FACES AND PLACES: Understanding UNA conventions: the word is hush! (04/14/02)

FACES AND PLACES

by Myron B. Kuropas

Understanding UNA conventions: the word is hush!

Roma Hayda's lament in the March 31 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly regarding the lack of declared candidates and proposals on the eve of the 35th UNA Convention is typical of someone who believes reason and transparency should prevail within the Ukrainian National Association.

"The confusion regarding leadership and any proposal to change the UNA's organizational structure from a community-oriented body to a corporate structure remains unresolved and undiscussed at the branch level of the UNA," she writes.

Surprise, surprise. The days when UNA members attended branch meetings and offered suggestions for the good of the organization are long gone. Members learned that suggestions are rarely heeded. At one time, at least, recommendations from branches and district committees were published in Svoboda and The Ukrainian Weekly, but that too is a dying practice, killed by executives who came to believe that constructive criticism was an attack on them. How did all of this happen?

Any organization that has been around for as long a time as the UNA develops what can be called an institutional culture, which includes part tradition, part work environment, part executive fiat. Today, the UNA mode of operation seems to be predicated on one word: "hush."

When I was UNA supreme vice-president I was often admonished by full-time executives who told me it was best not to openly mention certain shortcomings because "it would hurt the organization." You will be perceived as a "troublemaker," I was told. "Don't make waves, be a team player." Right.

My son Stefko is now the vice-president and guess what! He's getting the same message.

So are some other members of the General Assembly. We're losing members, valuable property, fraternal benefits and community prestige and yet, the policy is "hush," the less said, the better.

We have now reached the point that any criticism of executives in the UNA press, constructive or otherwise, is viewed as an attack on the UNA. The argument is simple. A publication, paid for and published by the UNA, should not be used as a forum for "malcontents." Better to censor all such criticism, even when it originates with lifelong members whose loyalty has never been questioned.

Mrs. Hayda raises the issue of a corporate structure for the UNA.

On the surface, the idea sounds wonderful. For some well-intentioned UNA'ers it's a cure-all, an elixir that will make us "modern," in-step with successful companies. Unfortunately, the corporate structure will solve nothing. Think about it. Where would we find a CEO who was familiar with the UNA, fluent in the Ukrainian language, schooled in the insurance business and willing to work for less than $100,000 per year? Would we have to hire professional head hunters? They're not cheap. Even if we found such a CEO, wouldn't a minimum three-year contract be demanded? Wouldn't the new CEO want to hire his/her own people? The way CEOs make a name for themselves is to cut costs. What would have to go? Soyuzivka? Svoboda? The Ukrainian Weekly? And what if the person didn't work out after one year? Firing that CEO would require buying out the remaining two years of the contract. We've already experienced one such unfortunate experience with a contracted sales executive.

If we passed the corporate structure proposal, we would have an 11-member board of directors. In both theory and practice, six board members could set policy. And who runs the organization during the transition, that period between the acceptance of the new by-laws and the selection of a CEO by a search committee? Delegates would probably suggest that the present elected executive board continue. Would these executives be aggressive in finding their replacements? Isn't it possible that the law of inertia would set in and nothing would change? It is for all these reasons that the proposal was rejected via a mail ballot by the UNA members who were delegates to the last convention. Given our present situation, many members believed, this amounts to little more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Some of us believe that the reason the UNA is declining is that we have forgotten our fraternal mission. During the last 20 or so years the emphasis of UNA executives has been on business, not fraternalism. We've cut fraternal benefits, eviscerated the fraternal structure of our branches and wondered why we can't enroll new members. In other words, we've come to believe that reducing costs will somehow increase our membership. Where's the logic in that? To make money, the old adage goes, you have to spend money.

I have attended every UNA convention since 1962 - 11 in all. Based on that experience, I have learned that there are five kinds of delegates.

The first group consists of dedicated UNA patriots who want to help the organization grow. They come with new, completed membership applications and make intelligent contributions on the floor of the convention. They are peacemakers who abhor conflict.

A second group of delegates comes with an agenda that may or not be of value to the UNA. They often belong to political or religious groups and their main goal is to elect their own kind to the assembly.

A third group of delegates is interested only in their per diem. They are usually disillusioned, aging branch secretaries, who convince themselves that only they can represent their people. They have done little to enroll promising young people, but continue to complain that young people aren't as committed to the UNA as they are.

The fourth group of delegates are the team players. They want to be part of the "inner circle." For them the administration knows best and must be defended at all costs.

Finally, we have the so-called "troublemakers" who are not intimidated by the administration. They often take unpopular stands and are often marginalized, occasionally demonized by convention chairpersons.

Will the current full-time paid executives of the UNA run for re-election? Probably. But no one really knows. Stay tuned for last-minute announcements.

But who else is running, you ask? I told you. The word is "hush."

Myron Kuropas' e-mail address is: [email protected].

| Home Page |