RLC/SLC Roundtable discussion re: Re-structure
Las Vegas National Workshop – November 15, 2010

Roundtable comments on restructure, vote, process:
o There is clear interest organizational wide that change needs to happen. We need to
figure out how to set the bar at a higher level. This process is going to be long and take
time. (Travis)
o We don’t have to worry about elected or appointed, because appointed will not be in
the revised bylaws. (Linda)
o Members didn’t know the facts. It’s critical that members are informed at to what’s
going on. They are for a need for change. (Ken Wilk)
o Heard from a lot of international people, didn’t feel there were any issues to get excited
about. People writing comments had not thoroughly read the material. (Duane)
o (Todd)
o Mentioned Coble’s continuous improvement process. Create a document which people
are continuously working on to improve. (Mary)
 The communication process needs to be improved. The proposal was actually
reviewed by 15 different people.
o The make = up of the board itself overshadowed the possibility of regions and sections.
Heard a lot of what this would look like. Members wanted a template. (Tim)
o Our members were pretty vocal about information sharing. Perhaps it is a matter of
language with regard to the national office and region members. It is all about members
and their services, otherwise we wouldn’t exist. (Robin)
o There is the potential for too much dilution. This could even expand further for
members being … How do we bring more members into the fold? Do we need to take a
look this process? Would like to encourage the organization, we are looking at all of this
with a set of filters…I’m wondering if we have become too myopic, could bring in an
outside organizational consultant. (Jane)
o Not a lot of passion out there. Not a lot of responses. The only real passion that flared
up is what happens to the money? (Rex)
o The process was evidence that people want to be involved and care. It’s reiterating the
idea and conveying it somehow. Academics are process oriented; making sure members
are involved with input on the questions. The idea of an external source was also
mention by our members. (Brenda)
o Our region has a very vocal membership. It was a sudden shock and they were concern
where this came from, distrust, suspicion, and concern. A logistic nightmare. Info
sharing was huge. Members liked our workshops, didn’t feel connected to national. The
personal connection is regional. (Carolynn)
o A lot of miscommunication. A lot never read the thorough proposal. It was happening
too fast. Look at as a regional and a national issue. Once they started looking at if from
the national level then they understood why it needed to be addressed. Seemed like we
didn’t know what the structure was going to be. Give examples of possible affiliates.
(John)
o














We were aware of changes, but didn’t know exactly what was going on. Some members
were concerned about the board. Still concerned about the structure. We enjoy our
region affiliations. (Kathy)
o Heard from a few members, not that many. Completely emotional, but not intellectual.
The quality was a little off. The accountability of the organization was a worry too. Only
33% opened the email regarding scholarships. (Dougg)
o We belong to NAI first and the region second. Task force did and amazing job. Well
organized. It got a lot of people to vote and get involved. (Amy)
We need to know if there is something in the proposal that needs to be beefed up.
Would the exec board be willing to answer questions or go to the region meeting that are more
vocal? (Amy)
Could potentially low the bar from a 2 year term to a 1 year term. (Tim)
o Our hope is we will provide a flexible structure that the affiliate can decide what they
want (Linda)
o Look at what it takes to get to this position, many do not have time. There is not a pool
of people waiting to volunteer. In some situations, no one will serve. (Travis)
If we can’t get people now to volunteer, how are we going to get someone to step up to the
plate later? (Carolynn)
We are diluting our volunteer base. (Duane)
Need to listen to what they want and go from there. (Amy)
Todd did a webinar and that worked well. If that’s what it takes that what we should do. (Amy)
Canadian sector wants to go left and right, not in the states. (Travis)
We spent some time trying to figure out what an affiliate would look like. See draft.
Currently, there is a process and protocol for dissolving sections and regions.
o You’re on notice for 12 months.
o The RLC and SLC initiate the process.
It is our job to make this two way street communication. You need to represent beyond your
own opinion. (Travis)
Affiliate DRAFT:
o The requirements are not onerous .
o Affiliate is any group of 10 people or more that want to form a group.
o This proposal allows people to be and function independently without relying on the
region structure.
o We need to ask the question of why members are not happy with their region.
Surveys alone will not give us the answers.
Sample Survey system uses a percentage and statistics. You make a survey, send it randomly to
people then give a reward for response. We need to look at a different survey system to
augment that. (John Luzader)
















Has the board talked about a neutral party? (Brenda)
o There is feeling if we were rebuilding NAI then we would need to go there. It’s not so
much we’re changing the services a…the consensus is we can find common ground
without the expenditure.
Comment regarding affiliate: Might specify e-services if they are free to all. And mention new
initiatives be submitted and approved by board. (Todd)
o New initiatives could be address in the yearly budget. (Linda)
Talked about merging sections for example IN and EE because no one will volunteer in EE.
(Travis)
Didn’t discuss redrawing regional lines. (Travis)
Members want more accessible immediate and less expensive services. (Linda)
It’s going to be something that evolves over time. For a year or two years you may not see any
regions fold. Once you open up that flexibility you’ll see how people want their services.
o Region 10 did 3 sites. The morning was semi interactive web-based keynote speaker.
We watched his PowerPoint. Did a regional meeting, the afternoon was site specific.
Each site did their own fieldtrip or activity. Members were interested in participating in
an activity on a survey. (Rex)
Right now the bylaws require you to have a conference in a specific way. (Amy L)
There’s nothing in the bylaws change that take regions away. (Linda)
Sounds like we need to change the requirements for regions instead of the whole structure.
(Robin)
The strongest city could drop out of a region and leave the region weaker. (Duane)
It could be messy and opening up a structure without collaboration. (Robin)
Some regions are not functioning well and are breaking IRS laws and causing conflict for staff.
Region 7 has some very strong active areas. This new structure will let them become active
again. (Amy G.)
I am against this because I don’t think we know what you are trying to say and I don’t think you
have said it yet. We don’t have a paradigm. I would say you put this on the table until you
develop a paradigm or model in place. In addition to that what are the benefits, the pros and
cons. Can this also be examined and done with the model we have in place? We need to create
something healthy. (John L.)
This draft is something, a model. (Todd)
In the language of this draft. Then if regions are working, then an affiliate can’t exist. (Robin)
Final Comments- what is the next step that you would like task force to be?
o Amy – We can’t move forward until we get a new revision. Collect more data. Put it out
there for a vote. I believe we dilute ourselves when we have 21 sections or regions. Out
of 4700 members, 1400 open the email, 615 people responded, 93 people commented
on the bylaw vote. New Proposal.
o Ken – Communication both ways and serious look at an outside source.
o Duane – Better understanding of proposal.
o




Todd – Time to vote. More details with regard to draft so sections and regions could see
themselves in this.
o Mary – Take the focus away from the organization then focus on by law changes.
o Tim – Talk to members without the board issue. Allow some time.
o Robin – Not comfortable with the word affiliate. I don’t get it.
o Jane – Bring in a organizational developer. Agree with draft. We need a version we’re
looking at. Having a “what’s in it for me” version.
o Rex – Would like to go into the meeting with a tool to help the taskforce collect
responses. Looking for direction for tomorrow.
o Brenda – How can we deliver what you need by Saturday?
o Carolyn – Like the idea of a random survey, more in depth. A better understanding.
o John – 1) Pros and cons, side by side comparison to help communicate the differences
based on services, 2) Create some example affiliates; put them up there for everyone to
see, and 3) When an actual vote come again. A no vote means this; a yes vote means
this…
o Kathy – How do you want to get this back to you?
o Doug – Affiliate, fleshing out examples, younger examples.
Can you meet together tomorrow? (John L)
Check in with respective regions and sections. 1) What services do we provide that they find
really valuable. Is there something missing. 2) What’s the most effective way to communicate
with folks back and forth? (Jim)
We don’t have the money for unfunded mandates. Let’s figure out how to do it with what we
have. (Amy)
All this comes down to more details (Linda)
o What we really need from you…we need to go to our meetings collect answers to these
questions. What services do they need? What is needed to strengthen the core. Is there
a better way or a different way to receive those services?
We are still accepting input. We did this out of a need because felt we weren’t meeting them.
1. What services within NAI are most important to you?
2. How do you think you can best received those services?
3. How would you like us to communicate with you?
(Notes by Todd Bridgewater)