Ricky Dunn

Those of who know you have long been aware of your talents as a great teacher and mentor -- now the rest of the world knows it too! Congratulations. Ricky

The message is still not getting through. According to the above schedule, AOU members can comment on the proposal, and then Council will vote on whether to form the new society. Other societies can vote whether/when to join. The key question is this: When do AOU members get to vote on whether to go ahead?

Sue: I was disappointed in the “shoot the messenger” tone of the response to my initial post, although glad to see the appended schedule, and even happier to see the informative response to Bob Curry’s subsequent query. That is what we need more of. I hope we’ll also learn more soon about how and by whom final decisions will be made. As a specific question, it seems that a positive vote by AOU Council in Vancouver would mean giving money towards formation of the new society. Does that mean it would go ahead without any approval by Fellows or other members (either then or at a later stage)? The main message I was trying to convey, which appears to have been missed, is that the SFO Committee should give more attention to communications and optics if it wants to be successful in the long run. Those of you working so hard on this probably overestimate how much has filtered through to the membership (even to those of us who are reading everything available – and I assure you I’m among them). Someone needs to be checking the pulse of the people who aren’t spontaneously giving you feedback so you can proactively respond to their concerns. Ricky

The message being given out is that there is “overwhelming support” for proposed changes. However, I have recently had colleagues approach me to express concern. They assume that as a Past President of AOU, I know what is going on, and the fact that none of us does is part of the problem I’ll try to explain here. There does seem to be general agreement that the subject of revamping ornithological societies is well worth investigating. However, there is a great deal of uneasiness about the way it is being done. There is a definite sense that change is being railroaded through, by a relatively small group of people, and that AOU is the gorilla in the room that is pushing the agenda. (It doesn’t help that AOU’s President-Elect is spokesperson.) While members of each society will be invited to submit comments, the timeline between call for comments and final approval by AOU, at least, is really quite short--suggesting that the process is cosmetic and unlikely to bring about substantive alterations. The public announcements that have been made fuel concern by indicating there is a “plan” – not a “proposal” – and that the details of the plan are quite concrete, such that there appears to be a done deal. The final message of the PowerPoint (“New ideas, as drastic as presented here, take a long time to truly consider and appreciate. Please embrace this change”) sums up the problem: “Embrace the change” suggests a train that has already left the station, and members are not being given “a long time to truly consider.” Finally, it appears that AOU Council will have the final say on whether AOU goes ahead, without any substantive role by members or Fellows (see more on this below). If the summary above misrepresents what is going on, then it is clear there has been a serious failure of communication with members. If it IS accurate, then AOU is giving itself a black eye and should consider some different approaches. Whether or not the membership of each society is going to be involved in decision making, it is very important that they be brought along at every stage, so that plans don’t founder at a late stage simply because peoples’ backs are up. Besides causing some ill feeling about being pushed and rushed into something that constitutes a cosmic change, there is the potential for real disruption based on rumor about what is going on. (For example, one person who was planning to submit a paper to Auk said he decided against it, because he’d heard that Auk was going belly up. Might this be a general feeling that is contributing to the decline in submissions?) My opinion is that the public discourse at this stage should be focused much more on process than on promotion of possible outcome. I would recommend an announcement that lays out what steps will be taken when, who will make decisions, and showing branch points where things can go in different directions as each decision is made. A major part of this should be a target date for public disclosure of the full proposal(s), and society decisions should not have to be made until after the full proposal has been made available for comment and revised accordingly. Because any future society will differ according to which/how many current societies join in, and given that AOU is evidently the first that will vote, how will other societies be able to take part in planning that AOU will be leading? It should must be clear who will collect comments, who will be responsible for revising proposals, and who will make the final decisions for each society. If I am asked for input, and especially if I am asked to vote, here is what I would want to see in the proposal: Proposed mission statement. - Will the current mission of AOU (“…to advance the scientific understanding of birds, to enrich ornithology as a profession, and to promote a rigorous scientific basis for the conservation of birds”) be essentially unchanged, or is there intent to become something different? Justifications for major aspects of the proposal. - Pros and cons should be presented not only for merging, but for a new business structure, for 4 journals (why 4, vs. 2 or 3?), for a single editor vs. 4 editors and a single managing editor, for a paid administrator (instead of paid editors), etc. - Depending on the balance of pros/cons for each of the above, there might be alternative models proposed for particular aspects. Presentation of pos/cons and viable alternatives will help ensure that comments are relevant and constructive. Fully costed business plan, with alternatives based on how many societies would be joining in. - This would have to include clear indication of how 4 journals could be supported under each scenario (number of merging societies), what the cost of membership and subscriptions would have to be, and how many of each would be required (compared to current numbers). How much annual fundraising would be needed? Number and size of endowments being merged would clearly affect these numbers. - Fund-raising items in the budget must be realistic. Fund-raising is a real profession, and can’t be done part-time by an Executive Director. A good one is expensive, and the office requires a decent budget to do its work. Is there really a viable target market for funders of a scientific society? Supporting ourselves by selling journal and advertising space at very high prices (like medical journals) is not an option for us. Discussion of the fate of society ‘culture’ - Each society has a suite of traditional awards, honors and events, many of which would presumably be merged or discontinued. While detailed proposals could wait until later in the process, some acknowledgement of the problem, and a process for decisions being made when the time comes, should be included in the initial proposal. Information about the process (and timeline) each society will follow to decide whether it plans to join. - What is the “final decision” to be taken at NAOC? For AOU to go ahead? For all societies to have decided whether to go ahead? If AOU goes first, how long will other societies have to make their decisions? - It needs to be very clear who is going to make decisions for each society. Within AOU, for example, will it be Council alone? Fellows? EMs and Fellows? If membership in general is to have the final say, will it be via a majority of people at an annual business meeting, or via mail ballot to all members? Only Fellows can change AOU By-laws, so presumably they would have to vote to wind up the society. However, Council alone controls the Endowment, and they could effectively transfer all AOU’s funds to a new society without anyone else’s approval. While this might be legal, it could open a can of worms and cause tremendous ill feeling. Decisions will be made differently for each society, but members of each one will want similar detail on how they would be affected. These may seem niggling details that can be worked out with good will – but it’s precisely that good will that could be lacking unless there is a lot more work done now to “win hearts and minds.” Simply telling people that this is a great idea and will be good for ornithology is far from sufficient.Ricky Dunn