Emergent Resolutions - Currently Before HOD

It is unfortunate that issues of trust and transparency continue to be discussed in an open forum when those to whom the speakers are so obviously referring are not in attendance to speak for themselves.  It is unfortunate, too, that any efforts to speak for members who are still confused, torn, or outright opposed to the way current issues before the House have been handled are met with accusations of dishonesty, that any dissenting opinion is met with an association-sponsored blitz of ad hominem attacks like none we have ever seen in this association – from the CEO, to selected (not all) board members, and even the Speaker of the House.  It is unfortunate, indeed, that those who cry “transparency” are sometimes the ones who lack the understanding of what it means or are so out of touch that from one corner of their mouths they ask what members are saying, yet with the other they spin a barrage of verbiage that does nothing but effectively snuff out the voice of the grassroots.

Transparency apparently is defined by some as telling us a resolution will put in motion a general direction of change; truth, in the eyes of members who are watching and following these proceedings, is that the final resolution (which we so desperately wanted to see weeks ago so we could discuss it with our membership) contains very specific and pervasive change that will affect every member in our association, as well as an agenda that it be pushed through, including the necessary bylaws changes to make it reality, before the end of this calendar year.

The makers of Resolution #2, which I understand is now #3 because our Speaker made the decision to change the order in which the Resolutions Committee delivered them to the House and will not change it back, were NOT attempting to counter the many good, strong ideas of reform held within the BGG.  We were not attempting through our sponsored resolution to shut it down for good (although there are many who have voiced they wish that could be done).  Contained in our resolution and its rationale is the statement that we believe reform of our governance could actually work for the good of all if given more time to live in the minds of membership.  If dues-paying members upon whose hard-working backs the livelihood of this body depends, who already do not want to see their dues increased, are now told the real story of what happened in Austin, that their voices were not allowed to be heard, were decried at every turn from the podium, and summarily snuffed out by procedural tactics, how strongly do we really believe they will fight to see the new structure contained in the BGG succeed? 

If we encourage our members to talk to us, to tell us what they think, to become engaged in the purposes of the association – yet when they open their mouths to speak effectively they find their integrity called into question – do we really think they will continue to speak? 

The resolution sponsored by the SE Regional BOD was NOT an attempt to subvert, thwart, or undermine the efforts of those who have worked so hard on the BGG.  This was explained by me last week on the component association leaders’ listserv, but apparently was not received in the spirit in which it was posted.  It was simply a call to reason, an effort to slow things down so we can more thoughtfully and steadily get our members on board – so they will pull WITH us instead of running for the door.  Nothing more, nothing less.  We stand by our belief that delaying enactment of such sweeping reforms is still the wisest course of action, especially when so many of our members have told us this is what they think and have asked us to make sure it is voiced when the proper time presents itself for deliberation.

Since our resolution was introduced last Tuesday, we have continued to be inundated with blast after blast from BGG proponents, continuing to push the BGG through as “the answer,” but this time accompanied with language implying that those who oppose its immediate passage and implementation are either dull, misinformed, or up to no good.  When we talk about transparency and trust, leaders at all levels must own their part in why this is a problem for us – not just the handful of members who sponsored a resolution that was, in part, inspired on one of our town- hall webinars by our Speaker of the House, who stated that “any member can bring a resolution to the House at any time,” and then plainly stated it was her decision how it would be handled from there.  One has to wonder, if dissenting members had requested access to associational resources (webinars, travel time, and more) to build a movement to oppose the BGG, would such requests have been granted?  Judging from the reaction of the power brokers to a very quickly put together resolution that merely attempts to slow things down, it is doubtful.  Those in control want the BGG, no matter what anyone else thinks, feels, or deems of value.  Why is one set of members’ voices and opinions (including those of elected component leaders) of greater value than another?

What you see before you, therefore, is the grassroots’ effort to be heard and have their opinion honestly considered in the order in which their resolution was received, and leadership’s response to that request.

That, my fellow members and colleagues, is the most unfortunate thing of all.

Miriam Wilmoth, CMT, AHDI-F

President, AHDI-SE