President's Letter

by Paul Raeburn

Paul Raeburn

Later this summer, you will all be receiving ballots for a proposal to amend the NASW Constitution. This will be the first time we have proposed an amendment to the constitution since it was extensively revised by former President Richard Harris in 1999.

So, I'd like to do two things: First, explain why we're proposing a constitutional amendment. And, second, remind everyone what's required-under the current constitution-to approve an amendment. If you'd like to pull out a copy of the constitution, you'll find it on the NASW Web site and in the first few pages of the NASW membership directory.

Earlier this year, Beryl Lieff Benderly, an NASW member-at-large, learned that we might be eligible to join a group called the Authors Coalition of America. Thanks to her initiative and energy, we discovered that the coalition serves as the "reproduction rights organization" for the United States. Here's what that means: The copyright laws of some foreign countries entitle writers to payment when their works are photocopied. The money is collected as taxes or fees and distributed to writers by national reproduction rights organizations. The United States does not recognize this right, and it has no such organization. So the Authors Coalition has taken on that job. It accepts from foreign countries the portion of photocopying fees or taxes apportioned to U.S. writers. And it distributes this money to national writers' organizations that belong to the coalition. (If you'd like to know the history of this arrangement, look for more information at www.ifrro.org/about/index.html and www.authorscoalition.org.)

We've been told that if we join the coalition we could receive at least $5,000 per year, perhaps more. NASW meets all but one of the requirements for joining. We've satisfied them that we are a legit writers' group and that our folks produce plenty of work that is probably being copied in distant lands. The only thing we need to do is make a minor addition to the constitutional language explaining our purpose (Article I, Section 2). Currently, that section reads:

"This organization shall foster the dissemination of accurate information regarding science and technology, though all media normally devoted to informing the public; and shall foster the interpretation of science and its meaning to society, in keeping with the highest standards of journalism."

The amendment you will be voting on would add, to the end of that section, these words:

"In addition, this organization shall foster and promote the professional interests of science writers."

That satisfies the Authors Coalition's technical requirements, and we believe that it's an accurate description of what NASW does. It simply makes explicit what is implicit in the existing language.

In accordance with our constitution, Beryl gathered the signatures of 20 NASW members on an amendment petition, and submitted it to me. That means the measure is ready to be put to a vote. The officers and the members-at-large (otherwise known as the board) strongly support this change. We urge you to vote yes.

Now, about the voting: NASW's revised constitution provides that the amendment should be circulated to the membership and put to a vote by mail. But there is a wrinkle. While the revisions in the constitution put an end to categories of membership (members and associate members), it did not entirely eliminate the distinction between journalists and non-journalists. As you know, the officers must be journalists, and the constitution defines what that means: A "substantial majority" of the officers' science-writing activities must be journalism-that is, reporting, writing, editing or producing news, discussion and features for media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, and TV and radio stations. Work on books and other mass-media outlets is also considered journalism. Officers may not write press releases or act on behalf of an institution or company to affect media coverage while they are in office. (This does not include authors who promote their own books-that's fair game.)

The reason I'm going through all of this-which is found in Article III, Section 1 of the constitution-is because it is relevant to the voting. To amend the constitution, we need a majority of two groups-members overall and journalist members who fit the above requirements. Further, those who believe they fit the above requirements may say so on a signed ballot. (It is not required, but we do need at least some members to attest they are journalists to pass the amendment.)

I urge those of you who fit the requirements as journalist members to sign your ballots. The rest of the members need not sign their ballots.

This will be explained again in a letter that will be sent to you with the ballots, during the next few weeks. Before you vote, please read the letter-or take a look at the constitution-to determine whether or not you qualify as a journalist member. If you do, please sign your ballot to attest to that.

Any funds that we receive from the Authors Coalition will go into NASW's general account, to help support the workshops and our other educational and professional programs. If I were running for election, I'd promise a chicken in every pot. But I'm not. (Talk to Deborah Blum.)

Enjoy the summer. I wish you all good luck finding stories in the woods, the mountains, or wherever you'd like your work to take you.

#

Paul Raeburn is a senior writer at Business Week. He can be reached at praeburn@nasw.org.

Return to NASW homepage.

Return to NASW Members' Lobby.

Return to ScienceWriters Newsletter homepage.