My proposal to revamp the NASW constitution has garnered a lively response. Many reactions fall into one of these three categories:
I must respectfully disagree with the folks who espouse that last point of view. NASW’s constitution does a poor job of reflecting the changing world of science writing.
First of all, our current constitution defines “active” member so narrowly, it encompasses mostly folks who write about science for the news media. And the emphasis is on who is your employer, not what you do. So a university professor who writes books for the general public is classified as an “associate” member because he or she is paid by a university and is therefore presumed to be working on behalf of that institution.
I think we would find many people who are currently “active” members don’t meet the strict definition of that term in our constitution. Over the years, we have stretched the definition—or ignored it altogether—in order to include those folks as “active” members. I don’t think it is healthy for an organization to wink at its own rules as they grow outdated.
So something needs to be done.
One option is to make sure people really are placed in the correct membership category. But our members clearly don’t want to be put through any substantial annual recertification process. I can sympathize with them. It could be time-consuming and intrusive to have members tally up their income for the year as a way to decide whether they fall into the “active” category or the “associate” one. So let’s put that idea to rest.
Where does that lead us?
First of all, we need to make sure the leadership of NASW represents a broad body of the membership at large. The main sticking point is that many journalists who are members of the organization don’t want the president or other officers to be someone whose job is to pitch stories or otherwise influence the actions of journalists. Yet there’s a strong argument that the freelance journalist who sometimes writes for, say, a university’s or organization’s magazine shouldn’t be disqualified from being an officer of NASW. So we should focus less on where the check comes from and more on the job being done.
Still, some scrutiny of income and activities is necessary—at least for officers and board members. I find the idea of a single membership category is growing on me. It’s not a panacea, but it does solve some of our problems: it eliminates the stigma of “associate” membership; it eliminates the need to scrutinize members’ bona fides every year; and it eliminates the need to craft delicate definitions that distinguish among the many roles that science writers fill these days.
Even if we accept the single membership category, however, we still have some thorny issues to work through. How, exactly, are we going to define the qualifications for officer? The strictest definition is to require them to be working journalists. Some people have told me they fear that would exclude too many candidates, and leave a “ruling class” if you pardon the expression, which doesn’t represent the broader membership. One who “writes for the public” would capture more of our membership, but perhaps isn’t discriminating enough. One member suggested that our definition should be “exclusive” rather than “inclusive”—in other words, a person whose job is to influence the activity of journalists shouldn’t be eligible to head the organization, but anybody else would be.
Another issue to be resolved is, how to compose the board. Clearly, we want the board to be broadly representative of the membership at large (including PR and PIO members). We also want the board to be a breeding ground for future officers, so some seats need to be reserved for those folks who will qualify for the officer ladder. We need to settle on a number that will balance those two legitimate needs.
I think it’s time for the NASW board to take up these questions. We have heard excellent advice and guidance from the membership at large. I’m feeling optimistic that we will be able to write a constitution that will strengthen the organization. I’ll offer a status report in the next newsletter. Also, I encourage all members to check nasw-talk (or its archive at www.nasw.org) to keep up on developments. As always, if you’d like to share your thoughts, you can write to me or e-mail me at rharris@nasw.org.
Richard Harris can be reached at National Public Radio, 635 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington. DC 20001; phone: 202-414-2786; fax 202-414-3329; email: rharris@nasw.org.