Thank you all for your replies. I appreciated each and every one! In fact,
hearing from so many of you may actually induce me to get back on LACTNET
directly (as soon as my son helps me with server changes, and the like!) In the
meantime, I am asking Jeanine Klaus to post this for me.
To Evi: clear eriting obviously is essential in discussing important issues.
Also important is the very careful reading of all communications by everyone
from everyone. Your idea about a mass protest to ILCA re: the methods used
recently is admirable. The problem that I see with such an effort, however, is
in where such a protest is to be sent. Based on communications I have had with
numerous members of ILCA, sending it to the BMAI office appears to be akin to
sending it into a black hole in space! No one ever hears of it again, and the
person(s) writing are never even acknowledged! That means we must go back to the
techniques that were used so effectively before ILCA had such an "official"
(should I say "professional"?) office: namely writing directly to the Board
members who are, after all, supposed to be representatives of the membership.
And, yet, most communications are supposed to be directed to the BMAI office so
that they can be "tracked".
Nevertheless, one might begin with one's closest representative, such as (in
your case) the International Delegate (Genevieve Becker); in the US and in the
South Pacific regions, I do not know whom we should contact now, as I understand
that the "resignation virus" has struck again and both the US Delegate and the
South Pacific Delegate have recently resigned. In the case of the US Delegate,
only 6 months into her 2-year term! Why are BOard members continuing to resign?
Only three such resignations occurred in the first 8 years of ILCA, to my
recollection. Beginning in 1995 and (obviously) continuing, MANY such
resignations have occurred. I could quote Hamlet about the state of this
particular Denmark, but it seems so obvious as to be unnecessary.
If one no longer has a representative for one's geopolitical region, I recommend
going directly to the President, with copies to all other Board members, so that
these communications are seen by all. I have experienced the sad outcome that
requesting that all Board members be informed does not always result in such
sharing. I for one would love to know how many letters of complaint received by
the BMAI office actually are shared with ILCA Board members. Who then can be
expected to respond to them? And is it appropriate to expect that the body about
which you are complaining will inform its "boss" (isn't ILCA supposed to be the
boss of BMAI, since we are paying their bills?)?
Many questions about ILCA structure and functioning continue to circulate
because (I believe) the previous administration and this one does not appear to
practice open, complete communications to all members! And, when communications
are sent out, inadequate time to study the material prior to voting or otherwise
responding appears to be a continuing pattern. Example #1: mailing of the ILCA
"survey" which many people outside North America did not even receive before the
first deadline. I counted four different deadlines for that document. Example
#2: many people outside North America have yet to receive the By-laws materials.
Many of us inside North America have yet to receive the either! And, they were
mailed in the midst of the Holiday crush (for the post office and for us as
individuals) mailing period. Was this wise? Who thought through the difficulties
of securing responses by early February (which is when I've been told votes must
be returned) under these circumstances? ILCA has a history vis persons who dealt
with these problems regularly re: how much time is needed to inform all members.
I fear that the "I" in ILCA has been systematically ignored in such mundane
things as how long it takes for mail to get from point a (the originating post
office) to point b (each member), and then back again.
Amy Spangler: Thank you for your note. I believe it is in the best interests of
ILCA for ALL MEMBERS to be involved in a discussion of such important issues as
By-laws changes. It is neither appropriate nor helpful to limit such discussions
to a "few" people. I have no doubt that you are sincere in your "concern for
ILCA". I respectfully suggest that all its members are similarly concerned. The
more widely views are disseminated - and replied to - the more completely the
Board will understand how ILCA members feel and want you to act on their behalf.
Lisa Amir: In the past, JHL was always mailed early enough to avoid much of the
Holiday mail problems that occur in December. This year, the majority of US
members did not begin receiving their December issue until around December 12; I
suspect that you will receive yours sometime before the end of the month. Be
assured, however, that it WAS MAILED. I personally checked with the publisher
to be clear that the same disaster that occurred with the September issue had
not been repeated. By the way, that disaster had nothing to do with the printer
or the publisher and everything to do with the BMAI office and their handling of
the mailing labels. I was assured that the labels were received on time and in
readable form. I can only advise patience a bit longer.
It is appropriate for you to be concerned given previous problems. It also would
be wise to keep track of the timing of the 1997 issues. I am no longer in a
position to inform you, as I am no longer the Editor-in-Chief and I understand
that the previous publisher (Human Sciences Press) also has been changed. PS, I
did not get my copy of the December issue until December 17.
L. Jonathan Kramer: There is something else about changing membership
qualifications that needs to be considered, in addition to your well-chosen
words, with which I agree completely. Altering the open membership may affect
our tax status and the ability of persons wishing to make a contribution to the
organization. With 501(c)(3) status, contributions are considered
tax-deductible. If our tax status has to be changed as a result of limiting
voting membership to only certain individuals (to 501(c)(6) status, for
example), such contributions can no longer be written off. This may well reduce
to nil the number of LC's who are willing to make such contributions, for most
of us are not in a position to make such gifts without such a financial "gain".
While this may not relate to persons outside North America or the USA in
particular, the vast majority of ILCA members are in the USA; thus, the
financial support of that percentage of members MUST be considered when making
such changes. I suspect that noises will be made that anyone can be a member,
but only IBCLC's should be able to vote. Excuse me, but there are many, many
wannabes such as you out there who are making important contributions to the
field and to ILCA. Will you WANT to join if you cannot vote? Will you prefer to
simple subscribe to JHL (at a lower price than membership)? As I noted in my
statement in the December JHL (see "Journal Departments" section), small
societies come and go (mostly go) when members vote with their dues dollars -
will they pay them or not.
Keep seeking someone who will mentor you. Continue your course work. Go to
conferences whose offerings meet your needs AND offer the CERPs you need in
order to certify. And, in the meantime, while you still have the opportunity,
vote to retain the current open membership pattern. Only by doing so will you
have done your part to prevent a change in the By-laws that nullifies your
membership benefits.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Auerbach, Ph.D., IBCLC
|
