Because it is offering a unique way of connecting to AAUW, the AAUW CA Online branch has many "dual" members. These are members who pay Association (national) and state dues through another branch and pay branch dues (and state dues if that first state wasn't CA) through the CA Online branch.
The branch has been discussing the Educational Foundation and liability assessments charged by AAUW CA. The assessments are based on total membership (counting primary as well as dual members).
The branch treasurer said, in the context of explaining the financial report presented to our online "annual meeting":
The EF assessment, based on membership numbers at the preceding February 1 count, is $5 for less than 26 members and $25 for 26-75 members.
The insurance assessment is based on a sliding scale, and ours went from $25 in 2005 to $100 in 2006.
She continued:
The problem we are experiencing is that Association reports all our members, not just primary members. Since most of us are dual members in California, we are included in the assessments on our primary branches. Some are concerned that our members are being assessed twice, or in some cases more, for EF.
Various opinions stated so far include raising our dues or not reporting our dual members to Association. As treasurer, I must say that I feel we have enough in our fund to cover the assessment. I do not think it is necessary to raise our dues at this time. Furthermore, I am not really comfortable with not reporting all our members to Association, since the BDR reports ask us to list primary and dual members.
There's been some discussion of whether, because we have so many dual members, we should ask AAUW CA for some relief on those assessments.
The discussion has also talked about changing our bylaws (or recommending changes in the AAUW CA bylaws) having to do with dual members.
Finally there have been some questions on whether it's technically possible for AAUW CA to get a membership count for the branches that distinguishes the primary from the dual members.
TIPS FOR USING THE BLOG
AAUW on the Internet
AAUW News
Blog Archive
Index by Topic
- AAUW Funds (12)
- AAUW Luncheon (2)
- CA Online Branch (6)
- CA State AAUW (26)
- Events (10)
- Government and Voting (12)
- HIV/AIDS (13)
- International (19)
- Legal Advocacy Fund (23)
- Miscellaneous (11)
- National AAUW (38)
- pay equity (11)
- Public Policy (28)
HIV/AIDS Discussion Links
- AVERT HIV AIDS women's personal stories
- AVERTing HIV and AIDS
- World Health News Harvard.edu
- CDC HIV/AIDS resources
- U.S. AIDS Policy - U.S. Intervention Policy
- THE BODY HIV/AIDS June 2007
- NYU HIV/AIDS Basics
- HIV AIDS Michigan Women
- HIV AIDS Resource Center for Women
- Nina Martinez her story
- Jane Fowler Age 71 HIV+ her story
- PBS Newshour Charlayne Hunter Gault video
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Posts
Comments
Subscribe via email
6 comments:
Re: Changing our bylaws dealing with dual members.
Oh, lordy, ladies (and gentlemen if Pat Nichols et.al. are still around), let's not go there.
Anyone who wants my rant (and corresponding proposed Association bylaws changes) that maintains that dual members don't have to be mentioned in the bylaws -- they are, by definition, branch members (AAUW Bylaws, Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph a.4.a) feel free to ask.
But to bring us back (somewhat) on target, if only primary members counted in, say, the EF assessment, what about dual members from out of state? How does AAUW CA ensure they are contributing appropriately? Besides, it's an assessment on a branch (a measure of their fundraising ability and commitment to the Foundation) and so in my view should be tied to their number of *members* (dual, primary, life, annual, green, purple, whatever).
I feel really strongly that from the point of view of the branch, the dual/primary distinction should be absolutely minimized. We joined the branch, we paid our dues, we should be willing to accept the responsibilities of branch membership. For many of us that means contributing $$, 'cause we just don't have any more time to give. If we need to find a way to cover financial hardship cases, fine. If we want to soft peddle fundraising because we recognize many have other branches that demand their dollars, fine.
But since Harriet says we've got the money to pay the assessments and no one's proposing a dues increase, WHAT is this conversation about?
For the EF assessment, I agree with you completely, Nancy, but the state insurance assessment is another story entirely!
If the state gives the insurance company an Association report that shows "total" membership in the state, but some of those members are actually dual members in 2 (or more!) branches, then the insurance company ends up charging the state and the branches for each of those dual members multiple times. That's a real boon to the insurance company, but of no real benefit to the branches. If a member is covered by liability insurance in the insurance coverage, that should extend to any/all branches they "attend," (I put that word in quotation marks because it takes on a whole new meaning in the Online branch, eh?) and duplicate charges seem patently unfair.
This cannot change unless the Association provides the state with a report that gives a breakdown of primary and dual members of each branch. And with the new membership database, it seems like that shouldn't be such a huge task for the Association to be able to tweak out those number for us.
And if this is what we're after, it would require no change in our bylaws.
One more thing...
I'm wondering if the Association is inappropriately using those "total" numbers as a way of inflating the actual number of people who are AAUW members.
It is assumed that the existence of "dual" members is fairly small and insignificant, but I think it would be wise for us to know at both the national and state level exactly how many people are members -- and by including "duals" in the overall count, we don't have a true picture of our organization's size.
I asked Ann Gustafson (AAUW MVP) about a report showing primary member counts -- since that is what's needed for determining the size of each delegation at Convention.
She passed it to Christy Jones, Director of Membership.
Christy said that report is coming out of the convention group, and passed the question to them.
I'll let you know if I hear anything.
I agree with Nancy and Sandy on EF.
RE: Sandy on membership inflation -There may be few duals now but it could become significant if online branches increase. This should be pursued. Good catch, Sandy!
RE: Insurance. Sandy says: "If a member is covered by liability insurance ... that should extend to any/all branches they "attend,"
The key word is "should". We need to see the exact wording to know if this is an issue.
This is my first time on this blog and I feel like it will be a regular stop on the net for me.
Post a Comment