Every member of the American Accounting Association will soon be given the opportunity to make the Association more responsive and democratic. Increasingly, the leadership of the AAA is out of touch with the members. Paul Gerhardt, the retiring Executive Director of the AAA, noted in his farewell address at the 1995 Annual meeting that the last 32 Presidents have all come from doctoral granting schools (who comprise less than 25% of the membership). Ninety four percent of the executive committees during the same period have also come from these same elite schools. In contrast, 64% of the section and regional officers this past year came from non-elite schools. The motions for reform provide a modest opportunity to empower the members; unless the divide is bridged, the Association risks adopting policies that are irrelevant to the needs of the membership.
The AAA has been slow to respond to major challenges both to the employment prospects of accounting students (and ultimately the people who teach them) and to criticisms that much of the research that dominates the Accounting Review is irrelevant and misplaced. The leadership of the AAA has been reluctant to pioneer educational reforms and has reduced accounting scholarship to an act of subservience. The Executive Committee of the Association has only given grudging support to Regions and Sections, which often better reflect the diverse interests of the members. Little wonder, then, that Paul Gerhardt reported that the AAA had the lowest members' satisfaction in a recent survey of 23 Associations, conducted by Market Probe Inc.
A major part of the problem is the structure of the AAA. It is not constructed to be responsive to the changes that affect accounting, but facilitates a narrow group that preserves for itself the perquisites and honors that the Association can grant. At present, members do not directly elect the officers of the Executive Committee, and bureaucratic and arbitrary rules inhibit new initiatives. In the near future, members of the AAA will receive a ballot allowing them to vote on three changes to the bylaws, which will make the Association more flexible, responsive, and democratic.
The first change codifies a recent Executive Committee policy, allowing members to select, for the basic dues, one of three journals. The recent policy change in effect only raised members' dues. Our proposed bylaw change expands the selection to include all AAA journals, even section journals. The attrition of membership and the explosion of section activities shows that accounting is a field of low paradigm consensus. Currently, no free market mechanism allows members to reveal their preferences about what research they wish to support. The change will empower sections that produce journals that members want. While it is not part of the proposals currently before the membership, we would ultimately like members to be free to subscribe to all (or none) of the Association's journals. In this way, consumer choices would discipline research and publication activities, which would become better attuned to members' diverse needs.
The second bylaw change would remove a major restriction on the formation and continuation of sections. Section membership is a strong reason for belonging to the AAA. Why 400 is the appropriate number to qualify as having the initial (or continuing) support of the AAA has never been demonstrated. This number was arbitrarily introduced a few years back to restrict the introduction of several new sections, created to respond to the differing needs and interests of the increasingly diverse membership (by gender, race, employment and geographical location). The history of the AAA shows that small, innovative groups often become major elements of our community. For those who worry that new sections may increase overall Association costs, we believe that a group of accountants can produce a sensible internal pricing schedule for administrative services. As we do not currently know the administrative cost structures of the AAA, we propose a 50-member minimum for sections, and that they be free to set their own dues. While it is possible that this change will require changes in the composition of the Council, we do not propose any such changes until we can all see the effect of the reduction in minimum section size on the size and representation in Council.
The third proposed change is the most important as it seeks a fundamental remedy for the longstanding problem. The Executive Committee for too long has been out of touch with the majority of the members. The aim is to make the Association more democratic. At present, members of the AAA are effectively disenfranchised. Election of officers is held at the annual meeting, which many members cannot afford to attend. If one does vote now, it is only for one slate of officers nominated through a process controlled by the existing executive committee. This third proposal opens up the nominating process and offers a choice among candidates (including any the executive committee would wish to propose). This would improve the responsiveness of the AAA leadership to shifts in the composition and interests of the members and thus provide relevant and continuous innovation in strategy. For answers to questions and more detailed arguments, you may contact any one of us:
Pat Arnold, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
E-mail: 102032.2776@compuserve.com
Christine Cooper, Strathclyde University
E-mail: cias018@vms.strath.ac.uk
David Cooper, University of Alberta
E-mail: dcooper@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Jesse Dillard, University of New Mexico
E-mail: dillard@carina.unm.edu
Steven Filling, California State, Stanislaus
E-mail: steven@panoptic.csustan.edu
Paul Goldwater, University of Central Florida
E-mail: goldwatr@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Finley Graves, University of Mississippi
E-mail: acgraves@vm.cc.olemiss.edu
George Mickhail, University of Wollongong
E-mail: george@uow.edu.au
Marilyn Neimark
E-mail: neibb@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Tony Tinker
E-mail: atibb@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Paul Williams
E-mail: pwilliams@econbus2.econ.ncsu.edu