Here is my memo to the TESOL Board of Directors last fall when they were deciding on whether to cut ET back from 4 to 3 issues in order to save US$16,000. This memo was largely written by the editor of ET, Tim Stewart, but it represents the views of the entire Editorial Board of Essential Teacher. The memo was distributed to ET's editorial board several days before it was sent to the Board of Directors for consideration. Every member of the ET Editorial Board had the opportunity to vet and revise the memo. The memo was approved by the Editorial Board of Essential Teacher and represents the view of the entire board. The professional TESOL colleagues who reviewed and approved of this memorandum were:
Tim Stewart, Phil Quirke, Shannon Sauro, Christine Meloni, Mercedes Rossetti, Eileen Whelan Ariza, Judie Haynes, Jim Hughes, Debbie Zacarian, Andy Curtis, Ke Xu, Dorothy Zemach.
October 10, 2006
From: Tim Stewart, Essential Teacher editor
To: TESOL Board of Directors
Re: Proposal to cut Essential Teacher annual production by one-fourth
This message is in response to the Sept. 18, 2006 memo directed at me and the SPC chair Kim Marie Cole from the chair of the finance committee Christine Coombe and TESOL’s CEO Mr. Charles S. Amorosino, Jr. My response to that abrupt memorandum will revolve mostly around process since it has always been clear to me that good decisions generally come out of good decision-making processes. I will argue that this decision-making process is fundamentally flawed and that the process in fact is counter to everything TESOL is meant to stand for. The facts speak for themselves, this is a top-down decision made in the absence of any consultation whatsoever with the principals directly concerned. I can only hope that this obvious and dismaying fact does not reveal an authoritarian tendency within the association, whether intentional or not.
To enlighten the board members, let me share with you that I did manage to have the head office arrange an ex-post facto conference call with me, something that clearly should have been done weeks earlier. Since there was such a rush to get this done, the SPC was not represented on this call; a fact that further points to the haphazard nature of this action. Mr. Amorosino, in defense of his leadership style claims that he knew this proposal would ruffle feathers and so did not wish to upset me until hearing whether the Finance Committee would accept his budget suggestions. I do not know when these suggestions were eventually accepted, but in between that time and the time the memo of September 18 was sent out, no attempt was made to inform me or anyone else concerned about the proposal. I also wonder whether anyone on the Finance Committee thought it odd that the editor of the publication had not been consulted before accepting this proposal from the top. If not, that is a very sad statement indeed. Hopefully, they were not misled into believing that I had been consulted as the memorandum could be interpreted to suggest. This would amount to lying outright. In addition, after the memo was fired into my inbox, there was no attempt whatsoever to contact me or consult with me. That means 12 days went by without the courtesy of any attempt by the people running the association to contact the editor of the publication that they propose to radically cut. Thus, it was only after I learned of this proposal upon opening the one-page memo and went slightly ballistic that any contact was forthcoming from head office. If, as Mr. Amorosino said to me last Thursday, he knew that I would be upset, why would he not immediately take the matter in hand and attempt to explain his position in a clear and upfront way that we should expect of professionals and corporate officers? This basic type of proactive interaction would seem on an interpersonal level to be at least a common courtesy, if not the kind of open communicative behaviour we should expect of the top person in the association. Lying low in the virtual thicket of email traffic and waiting for things to die down hardly seems like a sign of open lines of communication, inclusion and democratic decision-making. Leaders lead by their actions and this means consultation, not after-the-fact excuses and spin. I thought communication was supposed to be our bread and butter.
After listening quietly to about 15 minutes of explanation during the conference call, I finally spoke up and asked a simple and direct question of Mr. Amorosino: “Is this a major or a minor decision? How would you characterize it?” His response? He flat out refused, he absolutely refused to give me a straight answer and this reveals something troubling to me. You should certainly talk out a decision before you make it, and after you make a decision, you must be ready to talk straight about it. Hiding behind circumlocution and vagueness, is simply not honest. I don’t doubt that Mr. Amorosino feels he acts sincerely and I would imagine that he believes that he is open in his decision-making, however, his actions on this matter display something quite the opposite.
My point is a simple one, bad processes lead to bad decisions. We need only look at what governments and corporate giants have managed to foul up in recent years to see the truth of this. Now please excuse my ignorance concerning TESOL governance, but I rather idealistically imagined that TESOL is an international association that seeks to build bridges, open communication amongst people who feel a deep commitment to nurture teachers and students, as well as educate those outside of our field as to what the association stands for. So what do we stand for? Are we about inclusion, tolerance, openness and dialogue or not? If not, please proceed to cancel my membership immediately. If so, these great principles are not to be treated as just words on the page, we have to try our best at every turn to practice them. If our own executive refuses to uphold these principles, then I suggest that TESOL should stop the farce and close up shop. Without principles, there is no point to education or meaning in life. Actions speak much louder than words and at the current moment it occurs to me that the board members need to walk the talk or you could endanger the existence of the association.
My plea to you is again very simple. Let’s have inclusion, dialogue, and transparency in decision-making. I ask that this decision be postponed until after the Seattle convention in March 2007. By the way, after evading my simple question rather slickly Mr. Amorosino finally did admit several times during our phone conversation that this is indeed a MAJOR decision. Perhaps he failed to see a need to consult the Essential Teacher team because he first mistook this decision to be relatively minor in nature. I can only speculate about that. In fact, I can only speculate about this entire proposal since I was completely unaware of it and the rationale behind the decision. Reflecting again on the current trends in public and corporate governance, a pattern does seem to emerge. Allow me to emphasize for you all once more, bad processes lead to bad decisions. Let’s keep this on the table and talk it out in a fair and responsive manner that reflects the fundamental principles of our association. Anything less can only seem like facilitating the will of authority. This process is clearly unfair since the talking points have all been set without proper dialogue between those most directly involved. Counter proposals, though encouraged in my very belated consolation conference call, cannot possibly be made from this distance with no solid information and in this short time period. You are the board and so you decide. But before you vote ask yourself how comfortable you feel about essentially railroading through a decision. Examining how the process has unfolded, what other conclusion can be drawn? Rubber stamp if you will, but beware of potential consequences that could do severe damage to this association.
Mr. Amorosino, as you know, lays the issue out as being a dollars and cents one caused by a steep decline in advertising revenues. He argues forcefully that he has charted a win-win course for all concerned. Perhaps he’s right, but just because Mr. Amorosino say’s so, don’t make it so. It could turn out to be a lose-lose in the end. Rushed processes and top-down decisions can lead to very unfortunate results that even the highest political and corporate offices have suffered. Working in a bubble in Alexandria and making decisions without getting out to consult even the most directly impacted groups, doesn’t strike me as effective leadership in an association supposedly based upon transparency, dialogue and democracy in decision-making. Since he finally did admit to me that this is indeed a major decision for the association, why rush it through? Major decisions should be made with great care after a full airing of views. Rushing in can turn out very badly in hindsight. Waiting until the 2008 volume year hardly seems like it will lead to the destruction of the association. It might even make people feel that they have had some input into any eventual decision. Again, is TESOL about inclusion and dialogue, or isn’t it? These things involve undertaking processes that can be messy, but without them all the association is doing is mouthing fine words. I am reminded again of the current public relations fetish that governments and corporate giants favour to silence dissent. For those readers who may think my tone is too strong, I would suggest that you remind yourselves what this association is meant to stand for and consider how we are to promote those ideals in good conscience if our decision-making actions do not reflect them. Actions speak louder than words. Or is the TESOL mission and vision statement simply a public relations tool? I suggest that your vote on this matter puts this question to the test.
Now, do we all jump on the ‘win-win’ bandwagon and chant the slogan, allow it to frame the discussion and dutifully raise our flags in support? That is your choice, of course. But what if this turns out to be the wrong direction? Who actually supports this association, advertisers or the general membership? What do TESOL members receive for their membership dues? I believe it’s four issues of Essential Teacher, a discount when attending the annual convention, and for those with Internet access TESOL Connections and the association Web site. Why was Essential Teacher started? Was it started as a vehicle for advertisers? How do we know, as Mr. Amorosino claims, that decision makers in education do not read Essential Teacher? Has he talked with decision makers to confirm his intuition? If so, how many has he talked with about this and over what specific period of time? Are we to rush into a major decision based on intuition without considering who the publication was created for? Do decision makers read ads in the TESOL Quarterly or on the Web site? How do we know?
I continue to hear what strikes me as a growing chorus of TESOL members complaining about the high cost of membership to the association. Membership has been flat for the past 15 years or so. Increasing our membership is obviously the challenge and I know that many of you are actively working to try and do that. But what does a member receive for their money? Essential Teacher is what they receive. It’s the face of TESOL. It’s the flagship publication of the association. Are there problems with Essential Teacher? Sure there are. After all, we haven’t even published for a full three years. I am aware of many of the issues that need to be tackled to improve the publication. Please understand we are working hard to implement changes that will make Essential Teacher attractive to as much of the membership as possible. Most unfortunately, the founding editor passed away and I have only been at the helm for nine months. The feeling of the volunteers who sweat over our flagship publication toward this proposal is that we are being let down and undercut just when we are beginning to get some traction. It takes time to establish a brand. There are things I want to change about the publication, but I need the association’s full support to accomplish anything. Give the publication the time it deserves to become established. If you agree to the proposal before you, Essential Teacher will come out three times per year instead of four. Mr. Amorosino and others can try and spin this as a win, but cutting one-fourth of annual issues is unlikely to be viewed positively by practitioners. And aren’t these people the base of the association?
After dumping the TESOL Journal and raising hackles for that decision, now the TJ is coming back and ET is getting cut back. All of these rather confusing decisions have been made in the short space of a mere couple of years. One should not be labeled a cynic for wondering aloud just what the heck the leaders of the association are doing. Essential Teacher is well liked by much of the membership, with grumbles from some “academic professionals” who no doubt find it beneath them to read. What happens if the highly anticipated win-win result that we are assured of, turns out to be just another empty corporate slogan from those at the top talking down to the grassroots they have lost touch with? An alternative result could be that members will come to feel cheated and think twice about renewing their membership. In fact, the issue should not be focused solely on helping advertisers, it must be about satisfying the membership. Will three issues instead of four of the flagship publication be a winner with the K-12 crowd? What will be the next slogan should membership numbers begin to drop after this decision is rushed through, “Oops, we should have consulted more”? Again, I suggest that this major decision deserves very careful consideration.
Having said that, I do agree that we should try to trim costs for the publication by looking at paper weight, colour and margin space. Some savings should come from changes with regard to these things and I believe some changes could make ET appear more readable. Assuming the advertising revenue drop is not merely an anomaly, has any attempt been made to make the publication available at a special rate to non-member teachers and administrators? Couldn’t we promote it to other teacher associations through mail outs, free samples and booths at other conventions? Teachers might want to know more about the students in their classes but might not want to pay for the full membership just to receive four publications a year. As one example, a colleague working for ET wrote:
In California, I have been very frustrated because teachers who have read the magazine want to know how to buy it, and I have to say that they must join TESOL, which would be good, of course, but $75 for a quarterly is a lot of money. California teachers tend to join CABE (California Association of Bilingual Educators) rather than TESOL or even CATESOL. I would love to be able to tell teachers that they can subscribe to ET for a price that is reasonable.
Another suggestion for raising revenue is to accept classified ads such as job position announcements, especially for those places that hire regularly, such as ELS, and the Peace Corps. What about trying to entice some advertisers to place 1+ page advertising supplements that look like articles? These seem to be more and more popular in newspapers and magazines and would allow companies with educational products a chance to sell an idea to educators via an extensive pitch. Should we offer pop-up windows and sound ads on the online version of ET and the Web site? Can we save money in mailing costs by sending TQ subscribers both the TQ and ET in a single envelope? Are we promoting ET with libraries and do we have a reasonable library subscription rate for the publication in order to generate funds? Since we do run many pieces on the use of technology in teaching have we approached Apple or even Microsoft about placing ads in ET?
Keep in mind that these ideas came to light through an open email dialogue that I had with members of the publication team between October 3~6. After the initial shock and anger at the memo describing the proposal to slash ET back subsided, the clear thinking of creative and caring professionals began to emerge. However, there is not enough time for us to match the dazzlingly complete paperwork of the CEO. He holds all the cards. He has carefully controlled the flow of information and the result is that here at the 11th hour those of us left out of the loop have two feet and one hand bound. Again, I ask you, is this fair and transparent decision-making in action? I find that the brief dialogue that has begun since I have had the chance to open this up one week ago reveals a deep care for the future of the association and a passion to try and do something new and different. Not tapping into the extensive brainpower and networks of association professionals seems shortsighted at best. It appears to me what TESOL needs is a committed and energized base. The question is how do we achieve this? Is it by pushing through top-down decisions classified as being MAJOR by the CEO without adequate time for dialogue even amongst those most affected? I certainly hope not. What is so frightening about extending dialogue on important decisions and being inclusive and transparent? Why is this decision being rushed through at this pace? Is TESOL in such dire straits that there is no time for face-to-face meetings in March to ensure a decision that can reasonably be claimed to be fair, inclusive and transparent? Not giving us little people on the outside time to think and propose proper alternatives, whilst holding all of the information in Alexandria, creates a climate within the TESOL Association that is anti-democratic. Shouldn’t it have occurred to some of the individuals at the top to consult with the editor of the publication in question before pushing the proposal this far through the process? And what kind of process is it then? Is it one you support as a good precedent for the association, or perhaps this is simply business as usual and I should damned well shut up and tend to my own cabbage patch. Again, that is for board members to decide.
Making decisions in a bubble can lead to many unanticipated problems. Get out and solicit views. Do not act in an autocratic fashion on major issues affecting the association. Not soliciting advice or ignoring advice will be the legacy of this decision I’m afraid, should you vote in favour of the proposal before you. Like the fantasy WMDs, we are told there is no alternative. I wonder. But, of course, there conveniently is a tight timetable set so making alternative suggestions is a rather difficult thing, especially when you are basically operating in an information vacuum. Well the teacher-fronted classroom is still with us and all the grand talk of providing students with power and choice seems pretty hypocritical if this is how association affairs are to be conducted. Actions speak louder than words. Don’t turn TESOL’s principles into empty public relations slogans.
You will no doubt hear that this is not actually a cut because it is being framed as a win-win! This is how the related discourse is being controlled by those in authority. Well the last I checked, four minus one equals three and three is one less than four. Wait! The proposal is to have the same pages of content over the year. But what does this mean in practice? Will our columnists write two columns in one issue or have their space doubled? And how will we add more Compleat Links? It will certainly mean more manuscripts to deal with at each deadline. This is a volunteer publication and we are all busy. The ET team gives extensive suggestions on EVERY manuscript submitted even though most will be rejected for various reasons. That is just part of the service we provide to the profession. Those that are accepted then go through several rounds of intensive revision consultation. Keep in mind that ET is actively seeking to promote the work of novice writers and speakers of other languages. Thus, our approach is labour intensive and often results in a very long process of development. And I think this kind of care and nurturing is the future of TESOL in fact. By increasing the load at deadline time, you will be putting more pressure on a dedicated group of volunteers who are already underpaid in comparison to other associations. I asked for more money for our staff but was denied. However, the leadership has no trouble pushing through a proposal to increase the workload of the publication’s staff.
The suggestion has been made by head office, again conveniently without a word of consultation with those of us who actually produce ET, to combine the June and September issues somehow. The rationale explained briefly to me after the fact was that some advertisers wish to place ads in one or perhaps two issues with the most popular being the convention issue (March) and the fall issue (September). Now, which issue is more important? This is a key question because a revised calendar makes both impossible. Obviously, we need a balanced production schedule so producing three issues means one every four months of the calendar year. Is it to be September, January and May? Or perhaps advertisers demand issues in March, July and November? What about the membership, do they figure in this decision? When do they expect to receive the publication? Production does seem to be problematic in action.
This memo represents only a partial airing of my views on this pending decision. If I had more time to think and discuss it openly with friends, colleagues and administrators of the association I know that I would be able to produce a much more cogent appeal. I do apologize for the haphazard content and for the painful logical gaps in my argument, but plead lack of time and information. And I wonder if we are not in fact all feeling those stresses including the people who are proposing this drastic move? I appeal to the board to encourage an open discussion about this proposal. I also must emphasize that TESOL owes far more to its members than we do to advertisers. Since ET is the face of the association, it needs to be nurtured after just three short years. The best is yet to come for the publication so please do not chop it by a quarter on the basis of a deeply flawed decision-making process. It is not only bad decision-making, this process is directly opposed to the very principles that form the foundation of the association. If these principles mean anything in practice, then I say let’s put them into practice. Otherwise, what are all these lofty ideals worth? What’s so funny about dialogue, inclusion and understanding? These things take time to achieve. I for one believe we must take the time necessary to weigh such a major decision for the future of TESOL and I hope you will agree.
You are encouraged to contact me at stewart@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
