By Richard Harris
We didn’t have wigs. We didn’t have Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Wilson to deliver 168 speeches. But, unlike the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, we did have climate-controlled meeting rooms in Philadelphia. And I think we’ll be pleased at the result of our admittedly more modest labors.
NASW is on the verge of having a new, much improved constitution—one that was crafted by the board and supported by a good cross-section of the membership present at our meeting in Philadelphia. In order for the proposed amendments to become the bylaws of our little land, it must be sent to our “active” members for approval. As soon as the last drafting details are complete, I’ll post the proposed constitution on the NASW website for all to see. For the moment, I’d like to outline the thrust of our changes. Most are to codify what the organization already does as common practice; others do change the way NASW does business.
The nitty-gritty:
LABELS—The board voted to maintain separate membership categories for journalists and other members of NASW, but we’re defining them more clearly and giving them functional labels. One category will be “Journalists,” defined as people principally engaged in the preparation and interpretation of science news for recognized news media outlets or “journalistic books.” Most everyone else will be called “Science Communicators.”
LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP—This membership category never made sense because it never distinguished between “active” and “associate” members. So we’re eliminating it as a membership category per se (though current “Lifetime” members will be grandfathered/grandmothered). Instead, the organization will continue to recognize individuals who have been members for more than 25 years, and we will exercise flexibility in collecting dues from longtime members now retired.
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP—Students will get reduced-rate membership
for a maximum of two years, provided they’re enrolled in an accredited
institution. After that, they can continue as full members. This is what
we do in practice.
VOTING—Current practice has “active” members voting
for officers and “active” members of the board; “associate”
members vote for “associate” board members as well as officers.
This practice will be codified in the amended constitution (only we’ll
talk about Journalist and Science Communicator members). Students don’t
vote.
NOMINATIONS—Right now, the nominating committee is composed entirely of “active” members. There is, in fact, no written mechanism to nominate “associate” members to the board. As a new practice, the nominating committee will consist of both Journalists and Science Communicators. The committee will collectively nominate Journalist members to serve as officers; then the Journalist members will nominate other Journalists to run for the at-large board seats, while the Science Communicator members of the committee will nominate folks from among their ranks to serve on the board. The current board structure will remain unchanged: All officers and a majority of board members must be Journalist members. The Nominating Committee will collect and review the necessary materials to demonstrate that the Journalist members meet the constitutional standard.
DUES—As is current practice, people who haven’t paid their dues by May 15 will not receive any NASW services. They won’t have access to the members-only part of the website; they won’t receive ScienceWriters, and their names won’t appear in the directory. (Note the exception discussed above regarding long-time members).
ANNUAL MEETING—A quorum will be redefined as 50 members, rather than the current definition of 15 “active” members.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS—Here’s another substantial change. Currently, once an amendment is proposed, a ballot is mailed to all “active” members. The amendment passes unless one-fourth of the active members object in writing. Instead of this procedure, we propose that any proposed constitutional amendment must be accepted by two-thirds of the board. Once the board approves it, ballots will be sent to all members of the organization. The amendment will be accepted if a majority of Journalist members who vote approve; AND if a majority of Science Communicator members who vote approve. This has the effect of giving veto power to both Journalists and Science Communicators. Journalists will maintain somewhat more power in this process, since they constitute the majority of the board. But Associates/Science Communicators will have a significant voice in constitutional matters for the first time.
Other changes include minor editing and removal of sexist language. We did not cast any votes or make any formal proposals to enact these changes in Philadelphia, but if the membership at large reacts as favorably as our members did at the annual meeting, this proposal will be put to a vote of “active” members later this year.
This constitutional discussion turned out to be much more than a proofreading exercise. We asked a lot of hard questions about who we are as an organization—and what we want to be. I think the changes we’re proposing underscore that journalistic standards will continue to set the tone for our organization. But we also need to recognize that the field of science writing is getting more diverse all the time, and everyone should have a voice and a sense of belonging.