgrounds, etc. that the organization is composed of. To change the Council to a group that is more than 1/4 appointed by the President will weaken the Council's diversity, and also decrease the input of the Alums that actually vote for the 10 seats up for election up each year. Unless the President is looking to establish a fiefdom, there is absolutely no justification for this proposed change.

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed.

I concur with you that the immediate past President should not have a seat on the BOT. However, that's water under the bridge at this point, unless the PA Legislature changes the BOT composition, or a later BOT decides to undue what Masser and his cohorts put in place last year. Since it's already been established by the BOT that this change is being made, I wouldn't waste time fighting changes to the AA Bylaws which codify this.

4. The proposed revisions give the Executive Committee the right to increase or decrease the number of seats on the AC. This change leaves open the possibility that the Executive Committee could decide unilaterally to eliminate the 30 elected seats.

Again, this is almost impossible to justify. At best, I think the Executive Committee could bring forward proposals to change the size of Council, but they can already do that. It seems to me that Council, and only Council, should have the power to decide if the size or composition of the Council should be changed.

5. There is a proposed change that will restrict attendance at Alumni Council meetings to Alumni Council members only and invited guests (invited by leadership).

If there was a history of protests, or unruly behavior by non-Council members at Council meetings, I could understand this proposal. I'm not aware of such, so this proposal seems to be a step toward keeping alums in the dark about Council's actions, discussions, etc. It's very rare that a deliberative body improves their operation when they do so behind closed doors.

6. There is a proposal that Robert's Rules of Order will be optional on the part of the President.

Absolutely, 100% a terrible idea. Robert's Rules of Order are general guidelines that cover situations not addressed by the Bylaws. I'd like to hear a plausible argument for how making their use optional by the AA President would improve Council proceedings. I'm quite confident that most with a PSU degree could tear apart any such argument, no matter how plausible it's backers may think it is.

7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final.

So after they invented their own set of rules this year's Nominations Committee, then want to eliminate any process that does not run through the Nominations Committee. This is embarrassing, at a minimum. I see absolutely no justification for this. If they want to change the nomination process, perhaps they could start (and finish) with codifying which alums are ineligible to run for Council, so that they don't have to make up rules on the fly in the future.

8. The propose bylaws changes eliminate the phrase that indicated that the Executive Committee acted with the consent of Council. Now the Executive Committee can act independently and needs only to report to Council.

Four legs good, two legs better. If this is passed, what is the purpose for Council, other than to identify future members of the Executive Committee.

9. There is a proposal that the Vice President, rather than the Immediate Past President, will chair the Nominations Committee. This is better but nothing else changes on the Nominations Committee.

Since the IPP will now be on the BOT, I think this is a good change to the Bylaws. I do share your concern that other issues with the composition of the Nominations Committee should be addressed, but don't seem to be in this batch of proposals.

10. There is an entirely new section about Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Removal of Council members. Think "Lubrano clause"

This is tough to argue against, especially in the abstract. It's good for an organization to have a defined method for removing a member of its leadership. In that regard, this proposal is an improvement over the current Bylaws. I'd have to see the specific language of the proposal, in that there should be safeguards against arbitrary actions by the President or the Executive Committee against Council members who simply opposed their leadership.

Best of luck tomorrow Deb. I hope your arguments can sway a number of Council members.

Tom

 

[Ski]

Originally posted by Cruising Route 66:

Originally posted by debbeidel4alumnicouncil:
I have made some Facebook posts about some of the proposed changes to the Alumni Council bylaws. Council meeting where these changes will be discussed and voted upon is Friday morning. I thought I would try and put my top concerns here on the board to solicit your feedback and advice. My goal is to represent alumni to the Council and the Alumni Association. Whether you are an AA member or are thinking about whether you should join. Sorry this is a little long.

1. I have twice asked if we will discuss the changes and vote section by section or only as a whole. I have been told that the leadership "does not know" as they are consulting with professionals. Only an hour is devoted to this very important task and the changes are numerous.

It seems more time needs to be allocated for discussion and voting should be done on an item by item basis. If not enough time is available to discuss each item, those not discussed should be tabled and discussed/voted on at the next meeting.
.
2. A significant concern is that currently 9 council members are appointed by the president (3 per year). The proposal is to increase the total number of appointed members to 30 (10 per year). This would put the AC at a total of 107 members, rather than 86. Ten members would be appointed each year - interestingly 10 members are also elected each year. I would vote no on this unless someone could articulate a good reason for increasing presidential appointments and also describing the benefit of 108 members vs 86 in light of of the other proposal which would allow the executive committee to act independently and without the approval of the council.

3. I'm on the record as opposing the immediate past president having an automatic seat on the BOT, which is codified in the new bylaws. I believe that alumni are well-represented on the BOT by our 9 elected trustees, who are elected by a broader electorate that those who participate in the alumni association. The rationale used by the AA is fundamentally flawed. Less than 5% of eligible voters voted in the trustee election. That's hardly a mandate for the 9 elected trustees. Adding the immediate past president as a Board member IMO adds by proxy another alumni elected trustee thereby broadening the alumni voice.

4. The proposed revisions give the Executive Committee the right to increase or decrease the number of seats on the AC. This change leaves open the possibility that the Executive Committee could decide unilaterally to eliminate the 30 elected seats. I would vote this down unless modified to limit a decrease in seats.

5. There is a proposed change that will restrict attendance at Alumni Council meetings to Alumni Council members only and invited guests (invited by leadership). Sounds reasonable and likely limits the number of potential free loaders. :>)

6. There is a proposal that Robert's Rules of Order will be optional on the part of the President. I would vote in the negative!

7. The nomination process for the election of Alumni Council members will be completely changed. There will be no more nominations from the floor and no more nomination by petition. The only way to appear on the ballot will be by self-nomination or nomination from the nominations committee. However, ALL nominations will be reviewed by the Nominations Committee (appointed by the President) with respect to their adherence to the Association's mission and their record of volunteer service. The Nominations Committee's decision will be considered final. Works for me.

8. The propose bylaws changes eliminate the phrase that indicated that the Executive Committee acted with the consent of Council. Now the Executive Committee can act independently and needs only to report to Council. Seems to be a more efficient way to operate.

9. There is a proposal that the Vice President, rather than the Immediate Past President, will chair the Nominations Committee. This is better but nothing else changes on the Nominations Committee.

Seems appropriate if the immediate past president will now have a board seat. Eliminates a conflict of interest.

10. There is an entirely new section about Fiduciary Duty of Council Members and Removal of Council members. Think "Lubrano clause" A must have but should only be used in the most egregious of circumstances.

If this were an all up or down vote, I would be voting down.

This post was edited on 4/16 12:29 AM by Cruising Route 66

 

[psbengel]

I quit the AA 3 years ago but last week received a form asking me to return. Do I return the form with a big FU or do I rejoin to vote against this madness?