therefore receives the bulk of membership revenue. This means that the remaining four national associations are in effect competing for a member’s second affiliate choice. Members who might be interested in supporting more than two national associations only have two choices. Consequently, despite member interest, some national associations don’t qualify to receive membership income. Should the Alliance unify, competition between national associations for membership revenue would presumably no longer exist. Alliance Assembly One of the most interesting aspects of the relationship between the state professional associations (AHPERDs) and the Alliance is state participation in the Alliance Assembly. Representatives appointed by the state associations make up the majority of the Alliance Assembly, the primary decision-making body of AAHPERD. It is this Assembly that meets annually on the final day of the national convention to ratify Board of Governor decisions or propose and act upon alternatives. Critics of the Assembly are puzzled at the extent of distrust many delegates display toward the Board of Governors. They point out that 6 of the BOG representative positions are after all both nominated and elected by the district associations. But perhaps of greater concern is the way in which the Assembly provides the independently operating state associations the power to dictate what the Alliance can and cannot do, an authority that history shows they have not been shy to demonstrate. true that each of the representatives is also required to be an Alliance member, the fact that they are nominated to serve by their state associations, concerns Assembly critics. The seating of delegates at the Assembly meeting, based on state affiliation, serves to reinforce a representation” rather than “state representation” mentality. Rather than being member representatives of “member the Alliance, critics argue that these individuals see themselves as state representatives and look to their state leaders for decision-making guidance when voting. Should the Assembly be preserved in the future, some has suggested that one improvement that might encourage what’s best for the “doing Alliance” would be to eliminate all seating assignments. Advocates for maintaining the Alliance Assembly see its relationship with the Board as similar to Congress and the Executive Branch: An important system of checks and balances. Reflecting upon decisions made by the BOG in recent years, Assembly proponents believe it has served to prevent several ill-conceived BOG proposals. They suggest that most individuals appointed to the Assembly are well informed and knowledgeable on the issues to be discussed. This is a point of contention. Critics out that in many instances, delegates are appointed mostly because of their willingness to attend the Assembly on the last day of the Convention.
therefore receives the bulk of membership revenue. This means that the remaining four national associations are in effect competing for a member’s second affiliate choice. Members who might be interested in supporting more than two national associations only have two choices. Consequently, despite member interest, some national associations don’t qualify to receive membership income. Should the Alliance unify, competition between national associations for membership revenue would presumably no longer exist. Alliance Assembly One of the most interesting aspects of the relationship between the state professional associations (AHPERDs) and the Alliance is state participation in the Alliance Assembly. Representatives appointed by the state associations make up the majority of the Alliance Assembly, the primary decision-making body of AAHPERD. It is this Assembly that meets annually on the final day of the national convention to ratify Board of Governor decisions or propose and act upon alternatives. Critics of the Assembly are puzzled at the extent of distrust many delegates display toward the Board of Governors. They point out that 6 of the BOG representative positions are after all both nominated and elected by the district associations. But perhaps of greater concern is the way in which the Assembly provides the independently operating state associations the power to dictate what the Alliance can and cannot do, an authority that history shows they have not been shy to demonstrate. true that each of the representatives is also required to be an Alliance member, the fact that they are nominated to serve by their state associations, concerns Assembly critics. The seating of delegates at the Assembly meeting, based on state affiliation, serves to reinforce a “state representation” rather than “member representation” mentality. Rather than being member representatives of the Alliance, critics argue that these individuals see themselves as state representatives and look to their state leaders for decision-making guidance when voting. Should the Assembly be preserved in the future, some has suggested that one improvement that might encourage “doing what’s best for the Alliance” would be to eliminate all seating assignments. Advocates for maintaining the Alliance Assembly see its relationship with the Board as similar to Congress and the Executive Branch: An important system of checks and balances. Reflecting upon decisions made by the BOG in recent years, Assembly proponents believe it has served to prevent several ill-conceived BOG proposals. They suggest that most individuals appointed to the Assembly are well informed and knowledgeable on the issues to be discussed. This is a point of contention. Critics out that in many instances, delegates are appointed mostly because of their willingness to attend the Assembly on the last day of the Convention.