Myths and Facts About The Three Motions

Motion 1: Equalizing All Journals Of The Association

1. MYTH: A logical link exists between Association dues and Association-wide journals that doesn't exist for section journals.

   Fact: "Association-wide" status is an ambiguous claim for a journal. For instance, in the light of Paul Gerhardt's Orlando's evidence, only ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION--appealing to 75% of the membership--merits that "Association-wide" status. THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW serves only the 25% minority and should rightly be offered to the financial accounting section.

2. MYTH: The motion would expose sections to greater uncertainty and potential loss of control.

   Fact: This so-called "greater uncertainty" for sections means that more members might take their journals! As it is envisaged that revenues from journal sales will flowback to the sections (as is done presently) this "uncertainty" will translate into more resources and members for sections. Any central costs (or Sarasota, Executive Committee functions, etc.) that are not recouped through their own revenue-making would be charged out to revenue centers (e.g., sections) and subject them (for the first time) to the critical scrutiny and market discipline of the latter.

3. MYTH: The motion will reduce section membership and revenues.

   Fact: Without the compulsion to choose a so-called "Association-wide" journal, and a greater freedom to choose from section journals, ceterus paribus, sections are no worse of (and could be considerably better off) under the motion.

Motion 2: 50 Members Minimum To Form And Maintain A Section

1. MYTH: Smaller sections would require more seats at Council.

   Fact: The 50 member minimum only applies to the formation and continuation of sections; it does not change the minimum entitlement to a Council seat.

2. MYTH: The proposal would award the same number of Council votes to a section with 50 members as it does to a section with 1000.

   Fact: This criticism also applies to the present situation (between a 400 versus 1000 member section). The problem would be remedied by adopting a form of proportional representation.

3. MYTH: The current 400 member requirement is reasonable because it represents 5% of the Associations membership for support.

   Fact: Why is it "unreasonable" for 4%, 2%, or 1% of members to want to form an interest group within the AAA, provided they pay-their-way?

4. MYTH: More sections would place a strain on room-space at regional and national meetings.

   Fact: There is no rule entitling sections to room-space and sessions at meetings. However more sections will increase the attendance at meetings, increasing total revenue and thus the resources available to regional and national organizers.

Motion 3: The Democratic Election Of The AAA President

1. MYTH: The role of the Council would be significantly diminished.

   FACT: The Council could endorse its own candidates, and thus play an active role in the process. The motion's net effect is to extend the franchise directly to the membership; they are currently "spoken for" under the present arrangement.

2. MYTH: The current process works and is efficient (although maybe not democratic).

   FACT: If the system "works", why has AAA membership declined consistently over the last 15 years? If the system "works", why has the Association experienced a protracted financial crisis throughout this period? If the system "works", why have an unrepresentative group of members from research-oriented schools dominated the AAA (see Paul Gerhardt's Florida address). The questions surely are, "Works for Whom?" and "Efficient for Whom?"

3. MYTH: The proposal leaves unanswered several important questions.

   Fact: The three motions deal with the important questions; obviously follow-up motions will be required to deal with the new circumstances they engender. If all eventualities had been anticipated in a long list of motions from the outset, members would be overwhelmed with the detail.