No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2022
Most of what Professors Hawkinson and Rosenblum have written on behalf of the proposed new Constitution for the Association—about membership qualifications, about purpose and about taking positions on current public issues—appears to me to argue equally in favor of the Constitution we already have. On these matters the two documents are not far apart. Since I find their arguments for the status quo well stated and persuasive, I shall confine my comments to some major points of difference between the documents, and to changes proposed that would, as I think, be for the worse.
1. The draft is loaded with unnecessary and impractical detail. To be sure, Hawkinson and Rosenblum make a virtue out of relieving the membership of the power to pass on the dues structure by way of constitutional amendment. I will not dispute that view myself, but I can sympathize with those who feel that a referendum on dues is not merely “pointless and wasteful.” On the other hand, what is gained by specifying that the President shall (Art. VII, Sec. 2(f)) “be responsible for the preparation of the budget…” and that the Executive Director shall (Art. IX, Sec. 4 (b)) “assist the President in preparing the annual budget”? Who else, when the natural office for that responsibility, an elected Treasurer, is to be abolished?