Seeking feedback on AATA All Member Meeting Response communication
Hello Team, I am reaching out for contribution and feedback on a response I am working on for the AATA forum and possibly a direct email to Raquel (respective drafts of course).
My biggest concerns:
1.) The lack of accountability on behalf of AATA, claiming the assault was handled with "utmost timeliness, care, and respect." I understand there is legal liability in acknowledging things could have been handled better, and yet the report served an impact of erasure. Despite acknowledging that there were disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrator as a result of the findings by a third-party investigator, the sanitized retelling included the dismissive use of "different experiences" to retrospectively undermine the credibility of the report, as well as openly shaming the victim for reaching out to peers over social media for support in addressing the association's lack of policy and procedure.
2.) The pattern of structuring meetings to prevent and inhibit member discourse on the stated topic and intent of the meeting. In this case, the meeting's focus, as advertised, was supposed to be the member review and discourse on the proposed draft of the new sexual assault and harassment policy. (i.e. using 50/90 min for the sanitized retelling and unrelated committee reports via slide deck & in the 40 min that remained, permitting presidential rebuttals, and expecting discourse and voting on 4 resolutions during the limited member floor time, effectively preventing discourse on the policy in the 90 min meeting)
3.) Pervasive pattern of systemic silencing of member voice. This looks like directing members to online portals, surveys, and emails that serve to silo feedback instead of facilitating the conversations that build community, healing, growth, and progress. This reduces member awareness of the feedback and opinions of their peers and places all of the feedback content in the hands of the staff and board without any accountability or visibility to the membership.
4.) The changing of the rules of engagement so that the limit of 2 meeting extensions (15 min increments) is not permitted at each meeting of the membership. One was permitted this time after protesting the denial.
5.) There is a dissonance in word and action that impedes collaborative healing and progress. The defensive stance, meeting control, and the impact of actions stated above, nerf the spirit of collaboration. The stated desire to collaborate must be paired with supportive actions that make it possible, not hinder it.
Final thoughts:
As an educator, the design and facilitation of meetings stands out in my mind and carries a profound impact on the felt sense of safety and representation of our membership. There are ways to facilitate conversations (i.e. break-out rooms for deeper discussion) without bottlenecking progress by jamming content that is far greater than can fit in a 90 min meeting. There are better ways to engage our membership than spending over half of the meeting talking at the membership with content that could be delivered via email or video. Meeting times should be reserved for conversation, collaboration, and workshopping. A good meeting is interactive, not performative.
I also continue to mull over the suggestion by one member to reinstate the Member Liaison position on the board. I know it was rebutted in the meeting by the president, but I can see the need for such a role given the current divide and lack of trust. Anyway, I look forward to chatting with everyone at the next meeting. Please let me know if any of this is dissonant to your recollection or way off base. We are strongest when we work together! In community, MaKael White
Yes, the lack of an update on previous resolutions was an element I had in my longer versions of this note, but it was cut due to length. I can add it back in. Thank you!