Well, I agree entirely with the Board of Directors that Lactnet "is not the
appropriate venue for the discussion of association issues, particularly
those of a controversial nature", and hope that in future Lactnet WILL NOT
be used; that as soon as the ILCA website is up members will use it. No
group's internal business should be the subject of open discussion and
therefore influence by those who are not members: it leaves the group open
to manipulation by those who have not even invested enough to join. Various
outside interests have already tried to "use ILCA's credibility to enhance
our standing with health professionals" as one put it in my hearing.  And
LCs should be aware that it increases one's legal liability risk to
broadcast remarks outside the group which has a legitimate need to know
what is going on. I also hope to see fewer inflammatory and downright
disrespectful remarks suggesting that the ILCA BOD or its servants are
likely to take formula money despite their IBCLC status and overt
commitment to the International Code. If we do not trust the BOD to act as
we would like, then we should stand ourselves and get elected and take on
responsibility - and work.

I don't want to get personal here. But even to say things like "These
changes were slipped past us" implies intent to deceive and is most
offensive. Members may well be "shocked and dismayed" when someone whose
language presumes malice on the part of the BoD reports some of what was
said on Lactnet, but if they are members of any integrity they will ASK to
hear both sides of the question and will hold the BoD innocent until proven
guilty. As far as I am concerned members were RIGHT to "trust[ed] their
board and representatives completely", even if they disagree with some
aspects of what was proposed.

As I do. I agree entirely that ILCA must shift to IBCLC membership only, if
it is to remain credible as a professional Association. LC organisations in
other countries set this as a membership standard and chose slower
membership growth from the beginning rather than allow the membership
standard to be lowered by having ANY members who are not IBCLC "or an
equivalent assessment process approved by the Council." (There is no
equivalent, but there's nothing wrong with holding one's bets open just in
case a real equivalent ever did develop.)** If ILCA does not become all
IBCLC, the day may come when national LC organisations unite to form a
truly international, IBCLC-only global organisation in which the interests
of the Lactation Consultant are the focus, akin to the International
Confederation of Midwives and similar PROFESSIONAL bodies.

However, I can understand the disappointment of present ILCA members who
might lose their vote, and strongly recommend to the ILCA BOD that all
present ILCA members be grandparented as voting members, and that the IBCLC
rule only apply to future members. Messy, but I think it unfair to take
away rights people have had, when those people were part of building up the
organisation to the point where this improvement is possible. And time will
thus ensure that ILCA becomes IBCLC only, without hurting any of our valued
members.

I also don't agree with the proposed structure. ILCA should be the
professional Association for Lactation Consultants world-wide, not
breastfeeding advocates world-wide. (WABA is supposed to be the global
organisation for the latter.) The proposed ILCA structure is too expensive
for the full BoD to meet as often as it needs to, and therefore will mean
real power devolves into US hands. When I can, I will write more on this to
the BoD. I note that only North Americans are on the Rules committee: this
is ILCA's biggest weakness, that despite e-mail and the availability of
people world-wide, it still fails to consult even its own founder PAB
members outside North America, and consults National Affiliates like ALCA
and NZLCA without sufficient lead time for real input. To send anything to
Australia or NZ for comment in December (our summer holidays) means no
membership input can be sought before the closing date for ballot. I would
hope an international organisation would put this sort of major change out
for comment in December 1996, for voting in February 1998. National
Affiliates may be dealing with more urgent matters and cannot be expected
to drop those to do ILCA business immediately. ILCA's dealings with its
National Affiliates need serious consideration in the new Rules, or as I
said, an International Confederation of LC Organisations may result. I for
one would support it if ILCA fails to support long-standing National
Affiliates and incorporate them into its structure in some sensible way.
Loyalty runs two ways. ILCA must show that it considers the impact of its
actions on existing affiliates.

I have not commented on Rule/By-law changes before now as I received an
E-mail telling me that the current ILCA ballot "has been declared invalid
and cancelled", and so there would be plenty of time to comment. After the
needless adverse publicity, it may fail and need to be re-presented in full
anyway. SO now I will try to find time, in between moving my office, to
consider the issues in depth and advise the BoD privately. Here it is too
late for comments to be of any real use except to say that those who cast
nasturtiums really should be more careful where they do so, and preferably
should not do so at all in any public (non-member) forum.

>People are free to discuss this anywhere they wish, especially the
controversial issues.
People are free to do many things. It doesn't mean those things are always
best. On behalf of the membership I would like to apologise to the BoD for
any hurt they must have felt over some of the postings. When you are giving
so much of your time and energy for free, such aspersions must seem
ungrateful.

>If it had not been for LACTNET this would not have come to the attention
>of the membership.
I know perfectly well that these ballot changes go back to 1991 when I was
on the BoD and many were proposed. There is no sinister agenda. It takes
time to revise Constitutions.

Maureen

** ALCA and NZLCA, for example, have always had IBCLC members and non-IBCLC
subscribers, although at least one of the small state-based breakaway
groups in Australia started by allowing any interested healthworker to
become an associate member while not permitting non-healthworker-background
IBCLCs to join at all unless they were voluntary breastfeeding counsellors.
(Confused? we were! Read it slowly. These self-described "colleges" may
have changed their rules since then, as an application for ILCA affiliation
was rejected after this was openly discussed in the ILCA Town Meeting in
July 1995. ALCA was first asked in 1993 to allow graduates of courses to
become ALCA members on an equal footing with IBCLCs. ALCA refused. The
pressure came from course organisers whose students paid money for courses
and didn't want then to pay out for "an American exam." Some of the courses
in nursing faculties (for profit courses) now routinely require that
students be a nurse. ALCA stands squarely behind IBLCE as the ONLY standard
for LCs at present. Intending members of any group, state or national, do
need to read the Association's Rules carefully and see what the membership
standards are, perhaps especially when the group has broken away from
another existing LC group. And ILCA Board needs to consider the effects of
any decision to affiliate new groups thus formed: if their constitution
allows non-IBCLCs to be members, they are, in my view, debasing the IBLCE
standard ILCA is supposed to support, as well as encouraging dissident
members of other groups not to resolve problems via democratic processes
but to split and form new groups, weakening the whole movement in a region.
Since we have recently been advised on Lactnet of the formation of a new
national Australian organisation, I will be interested to read on Lactnet
what its membership Rules are. Just by the way for those interested in
Australian affairs, despite a handful of resignations ALCA remains strong,
with members in every state and territory; ALCA News (44pp December 1996
issue) is available for those who want to know more: contact PO Box 192,
Mawson ACT 2607 Australia.