Paradoxically, in the last 15 years, the American economy experienced unprecedented economic growth; during the same period, the AAA experienced a secular decline in its membership. The explanation of this paradox has, until recently, remained obscure. Now, with information provided from Paul Gerhardt's farewell address in Orlando in August (after 30 years distinguished service as Executive Director of the AAA) we can explain the paradox of "the managed decline" of the AAA.
Paul Gerhardt noted that currently, the maximum number of AAA members from research (doctoral granting) schools was 1,400; 25% of the membership. The remaining 75% came from teaching oriented schools. During his tenure as Executive Director: 100% of the presidents Paul Gerhardt had known came from the "elite" research schools; as did 94% of executive committees' members, and 73% of the committee chairs. [In contrast, 64% of the section and regional officers (this year and next) come from non-elite teaching oriented schools.]
Paul Gerhardt concluded by noting that those who run the AAA are not representative of the membership. At times, the priorities and policies of the leadership may be at odds with the best interests of the majority of members. In our three motions, we identify three areas in which the interests of the executive and the membership diverge and propose ways of restoring the interests of the majority.
Paul Gerhardt noted in his Orlando address that, "I have received complaints about the readability of THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW for the last 30 years." The changing nature of accounting--the growing importance of teaching, practice, and many new sections--has rendered THE REVIEW increasingly unsuitable as THE journal of the Association. Accordingly, we propose that all journals--including section journals--be put on equal footing; that the membership fee entitle a member to select ANY ONE journal (including a section journal). Sections would, of course, receive the revenues from their journal sales (we will introduce further motions to this effect in due course).
The present minimum number of members needed to form and sustain a section is 400 (the minimum was increased from 200 in the late 1980's in the face of the "threat" of a gender section). A lower limit would allow more sections to form, increase the total range of opportunities available to members, increase total membership numbers (as the greater range of section activities would attract those whose interests were previously neglected) and most important, increase the total energy, participation, and vibrancy of the whole organization.
A recent survey of "membership satisfaction", made known to your executive Committee (but not disclosed to the membership) showed that, of some 23 professional associations, the AAA ranked last on several major dimensions. Another survey of member satisfaction with journals rated THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW 7th (out of 8) section and Association journals. The 15 year decline of the AAA and the present low level of morale is neither inevitable nor unavoidable; you can reverse it by voting "YES!" on the three motions later this year.
The president is currently elected "internally". We contend that members would be better served if presidential candidates were nominated by (50 or more) members, and that qualified candidates presented their program--and even engaged in open debate--about the best way forward for the AAA. For those who fear that this motion would diminish the power of Council, nothing precludes the Council from nominating candidates on its own.