Decompression
After SUUSI, there are often decompression parties to help us re-enter the world after a week of living and playing in an intentional community.
I spent two days of decompression in the car with my Three Aunties, as we chattered about all that we took in and learned from the AAUW convention in St. Louis. As I continue to reflect, I have come to the conclusion that there will continue to be unease among the membership because of a lot of unfinished business.
There was not definitive closure on the issue of open membership…
We still do not know the process for one member-one vote, and yet the assembly voted for it…
So many board appointments, rather than direct elections of ALL the officers, have created a board whose plan is unknown…
Was it a satisfying experience? Not really. If anything, it was extremely disappointing for what it lacked, not to mention how expensive it was.
I got bullied into attending the banquet at the end, and only agreed to go because the idea that I needed to have the entire convention experience was probably true. The banquet’s speaker was very good, but overall, it wasn’t worth it. I know that the centerpiece of the banquet was to have been Lilly Ledbetter becoming a member of AAUW, which could not happen because the assembly decided against open membership. But beyond that, they did not recognize people they asked to attend the banquet BECAUSE THEY WERE TO BE RECOGNIZED. That was disappointing, and some people felt it was because they saw whose names were on the email lists of those opposing open membership. Retribution is ugly among women.
However, it goes beyond that. The workshops were disappointing. Our branches who have strong programs were not invited to share the secrets to their successes. Moreover, the overall theme seemed to have more to do with our legislative agenda. Two of our speakers were legislators. Both were interesting, but again, it appears that our lobbying arm is about to overtake what we are really all about, and the core of the organization is about to be subjugated to what the lobbyists will be touting.
My biggest concern is the ineptitude on the part of the soon-to-be past president at the podium, as well as the interference of the parliamentarian. The latter’s role is to offer her opinion only when asked by the presiding officer. Yet, I saw her summon the presider to tell her things, unbidden. That is a no-no among parliamentarians, and no one stood up to call her on it. I wanted to, but didn’t feel the assembly was paying enough attention for it to be something they would support if I had spoken to it.
Of concern to me is the association’s stubborn insistence that the conventions be held in conference hotels. For an organization whose centerpiece is EQUITY FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS, I find this reprehensible. The cost of the convention is highly prohibitive for many members, and while the banquet ticket price is part fundraiser, it was still far too expensive for many. If our members are unable to attend because of the expense barrier, then we are NOT breaking down any damn barriers. We are building them, and it seems to be rather purposeful and exclusionary. Of utmost concern is the hint that the leadership is seeking a really important speaker for the Washington convention in 2011. We all know who she would be, and if they plan for her to be the banquet speaker, which is not free to convention attendees, then that would be an egregious form of barrier building.
We also heard there were no specific plans for how one member-one vote will work. I was astonished that the assembly was willing to accept that without amendment. I was astonished they went for it at all. But that’s a topic for another day.
For now, I have to say that Ethel Born was right. Convention is where we go to renew our DNA. I met a lot of wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent and interesting women with whom I hope to stay in touch. I was also accosted by a woman who took exception to a previous blog post, so for the record, Ms. Sween is not a member of the board, “only” the nominating committee. I think she thought that would let her off the hook for a charge of conflict of interest, but to me, it made it even worse! And, once more, if she doesn’t like my blog, she doesn’t need to read it. No one is twisting her arm behind her back and insisting she do so.
I have one thought with which I shall close this piece…
A woman who was speaking vociferously in favor of her resolution to study the open membership issue likened us to a (and here she hissed the word) sorority. I have news for her. Our only requirement is a college degree. Sororities are far more subjective in their selection process, as many members of AAUW can attest from their college days. I was briefly associated with one of those organizations, and one of the reasons I desperately wanted out was the way they put girls under the microscope. The comparison isn’t valid. If she had wanted to pledge the alpha chapter of Kappa Kappa Gamma in 1969, the list of what attributes she needed would have been far longer than our little old degree requirement! They sure didn’t take dumpy little broads like me who asked too many questions!
I’m wondering when some of these people will learn the art of gracious losing. Probably never, but in a sense, sometimes that’s a good thing. We still need to be able to elect each member of our governing board. It’s a question of accountability, and we need that.