First, I want to thank all those LACTNETters out there who have sent me (in
the past few weeks):
a) portions of the last two issues of THE GLOBE
b) portions of the By-laws mailings that everyone else seemed to receive,
but which I have not
c) other ILCA members' frustrations with what was sent to them
d) other ILCA members' reports of failure of the BMAI office to reply to them
and
e) especially to Jan Barger for forwarding me her personal copies of the
September/October and November/December GLOBE. It was refreshing to read
what had been alluded to, but was unclear until I saw a complete copy of
each issue.
However, having read those issues, I now have more questions than they were
supposed to answer! I am sharing my questions with Lactnet because of my
frustration that suggestions to the ILCA Board that they set up a similar
listserv for members to discuss such issues have fallen on deaf ears.....
For those of you with GLOBE issues, under "Money Matters" in the
November/December 1996 Globe, I read that...
a proposal for annual dues payment was "introduced in March 1996" at the
Board meeting. I attended the July 1996 conference and recall NOTHING being
said about such a discussion at either the Town Meeting or the Annual
General Meeting. Shouldn't members have been apprised of the possibility
that dues would be raised at this time? Why is it that no information
regarding this was not forthcoming until Nov/Decmeber 1996?
Where was a discussion of the need for same with members WELL IN ADVANCE of its
implementation? The last time dues were raised, not only were members given
several months' warning of its occurrence, but reasons for that dues
increase were provided, also well in advance. In addition, members were
given an opportunity to pay early at the lower rate.
Why was it stated that "Beginning in 1997", all dues would be due in
January, giving members only one month to digest this information, assuming
they got their Globes no later than early December?
Why was it that NO AMOUNT of increase was mentioned in this article? Why
is it that I have received a membership flyer with the following amounts
($70 [a 14% increase] for regular membership IF one is an IBCLC, and $100
[a 25% increase] for contributing professionals (not clear whether this
would be open to non-IBCLCs), but none of my friends have and it is already
January 7? If the dues at this higher level were due in January, why have
no other members reported having received same? By the way, this
membership application form does NOT indicate when those dues were to go
into effect. I was not aware that a vote to limit voting to IBCLCs only
had already been passed. Furthermore, this membership flyer does not
provide any space for non-IBCLCs to join ILCA! Does this mean that all of
you who have not yet been certified can no longer support the organization?
If so, how much of that loss of income will require a down-sizing of staff,
BMAI employees, and/or a reduction in the number of Board members who were
presumably elected to represent you, the members?
Does it make sense to send out a membership flyer limiting membership to
IBCLCs only *before* such a change has been ratified by a yes vote from 66%
of the membership?
Why are we told to contact the ILCA Headquarters instead of Board members
with questions about this? Should not such questions go directly to the
representatives of members instead of the hired help? How can we be sure
that all such questions will, in fact, be seen by Board members?
It is my impression that Carol Ryan, Vice President for Operations, is
supposed to oversee what happens at the BMAI office. That being the case,
is it not her responsibility to make sure that forms are correct before
they are sent out? And that all members receive all items mailed out by
that office?
I have received NO information re: WHY dues need to be raised other than
noting that they haven't been raised in more than 3 years (see GLOBE
article). So what? If the dues are sufficient to meet needs, why must they
be raised? If there is additional need, what is it? If there is need owing
to something other than additions, what is that? Am I to infer that the
1996 Conference did not make enough money to sustain operating expenses
for the next year? Am I to infer that Board members spent more than they
were budgeted to spend? If that is the case, who are the offending persons
who did so? I recall questions being asked at the Town Meeting and the
Annual General Meeting about budgets and being reassured by the
Treasurer/Finanical Manager that budgets were a just a guide, not a
restriction. This explanation was repeated in a variety of venues, but was
no more reassuring each time I heard it. In my household, the budget is
what I have to spend. I would LOVE for it to be a guide that I need not
worry exceeding. I doubt the IRS would be happy with such an explanation,
however, were I to pay them less than expected on the grounds that I
concluded their bill was "just a guide" and not a fiscal responsibility.
I find this sudden requirement for more money from the membership without
explanation and with what can only be called minimal warning to be quite
puzzling and worrisome so soon after a time when we were reassured that
ILCA had plenty of money. What has happened in the past six months to have
changed the organization's fiscal status from one of health to illness?
I also found Amy Spangler's President's column in the November/December
issue on voting as a privilege and a responsibility to be most curious.
She began by reviewing some of the actitivities relating to the recent US
election which, by the way, recorded the LOWEST percentage of voters among
those eligible of ALL TIME.
I agree that voting is a privilege; however, presentation of the rationale
for decisions members are asked to make REQUIRES discussion, debate if you
will, and a careful analysis of all sides of each of the changes suggested,
recommended, and offered for membership ratification. THAT HAS NOT BEEN
DONE. And because such discussion has not yet occurred, I-as a member of
ILCA-am not yet prepared to vote. I believe that no vote can take place
that in any way represents informed member decision-making if we, as
members are required to vote at this time, particularly insofar as the
votes we are asked to make incliude NO provision for voting on those
recommended deletions from the By-laws.
I find it extremely curious that the questions raised on LACTNET have been
addressed so minimally, and mostly by a person who is not the President.
Why does Linda Smith appear to be representing Board replies to such
questions? I was under the impression that nearly all members of the
Board, including Amy Spangler-President- and Carol Ryan-the person
responsible for making sure that BMAI does its job-are email literate and
regular readers of LACTNET. It seems appropriate to ask why Carol Ryan has
not responded to membership questions that have periodically surfaced on
LACTNET. And, it is even more troubling that Amy Spangler, as President,
has chosen not to reply to other concerns, if only to allay individuals'
fears and worries. I am sure I am not the only member who wonders what is
REALLY GOING ON and why questions are not being answered fully.
Finally, why were only two positions mentioned as open for election: that
being the President Elect and the South Pacific Delegate in the
November/December issue of the GLOBE? The number of positions open for
election are known to all and have been well publicized in the past. They
are even listed in documents that have been published in the past! Aren't,
for example, the Treasurer/Financial Manager and Vice President for
Operations also scheduled for election in 1997-regardless of any future
changes in By-laws which we have been asked to ratify?
It is possible that the recently vacated position of US Delegate (voted on
in July 1996) was not known to be open at the time the November/December
GLOBE went to press. If that position is now to be filled, perhaps a
statement to this effect will appear in a future GLOBE. I do hope so.
It seems to me that the Board has the PRIVILEGE of representing the members
and the RESPONSIBILITY to do so honestly, and completely. Providing
information well in advance of the time when we would be asked to ratify
our trust in the Board by voting is simply one example of their
responsibility to the people who elected them.
One last thing: I was cruising the web the other night and happened to come
across the ILCA web page. Why is it advertising (without similar
advertising of ILCA) a non-breastfeeding forum that has NOTHING to do with
ILCA except that one of the BMAI staff is involved in same? Generally,
links on webs are complementary and when one site links to another the
other also links to the first. Where is an invitation for ILCA members to
be linked to that web page? Or is this page supposed to advertize only Ira
Chasnoff's organization and the ILCA office?
"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.com/~kga/lactation.html
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html
|
