NEWS AND VIEWS: Embrace the future (04/15/01)

NEWS AND VIEWS

Embrace the future

by Taras Szmagala Jr.

During the past few months, a number of articles and letters have appeared in The Ukrainian Weekly commenting on the proposed changes to the UNA by-laws.

By now, I am sure readers are familiar with the benefits of adopting these changes: an improved system for selecting full-time management, increased ability to attract and retain that management, and, most importantly, increased accountability of that management to the UNA membership at large.

Yet, during the past few weeks, a number of articles and letters have been written which question whether these by-laws changes are a good idea. I welcome those questions - they are fairly raised, and deserve thoughtful, thorough responses.

Below, I have restated some of the questions most frequently raised by opponents of the changes, and I have then set forth the thoughts of those supporting the changes. It is my hope that, via this format, UNA delegates and our membership at large will gain a better understanding of the issues at hand.

1. Won't these changes destroy our fraternal status?

This is a frequent question, and the most easily answered. The Ukrainian National Association is, and always will be, a fraternal organization. Period. Changing the way we pick our full-time executives does not change the fact that we are a fraternal. Convention delegates will remain responsible for selecting the policy-makers of the organization - the trustees - and will also pick the chairman of the Board of Trustees.

Ironically, the proposed by-laws changes give branches more power than they have under our current system. After all, under our current format, delegates from branches meet once every four years to select our full-time executive employees. Then, following that convention, branch delegates are completely powerless for four years, regardless of whether those executives are doing a good job. Under the new system, however, our executive employees are directly accountable to the trustees elected by branches' delegates. Thus, far from decreasing the power of branches, the proposed by-laws changes enhance their power to hold our executives accountable.

2. But I'm concerned about concentrated authority. Won't this new Board of Trustees be too powerful?

This is a good question, and in order to answer it fully, it is important to understand what our current by-laws provide. Under New Jersey law, the UNA already has a board of trustees. In fact, all of the power of a board of trustees is vested in six persons: the Executive Committee. Read Sections 36 and 37 of the UNA By-Laws, which provide that all of the power granted to "directors" under New Jersey law resides in the Executive Committee.)

Under the proposed by-laws, this group of six will be expanded to a group of 11. Rather than concentrating power in the hands of a few (as we currently do), the new by-laws would spread authority over a greater number of individuals.

3. But what about the General Assembly? How can you say you are spreading authority when, in fact, you are doing away with the 25-person General Assembly in favor of an 11-person Board of Trustees?

The answer is simple: the General Assembly has very little power. It has almost no authority to compel any actions by the Executive Committee or other management. As a practical matter, all of the power in the UNA is exercised by the Executive Committee. To compare the General Assembly to the proposed Board of Trustees is simply comparing apples to oranges.

To illustrate this point, let's suppose that, under our current system, a particular full-time (elected) employee is not performing to his fullest capabilities. Can the General Assembly fire this employee? No. Can the General Assembly discipline this employee? No. Can the General Assembly take any practical action whatsoever? No! Why not? Because that employee owes his job to the Convention, and thus is completely unaccountable to the General Assembly.

The bottom line is this: the proposed Board of Trustees would replace the power of the six-person Executive Committee, and not the powerless General Assembly.

4. Okay, so let's say we vote for this board. Where are they going to find a new CEO?

That is a good question. But this question is equally good regardless of whether we hire a CEO (through a Board of Trustees) or elect a CEO at a convention.

There can be no doubt that the UNA needs to attract new, energetic and qualified leadership. There also can be no doubt that this will be a difficult task. But these two facts are reasons to adopt the changes rather than oppose them. After all, if it will be hard to find someone to fill the role of CEO, why would we want to also limit our pool of potential candidates only to those who attend the convention and hand out cute buttons and slick flyers? Why would we want to limit our CEO choices only to those who are on the "inside" or who have popular family names?

The proposed changes expand the pool of possible CEOs. While the CEO still must be a UNA member, he or she will be selected through an interview process and an evaluation process similarly to the way companies hire top executives. It's just good business.

5. Aha! You mentioned the word "business." But the UNA isn't just a business, it is a fraternal. Why talk about business?

Yes, the UNA is a fraternal. But it is also a business - and quite a large one at that. In today's world, even a fraternal organization needs to be run efficiently and professionally - like our Ukrainian credit unions are run.

Of course, the UNA is not just a business. If it were, I wouldn't care to write this article, and you wouldn't care to read it. Indeed, the paper in which it is published would not exist. But we cannot ignore the fact that the UNA engages in a business to fund its fraternal operations. And if the UNA cannot generate a profit through its core revenue generating operation - selling life insurance - all the fraternalism in the world will not save it. Yes, we need fraternal benefits. But we also need to run a healthy business.

6. But why make these changes now? Why not wait until the next convention?

The proposed changes have been under discussion for approximately 10 years. During those years countless debates have taken place, articles have been written and ideas exchanged with regard to these by-laws. We cannot wait any longer.

By enacting the by-laws changes now, UNA branches can begin immediately to recruit local candidates to run for our new Board of Trustees. Thus, when we arrive at the convention in Chicago next May, we can be prepared with a group of well-qualified candidates who are willing to accept the responsibility of service. On the other hand, if we were to wait until the next convention to consider these changes, we would walk into that convention not knowing what offices were up for election. Not only would we not know who was running, we would not know what offices they would be running for. Clearly, then, we'd need to wait four additional years for the changes to take effect. And we can't afford that wait.

7. Didn't the General Assembly vote down these changes?

No, they did not. At our last General Assembly meeting, we discussed whether to recommend to the UNA Delegates to vote for the changes. We decided to remain neutral on the issue - to let the delegates make up their own mind. (For the record, I disagreed with this decision.)

The important point here is that the General Assembly did not vote on the merits of the proposed changes. They only voted to remain neutral. In fact, no one - not even Dr. Myron Kuropas - spoke against the changes at that General Assembly meeting. (Dr. Kuropas said he was "undecided" at the time.)

Our new By-Laws have the support of President Ulana Diachuk, Secretary Martha Lysko, and a large number of auditors and advisors. It is my opinion that, if a vote were taken within the General Assembly on the merits of the changes, the changes would pass.

8. Enough already. Why are we going through all this trouble?

We are going through this trouble because our current system, while it has served us well in the past, cannot carry us into the future.

Before voting against the proposed changes, consider the alternative. This should be easy to do, because the alternative was glaringly apparent at the 1998 UNA Convention in Toronto. At that convention, delegates did not even know who was running for president until the voting actually started. A delegate from the floor had to demand that candidates declare themselves for various offices, and only then were individuals forced to tip their hand with respect to the office for which they wished to run. Then the games really began - flyers, lists, deals and the like. Great fun, perhaps for some. And perhaps it's the only way to pick boards and assemblies. But it certainly is no way to pick a full-time executive team. And it certainly is not in the fraternal spirit.

In sum, it is time to embrace reform. It is time to embrace change - for change will be upon us, whether we like it or not. The Ukrainian National Association enjoys an illustrious history, a history that is worthy of deep respect. In my opinion, the most effective way to demonstrate our respect for the UNA's past is to prepare it for the future. This is why I again ask you to support the proposed changes to our by-laws.

Taras Szmagala Jr. is a UNA advisor and chairman of the UNA By-Laws Committee.

| Home Page |