Page 13 - 2022-Mag_88-4

Features

At the same time, DKG leaders recognized that current practices were sidestepping
the fact that fiscal responsibility for all conventions and conferences ultimately fell to
the international Society. Regional directors who were in charge and state organizations
that hosted were under tremendous pressure to ensure that an event was “successful”
fiscally—and of course they did a yeoman’s job of working to balance budgets and
so forth. However, if an event did not break even or make a profit, bills ultimately
had to be covered by the international organization. The changes made in language
to note an “international conference” rather than a “regional conference” opened the
way for business/fiscal responsibility to rest clearly and squarely with international.
Proposals for consideration now, in 2022, would further clarify the practice that
evolved: giving the Society—rather than a host state—the business responsibilities for
the meetings. This IS the Society’s current practice and would update the Constitution
to these practices. This practice not only removes “event planning” and onerous fiscal
responsibilities from state organizations but also gives the Society better negotiating
position with hotels and convention centers, thus offering members a less expensive rate.
Virtual/Electronic Options

As noted above, the pandemic proved the old adage that “necessity is
the mother of invention,” driving members and leaders to find ways to continue
to fulfill the Society’s Purposes while quarantined, masked, and otherwise facing
a “new normal.” Suffice to say that the key women educators of DKG rose to the
challenge—or perhaps “Zoomed” to the challenge—embracing technology as
never before. Several PAs seek to capture this new thrust, not the least of which is
consideration of virtual or electronic attendance at international conventions.
At least two proposals anticipate future conventions becoming hybrid events—a
decision that has not been made by the administrative board or by members as a
whole—and attempt to clarify the nature of participation in such events. One suggests
that members attending physically
may make motions, enter discussions,
and vote (except in cases when a roll-
call vote is taken); members attending
virtually would not be able to make
motions or enter discussions but may
vote on amendments electronically
(again, except in cases of a roll-call vote).
A corollary PA suggests that a “quorum
shall be a majority of the members who
have registered for and are attending
either electronically or physically.”
Cost is a major concern in considering these proposals. An estimation of the cost
of contracted services to provide voting for virtual attendees is complicated by the
variance in those costs due to different venues/sites each biennium, cost increases
over the 2-year span between conventions, and changes in available technologies.
Although the registration fees of all attendees could be affected in some way, some
of the specific costs relevant to voting options for virtual attendees could be covered
by the registration fee paid by those members attending and voting remotely.
Physical attendance might decrease, resulting in a negative fiscal impact overall.

Collegial Exchange · 11