NASPA, ACPA and the aftermath..

So I have been asked often what my take was on the idea of consolidation and what I thought of it.

Well, I was and still am in the consolidation is not a good idea camp. I say "still am" is because my fear is that this will come up again in 5 years rather than the "let's address this and be done with it stance" that was taken by many before the vote occurred.



Does this mean I don't think there should be collaboration between the 2 groups? No, there should be collaboration

Does this mean that I want to throw darts at and hate on ACPA? Not in the least..

I will disclaim my thoughts with the sheer fact that I was privy to the same information that most of you were and there was likely more information out there that I either just didn't see, or was not in a position to have access too but to summarize a few of my thoughts.





* I don't believe a lot of the logic behind "bigger is better". I don't believe a mega association would have been able to account for everyone who wanted to volunteer effectively. Getting involved and having opportunities to go to the topical conferences when space is already at a premium becomes even more at a premium. How does that develop the field effectively? Have 2 of the same? Then where is the cost savings in that?

*Two competing voices in the public policy arena. You don't have to have one organization to have a collaborative voice. It's not unusual to see collaborative lobbying efforts by institutions in the government structures, so why can that not be applicable to associations?

*From a wide, wide swath of people I heard nothing but logistical concerns after the last joint meeting between ACPA/NASPA. Things such as:
*exceptional waits for transportation between facilities
*individuals who stayed at one facility as opposed to the other and thus skipped 1/2 of the conference


*the ability to connect with colleagues being hampered because of the width and depth of the volume of people there.



*So how would a mega association have been able to manage these logistical challenges?

I could go further into my hesitancies for why I felt a mega association would have been bad, but that's not what concerns me the most right now. The thing that bothers me the most is the rhetoric that has happened post vote.

*Leadership did what they thought was right by taking a "no stance" stance
*Members voted how they felt to my knowledge no one was bribed, bullied, etc. into the stance
they took
*This was not a step backwards
*And it certainly did not position one association ahead of the other has has been alluded too..

There have been a handful of leaders calling for civility but also use this as an opportunty to move each association forward and I couldn't agree more. It may be time too to analyze the focus of each organization and audiences served. No one person or group can be all things to all people and that may be part of the problem for both groups right now. I don't know..

I'm glad the results came out the way they did, now let's get beyond feelings and get both groups ahead..