Members: Proposal Five


Watch the webinar recording for Money & Members.

We encourage you to use the PowerPoint presented at the webinar and the Structure Modernization Discussion Guide to help facilitate conversations in your networks. 

 Members: Proposal Five

  • Keep the delegated system, but simplify the process for at-large members to be delegated
  • Each state would distribute at-large delegate credentials according to its bylaws or operating rules

Posting Instructions

1. If you want to share your thoughts on a proposal (remember these are just concepts, the actual language will be developed later), write your reply in the text box bellow the words Leave Reply, and in the box “Enter your comment here…”

2. If you want to respond to a comment that another NOW member has left regarding a proposal, click the small blue link that says “Reply” underneath said comment. It is very important that you click this reply button and not start another comment so that the conversation is easily followed and clear!

3. You MUST put your full name and chapter affiliation before every comment you leave. If a comment does not have a name and chapter affiliation it will not be approved. This is to ensure that only NOW members are commenting.

4. Remember be respectful and friendly! All NOW members want to work to improve the organization and it takes collaboration and patience on our part as a grassroots organization to make sure that all of our members voices are heard – even those with whom we may disagree with.

5. Be creative and don’t be afraid to say what you think! It is vital that you share your opinions — in order to create the best proposals possible we need to know what all of the members think! This site is for YOU to have your voices heard.


6 thoughts on “Members: Proposal Five

  1. I’m repeating what I said on Members: Proposal 1 since it also fits this item.

    If we keep delegated conferences, I believe we need to fix the at-large situation. Right now the only way at-large members can be official delegates of their state chapter is if they attend a state conference in the three months before the national conference. And then the number of delegates is determined by the number of people who show up at that state conference – NOT by the number of members listed as at large members of the state. So there are at least three problems that I see:
    1. Any state that holds their conference outside of the 3 month window gets no at-large delegates. That’s true for Pennsylvania whose bylaws require our conference in the last quarter of the year.
    2. Any state that holds conference every other year, even when the conference is held during the window of opportunity, loses a chance to have delegates in the year they don’t have a conference. True again for PA NOW which changed their bylaws 8 years ago to only hold biennial conferences due to cost.
    3. Even if you are within the window of opportunity, at-large members are treated as 2nd-class members because they do not get an equal access to the proportional number of delegates that local chapters get.

    And here’s another issue, if we go with the task force idea, people who are now in chapters would be moved over to being members of the state chapter – i.e., they become at-large members – and thus would lose their delegate slots unless either we 1) fix the at-large delegate issue (my first choice), 2) clearly state that task forces = chapters, or 3) go to an undelegated conference.

    I think we can fix the at-large delegate problem and keep the delegate selection and voting process that helps ensure that the area of the country where a national conference is held doesn’t overwhelm the voting members of the rest of the country. It would also help prevent outsiders who have the presence to get their contingents to join NOW in time from mucking with our organization.

    All we need to do is keep our current delegated conference requirements with one change. We would remove the requirement that states hold a state-wide meeting for the purpose of electing delegates. Instead, at-large delegates and alternates representing state chapters would be selected in the same manner as local chapter delegates with the decision as to how to select state delegates being decided by each state chapter.

    Joanne Tosti-Vasey
    Ni-Ta-Nee NOW (PA0555)


  2. I am good with turning managing delegates at the National Conference over to the states. There may need to be some caveats in the actual wording….. Otherwise a few chapters in the state may have a louder voice than the state membership as a whole….. i.e. No more than # of at-large delegates may be associated with a chapter. But the state should have the ability to give — true at-large members delegate status.

    Florida Lake NOW


  3. I like this proposal with the caveat that I think the credentials ought to be distributed according to consistent national rules.


Comments are closed.