At the beginning of the meeting there was a contentious issue: could non-members be in attendance. The objection was raised because there were two NBCRNA staff members present.
One speaker got up to say that they should not be present because she was a state president and she objected to what she referred to as the fear mongering email sent out by the NBCRNA that had put her members on alert, making many calls seeking reassurance that the AANA was not going to adversely affect their certification.
I got up and spoke in favor of allowing them to stay, because we had nothing to hide and if anything, we wanted them to be able to report back to the NBCRNA the tone of the meeting and any information provided.
Evan called the vote – all in favor of letting them stay, please stand. The “Ayes” had it by a significant margin.
Having dealt with that, we moved on to the bylaws put forward by the Nominating committee to address the difficulty they experience in getting qualified candidates for all AANA offices. The Chair of the Nominating Committee spoke in favor, pointing out the types of difficulties her committee faced. She was very persuasive, and was followed by another speaker who supported the amendment.
The Board representative got up and spoke against the amendment.
I was persuaded – I’m voting in favor.
Next, Nancy Sylvester (our parliamentarian) explained conforming amendments, and pointed out that several of the measures before us met that definition – something that was new in the 11th Edition of Robert’s Rules. I had no idea there was now a new edition!! ;>)
The Entity bylaw amendment came up at 7:04 pm.
The maker of the amendment spoke to it, and when it became apparent that he was going to go over his 3-minute limit, the Chair (Evan Koch) asked the assembly if they would permit the speaker to exceed the limit, and it was agreed by consensus.
An AANA Board representative came to speak after that, in favor of the amendment. Emphasized that the Board felt that the “best practice” is that boards need to be able to response to changes, and bylaws should not be restrictive.
A Past AANA President came to the microphone and spoke in favor of the amendment. Her emphasis was on the elected nature of the AANA Board vs. the appointed NBCRNA Board.
A member came forward to express concern that this amendment would allow the AANA to replace the NBCRNA if it passed. An AANA Board member got up to explain how hard that would be, based upon the recognition agreement.
The member said that it would be a long expensive process, and the Board member agreed.
Another member got up and expressed concern that the Board Member’s statement was not “ironclad”.
Two AANA Board members then both addressed the recognition agreement as an “evergreen” contract. They pointed out that we have those agreements with both the COA and NBCRNA.
“The bottom line is, contracts can always be broken, but it would be a long and difficult process”
She then turned the microphone over to general counsel for the AANA, who pointed out that the process is encumbered in a number of ways to make sure that the process is thoughtful and does not happen arbitrarily. If the agreement is followed, it would take at least 9 months for it to happen.
Another AANA Past President got up to speak, she says it not the AANA bylaws that binds us to these councils, but rather the recognition agreements.
A state president got up and chastised the nbcrna for fearmongering. She asked why they left the AANA offices “in the middle of the night”.
A CRNA educator expressed concern over how this affects the COA. He said he was not concerned about the NBCRNA as much as the COA
A member got up and said he wanted more transparency from the NBCRNA. He wanted to know if removing the “perpetual contract” would assist in getting transparency.
A former AANA Board member got up at 7:34 and spoke in favor of the amendment as allowing the Board to be nimble as possible.
An AANA Board member got up to say that how hard the Board had worked on the relationship with the COA. She spoke about a new liaison position that will exist on the nbcrna and the COA.
The chair of COA spoke to the amendment. They take no position. They fully respect the AANA’s ability to address their own bylaws. She spoke in favor of removing prescriptive language from the bylaws.
However, removal of specific reference to the COA opens up risk of other agencies thinking that there is discord. Opens up ability of other credentialing agencies to apply for the position of credentialing . She made reference to the troubles our nursing colleagues are having in this regard.
An AANA Board member got up and made an impassioned plea to understand that the AANA Board would never “pull the rug out” from under practicing CRNAs. He asked that these Boards quit posturing and find solutions for the profession.
A past President got up. He said that if the coa and nbcrna are concerned, they must have concerns about their relevance. He cautioned them – if you are concerned about your security, then you need to address that
A member got up again to address unintended consequences. However, the Chair called the meeting to adjourn due to lack of time.