As an “active” MNA member in good standing I want to address the MNA Board of Directors position... 

► “At its June meeting, the MNA Board of Directors voted to take a position in opposition to a few specific bylaw proposals put forward for debate and a vote at this year’s annual business meeting. While any number of proposals may come forward from structural units, the Board feels it is important for the membership to be aware of proposals assessed by the Board to be potentially harmful.”

-I was at that BOD meeting; there was virtually NO discussion amongst the board members. It passed unanimously. I firmly believe the BOD is aiming to oppose anything pro democratic coming from the reform candidates.

► “The Board firmly opposes amendment 5 which contains a number of provisions that would alter voting procedures, how the MNA determines and implements positions, and the scope of the authority of the Board of Directors. The Board believes the changes to our bylaws will severely limit the ability to respond to any number of serious issues our members may face, particularly in the current turbulent health care climate.”

-Amendment 5 and its subsets are ALL the proposed bylaw changes submitted by the Brigham nurses. All of the proposals aim to INCREASE member involvement and have nothing to do with the Boards ability to respond to any issues or crises that the members or the MNA may face… including issues in the current turbulent health care climate. This is simply an obfuscation of reality and fear mongering. The old line of “it limits our ability to respond…” has been used by many to suspend or limit democracy and strip free speech.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1exzIYbj6ZBZGMxNzlmYTQtN2RhMC00YzgyLWFjZGYtMDg3MWI4MmQ5OGJk&hl=en

► “We also believe the proposed changes will unnecessarily add to the cost of doing the MNA business, at a time when our resources will be better spent responding to challenges confronting the members.”

- The MNA spends significant amounts of the association’s money with nary a discussion amongst the Board members. I attend A LOT of BOD meetings… “all in favor say aye; AYE! Let the record show the motion was passed unanimously…” This is how it goes. Money is quickly allocated for political candidates, for political causes, various expenditures for pet projects and studies and mailings to all the members... let’s not forget the 2.7 MILLION of the associations money we send to fund the NNU every year (only 390 members out of 23,000 got to decide that expenditure).

► “The changes proposed in amendment 5 will further limit the ability of well-informed and committed MNA members to develop policies and directives for the Board of Directors, by enforcing costly requirements for a mail ballot referendum by the entire membership on any and all issues considered at the business meeting.”

-See my response above regarding “costs.” You have to ask what “well-informed and committed MNA members” actually means. Are they talking about the 500 or so members that MIGHT be able to attend the convention on any given year? If I’m working that day or my family is ill, I’m not a “well-informed and committed MNA member?” Why can I not have a say unless I attend the convention?

► “The MNA business meeting provides for a decision-making process to formulate and pass bylaw changes and policy positions to the Board of Directors in a democratic assembly. It is characterized by an open member convention structure that enables a broad range of opinions by providing member participation in both the crafting of positions and the decision-making process itself.”

-I’ve been to the “business meetings” and if last year in Brewster is the model, they are a facade. The strict use of Roberts Rules of Order is the controlling mechanism… calls of “you’re out of order!” and microphones getting shut off, are the way of operation. Shouts of; “call the motion” and forcing though the agenda is standard operating procedure. The structure of the meetings is intentionally flawed and calling it “open” is just more blurring of the truth. Town meeting style of governance may have had a place 30 years ago, but now with 23,000 members that is simply and obviously unrealistic. ALL the members should have a right to vote on ALL the issues presented at convention. The day to day operations should be left to the Board. If an issue of such import comes up, the BOD has the right to call a special meeting.

► “Bylaw amendment 5 would not only undermine the deliberative process on the issues before the members, it carries the potential to decrease member involvement in the direction and focus of the Association, by encouraging members to vote in a ballot process in lieu of actively engaging in the debate among members and crafting the final outcome on the basis of that participatory process.”

-I read this as suggesting that the membership is too lazy to attend the annual business meeting if they are given the option to vote from afar, how insulting. We vote for BOD members by mail, right? This is the 21st century and our members vote from afar for equally important issues everyday in their local and national elections. The members seem to understand the issues and can debate and decide the idiosyncrasies of any topic just fine without having to go to Washington or the Statehouse.

► “Under this proposal, the membership attending the business meeting assembly, who are active leaders of your bargaining units—having debated and deliberated over a sound position to address an important issue at the business meeting—will have their decisions delayed and put at risk of being overturned by a vote of members who did not participate in the debate, nor fully understand the arguments for the position, and/or the compromise position finally agreed upon by the members.”

-I consider myself an active, informed and not coincidentally elected leader of my bargaining unit; I have never been afforded the courtesy of deliberation or debate at either BOD meetings or the annual business meeting. Unless you are an expert in parliamentary procedure or have “the script” to the meeting, you will be called out of order and you will be shut up. Ask any member who has raised questions at BOD meetings or at the Business meeting last year.

► “Ultimately the bylaw proposed is an ineffective method to move the work of the Association, weakening the Association while our members’ nursing practice and contracts are under assault in this environment. The current MNA structure features an open and transparent election process that allows all members to select their own leadership, nearly all of whom come from the ranks of the local bargaining units.”

-The bylaw proposals do not interfere with any work of the Association. In fact, they open up the process. They ensure all members have the right to vote on all important issues, the open up our Associations media to points of view that may differ from the controlling members of the Board, allow all members access to information and give all members the ability to voice their needs and concerns to the Board. The bylaw proposals are not about the elections process but about member access, free speech and voting rights.

► “The MNA Board is reflective of the membership. Board members work in the bargaining units as union leaders and activists. The MNA bylaws have been crafted to ensure that on the state and regional levels, active, direct-care nurses—chosen by the members— can make decisions on a real-time basis in order to meet your needs.”

-No-one disputes these points, but major decisions like union mergers and multimillion dollars outflows of the Associations money should not only be made by the small numbers of business meeting attendees or by the BOD alone.

► “The issues confronted by our membership are complex and time sensitive, and they require a process that provides for the opportunity for well-reasoned deliberation and engagement by a membership fully invested in the issues. Given our experience in walking through the bargaining units every day, we are validated that the efforts and direction taken by the Board reflect the goals of the members.”

-No one disputes complex and time sensitive issues. The bylaw proposals opposed by the BOD would have no impact on the BODs ability to respond to them. The BOD “walking through” the BUs as a way to validate their chosen direction is not sufficient. There are 23,000 members in the association all of whom have a right to be heard.

► “Another major problem with changes called for under amendment 5 is that the amendment seeks to put into the bylaws what is currently handled under Board policy. Again, the assumption behind the current structure is that the membership elects members to serve on the Board to make policies and take positions in their best interests providing the ability to respond to rapidly changing conditions.”

-Bylaw decisions are voted on by the members, policy decisions are made by the Board. Elected members of the BOD have recently adopted codes of conduct, “solidarity” and confidentiality policies in response to attempts by members to exercise their freedom of speech and attempts to gain rightful access to information. There was no allowance for alternative points of view or input or by the members. This was not done with the best interest of the members in mind

► “If there is strong disagreement about a specific position or policy of the Board, the membership has the ability to pass a motion at convention to direct the Board on a particular matter and/or elect representatives who support a different position.”

-Again, all members should have a right to vote on the issues, not just those few able to attend the annual business meeting. Part of the reason for the bylaw proposals is to prevent a small group of members from controlling the direction of the Association by making major decisions at a business meeting that historically have been attended by less that 2% of the MNA.

► “However, if the proposed changes are adopted, and policies and positions are set as part of the bylaw process, it would then require a two-thirds majority vote by the membership at the annual meeting to change course. Micromanaging through bylaws lessens the ability of the leadership elected by the members to function and meet the needs of the very membership that elected them. Certainly, MNA bargaining units cannot be expected to function this way, nor can the MNA.”

-Micromanaging is not what the bylaw proposals would do. This statement is untrue and misleading. The proposals would open up all major decisions affecting the association to all the members and they would open up our right to access information and access to our media.

► “Finally, with regard to the proposal that the convention’s business meetings be held on a Saturday, many of you may be familiar that when the MNA held a Saturday business meeting for disaffiliation from ANA in 2001, it resulted in a lawsuit for discrimination by a small group of members”

-This is true of course, that’s why the settlement of that lawsuit allowed for all members to vote via mail-in ballot! (http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/mnadraft.pdf)

► “While discrimination certainly was not the intent of the prior Board, we are nonetheless circumspect with regard to this issue going forward. Additionally, feedback from members in the current environment indicates that nearly one-half of the membership would be excluded due to weekend work schedules.”

-The Board is suggesting that ½ the members would be excluded due to weekend work requirements. Only 500 out of 23,000 were able to make it to last year’s middle of the day, middle of the week vote. This is all the more reason to allow for absentee voting.

► “It is our belief the proposed bylaw changes, specifically those proposed under amendment 5, are unnecessary, and would severely limit our organization’s ability to be timely and responsive to your needs. We encourage you to study these issues, to call us to discuss your thoughts and concerns, and most important of all, to attend the MNA annual business meeting on Oct. 14 in Worcester and participate in this debate.”

-Of course those members who proposed these bylaws are not allowed to voice their opinions or provide any input... instead they are forced to leaflet, and voice their opinions in places like this. I hardly think that the status quo is responsive or timely to concerns of the membership. With no comprehensive polling in over ten years, how would they even know?

Mike Savoy RN

Dartmouth, MA

Loyal MNA member since 1997