1. Responding to Keith’s questions:
    Re accreditation – when we discussed this in our regional group before the summer, it seemed like a good idea, and we raised many of the questions that are in Keith’s letter. However, we did not feel that we knew enough about what it means to be an accredited provider to be able to make an informed response, and that is still where I am. In my response to the questionnaire I suggested that we should contract somebody to explore the possibilities, implications and issues around AAIA becoming an accredited provider. I for one would certainly be in a better position to respond to Keith’s detailed questions if I knew more about the ins and outs of it all.

    Re election of executive officers:
    Q1: From memory (and there’s a thought … could the constitution be posted on the website please?) it is only certain of the officers that have to already be on the exec, and that makes sense in terms of ensuring key exec roles are filled by people who are up to date with AAIA matters. However, when we get to a crisis point as now, it may be that we decide exceptionally to relax this rule, as somebody is better than nobody.
    Putting Qs 3&4 together, it might make sense to move to a 3 year ‘package’ of president elect, president, and immediate past president, and to keep a separate vice president (without the expectation of becoming president). Alternatively we could keep expectation that VP becomes next president, and also have a post like assistant president. It may seem contradictory to be suggesting increasing the number of posts when it is proving so difficult to fill those that we have, but spreading the load a bit should make the posts more manageable. There would need to be some rethinking about the actual roles of each post, while at the same time building in enough flexibility to respond to the fast changing context.
    Q5: Think we should definitely employ some administrative assistance (not convinced that this means paid officers as such) – but our exec roles must be manageable for people working full time. There are obvious opportunities for admin assistance with all the positions … maybe this is something that also has advantages if we can retain flexibility (to match individual’s commitments and capacity), so it is not necessarily the case that there is paid admin assistance for eg membership but not finance (to take 2 random examples). It might depend on the demands at a particular time (eg setting up new website, exploring possibilities of becoming accredited provider, moving membership to a new database and a recruitment push etc).

    I shall be at the conference and so contributing to the discussion there, but thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts in advance, and thought I should use our super duper new website! Thanks, and best wishes to everyone. Sue

  2. Thank you Sue. In response to your email, the reason you cannot see your comments on the forum is that you have typed them as a response to the post on the Members’ page rather than in the Forum area of the site. I think that this is a potential source of confusion for members and will cover this in the user notes that I am writing.

Leave a Reply