The information found on this page is not the opinion
of the MNA staff or Board of Directors. These are the questions
and opinions of MNA members who have written, emailed, or phoned
into the MNA to ask questions or to express their opinion on the
MNA's future and its relationship with the ANA. The Affiliation/Disaffiliation
Task Force reviews and responds to most/all questions and member
opinions are posted intact. Questions, answers, and opinions are
posted here and in the MassNurse newsletter so that all MNA members
may benefit from the information. If you have any questions please
call the MNA at 800.882.2056, x755 or 781.821.4625, x755.
Questions & Answers:
Below is a running list of questions, simply
click on each for the answer.
Q: Is it true that the ANA is, in fact, running
out of funds and will it be $2 million short by the year 2002?
A: ANA response: ANA enjoys a strong financial
position despite the last two-to-three years of planned deficit
spending. In addition to significant board designated reserves for
AJN subscriptions, ANA has significant operating reserves. These
reserves are currently at 31 percent of the annual expense budget.
This level of operating reserves exceeds the House of Delegates
(HOD) mandated reserve level by 6 percent. The ANA board is committed
to ensuring that ANA's operating reserves will not fall below the
25 percent level mandated HOD policy. Note: This answer reflects
the position of ANA and does not reflect the opinion of the Massachusetts
Nurses Association or its members.
Back to Top
Q: How do nurses from California feel now? Are
they happy that they are not affiliated with the ANA any longer?
What would their issues be after being disaffiliated with them?
A: The MNA is unable to respond for the nurses
of California.
Back to Top
Q: Could the MNA kindly send me a list of the
legislation that the ANA has passed in the last 10 years?
A: Click here
to view ANA's response to this question.
Members may also call the MNA and request
a mailed or faxed copy of the document. Please call 800-882-2056,
x728.
Back to Top
Q: How is the MNA any different than the ANA
in terms of staff nurse candidates for office at ANA?
A: ANA response: There were 11 out of 30
members or 37 percent who were final candidates for office, who
indicated on their biographical form that they were staff nurses.
The definition of staff nurse is printed on the biographical form.
However, there is no obligation that the candidate had to mark that
box unless they were running for a designated staff position.
Staff nurse is defined as one who is non-supervisory,
non-managerial and includes one or more of the following:
* is employed by a health care institution
or agency;
* whose primary role is a provider of direct patient
care; and
* is collective bargaining eligible under applicable
labor law.
MNA response: MNA does not ask members running for MNA offices to
define themselves so this question is difficult to answer. In the
2000 election, there are an estimated 43.4 percent staff nurse candidates
running for office. Staff nurses are defined as nurses in direct
care who are not in a supervisory position or advanced practice.
Based on that definition, the breakdown of members running for office
is as follows:
| Category |
Number |
Percent |
| Staff Nurses |
33 |
43.4% |
Educators/Faculty/
Staff Development/Clinical Leaders |
13 |
17.1% |
| Administrators/Case Managers/ Supervisors |
12 |
15.8% |
| Retired/Unemployed |
7 |
9.25 |
| Nurse Practitioners |
5 |
6.55 |
| Private Practice/Other |
4 |
5.3% |
| Not Identified |
2 |
2.7% |
| Totals |
76 |
100% |
Back to Top
Q: If disaffiliation goes through, will any of
the $85 per member per year that MNA saves be passed on to the members
via dues reduction? If not, what specifically does MNA plan to do
with that money?
A: MNA Response: The bylaw
proposal as written states that the money will be retained by
MNA. As proposed, that money will not pass onto members as a dues
reduction. The proponents of disaffiliation have expressed their
views on the use of that money. We would refer you to the Massachusetts
Nurse articles in August, September and October, as well as looking
at the MNA web site's ANA Affiliation/Disaffiliation
page for positions in this regard. We also encourage you to
attend one of the Town
Meetings being held around the state to obtain more detailed
information.
Back to Top
Q. Is it possible to do a mail ballot to vote
on bylaw amendments related to MNA disaffiliation from the American
Nurses Association?
A. No. The MNA bylaws state that "bylaws
may be amended by a 2/3 vote at any regular or special business
meeting." The MNA annual business meeting is scheduled for November
9. The current MNA bylaws do not allow a mail ballot.
Back to Top
Q. Is it possible to extend the hours to vote
because of working commitments so a nurse can vote?
A. The MNA business meeting is scheduled
to begin at 1 p.m. We don't anticipate discussions of the bylaw
amendment to begin until after 2 p.m. and we anticipate a lengthy
debate, but there is no way to predict when the vote will be taken.
You must be present to vote.
We have plans underway to develop a system that
will allow members to call into the business meeting on that day
to find out where we are in the process and when the vote for disaffiliation
may be taken. There will be more information on this process in
the October Massachusetts Nurse
Q. Do you have to be a member of ANA to be certified
by the American Nurses Credentialing Center?
A. No. You do not need to be a member of
ANA/state nurses association to be certified. If you are a member
of ANA through your state nurses association, you do receive a discount
on certification and recruitment fees.
Back to Top
Q. If MNA disaffiliates with ANA, can I still
be a member of ANA? In other words, is there a way to be a member
of ANA without belonging to a SNA?
A. No. The only way an individual can belong
to the ANA is through membership in a State Nurses Association or
the Federal Nurses Association (for nurses in the armed services)
affiliated with the ANA. Therefore, if the MNA votes to disaffiliate
and you wish to continue your membership with the ANA, you would
need to join another State Nurses Association.
Back to Top
Q. Can the ANA be required to release to its
members an annual budget of monies collected and expended?
A. The American Nurses Association is a federated
structure comprised of State Nurses Associations. Therefore, the
state nurses association is the member of ANA and not the individual
nurse. MNA received annual budget reports from the American Nurses
Association that are regularly shared with the MNA Board of Directors.
In addition, the budget is discussed at the ANA Constituent Assembly
that is comprised of the Presidents and Executive Directors of each
state association.
The budget is made available to elected MNA delegates
to the annual ANA House of Delegates. At the ANA House of Delegates,
a Finance Forum is held at which delegates are able to ask questions
about the budget.
Back to Top
Q. Where do the candidates for MNA offices stand
on the issue of affiliation?
A. That question would need to be answered
by the individual candidates. Please refer to the candidates' biographies
and individual statements that were inserted in the August Massachusetts
Nurse or check them on the web site at elections.htm
Back to Top
Q. If MNA separates from ANA, will there be more
support for nurses against those things that are happening to them
because of the actions of the BORN?
A. It is not possible to answer the question
as stated. MNA has consistently dedicated its resources to address
the proposed BORN disciplinary regulations and other BORN issues
that impact nurses. Strategic planning, including such initiatives
related to work with government agencies, is under the direction
of MNA Board of Directors, that answer to the membership.
Back to Top
Editorial Opinions:
Below are three letters to the editor we have received
about the ANA Affiliation/Disaffiliation issue. The MNA welcomes
letters to the editor for publication in the Massachusetts Nurse
and on the Web site. We intend to print as many letters to the editor
as space allows. Letters that don't make it in the Massachusetts
Nurse will be posted on the MNA web site. Letters for publication
in the Massachusetts Nurse should be limited to 250 words in length.
Letters for the web site can be any length.
Power in Unity: Stay with ANA
I joined MNA last year after having had the opportunity to hear
a compelling and moving Keynote speech by Beverly Malone at the
Mass/NH NP Convention. Bev convinced me that it was my responsibility
to be a part of a powerful nursing organization that could be my
watchdog and work for the betterment of nursing in America and in
the world. Power comes from unity among nurses, who comprise the
largest group of health care providers. Unfortunately, for many
of the reasons Bev discussed in her speech, nurses find a multitude
of ways to cut into their power base by fighting among themselves.
This recent movement by some of the nurses in the MNA to leave the
ANA is an example of how nurses strive to divide their power base.
I joined the MNA because that was my way to be a part of the ANA
and I do not want to lose that affiliation. I did not join MNA/ANA
only because of the need to better working conditions for nurses.
In fact, I am not a part of the bargaining unit. ANA offers educational
opportunities, Credentialing and a voice for nurses in Washington
that would be lost if MNA is no longer a part of the organization.
I do not want to lose that!
Furthermore, I think decisions of this nature should be made by
the entire MNA membership and that every effort must be made to
have a vote by the entire membership. To that end, I think that
any decision making should be made by a ballot mailed to the entire
MNA membership so that everyone has a voice rather than only the
relative few nurses who can take the time to attend meetings in
far away locations.
Myra F. Cacace, MAS, RN, CS
Nurse Practitioner, UMass/Memorial Medical Group
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Time To Cut Ties To ANA
As nurses across the state debate the issue of leaving the American
Nurses Association (Nurses' group considers seceding, 8/2/00), they
should ask themselves what the ANA has actually done that benefits
direct care nurses. While the organization issues position statements
on many important issues, these have little real weight. Complaints
to hospital management that cite the ANA position on unsafe staffing
levels is like giving your employer a note from your mother.
The national nurses union created by the ANA is powerless. The
funds for this organization must be approved by a board of directors
that is heavily weighted by nursing managers, and membership in
the organization is open to states with no active or proposed collective
bargaining.
The ANA claims to be the national parent organization for all nurses,
however nurses in the Commonwealth need to face the fact that we've
grown up, and it's time to cut the apron strings.
Teana Gilinson, RN
Staff Nurse
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
What Has ANA Done?
Regarding the Stay with ANA position in June/July edition of Mass
Nurse I would like to ask- Am I missing something? The Committee
to Preserve ANA Affiliation claims "ANA is nursing's national voice"
and "MNA has received financial support" from ANA. We had better
receive "financial support" from ANA! MNA members give over one
million dollars in dues every year to ANA. How much financial support
have we received? What about New York State, Illinois, Minnesota?
How many millions does ANA take in annually from all other SNA's?
How much "financial support" do other SNA's receive? The "profession"
of nursing is on the verge of extinction. As "nursing's national
voice" I hope ANA is willing to own some responsibility for this.
Much of damage done to nurses and to the profession of nursing has
happened in the last decade. In that time ANA has received over
$12 million from MNA alone!
What is clear in both columns is that MNA is a leader in nursing.
And according to the column signed by the Committee to Preserve
ANA Affiliation, the MNA has also been leading the ANA! The " voice
on Capital Hill" regarding the St.Vincent nurses came right from
Massachusetts, not ANA. I personally would like to hear why the
California Nurses Association left ANA five years ago? I think we
should run a column by leaders of California Nurses Association
answering why they left? If MNA disaffiliates with ANA we will save
$6 million dollars in the next five years!
Marie Waters RN
Somerville, MA
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Re-visioning our Nursing Organizations in a Restructured Health
Care World
When I first heard of the effort by members of the MNA to disaffiliate
from ANA I was shocked. I have been active in the MNA for almost
25 years, I have served at the highest levels of the ANA and I have
been proud to be a spokesperson representing the interests of nurses
on behalf of the ANA. I argued vociferously with members of the
California Nurses Association against disaffiliation several years
ago. But now, faced with such a momentous change in my own state
association I had to stop, pause and take a long hard introspective
look at why this was happening now.
I have close personal and professional relationships with men and
women who feel strongly about both sides of the disaffiliation question.
It has been difficult to know what the "right" thing was to do.
Staff nurses are faced with ethical and professional dilemmas everyday
in their practice. As a nurse educator I tell my students when you
are faced with what appears to be a hopelessly complicated situation,
ask yourself, what is best for the patient. So I stopped to ask
myself, never mind what your friends on the Labor Cabinet think,
never mind what your friends and colleagues who are Past or current
Presidents think, what do you believe is best for nursing. How should
we design organizational structures that are optimally equipped
to address the most onerous challenges facing nursing today - corporatization
and the shift from health care as an essential social good to a
commodity.
Like any true dilemma, there was no obvious answer to this question.
Overtime, I have come to the conclusion that for ANA to grow and
thrive it is best that the labor or collective bargaining arm of
the association, be separated. It has been my observation, that
the more ANA has tried to act like a labor organization, the more
members it has lost, the more it has been riddled with debt and
the more acrimony there has been among states and other affiliated
members. I believe that in the long-term, nurses will be better
served if the ANA focuses on a core mission rather than trying to
be all things to all nurses. Ideally I believe that the core mission
of ANA should be to coordinate and communicate activities among
nursing specialty organizations.
While staff nurses represent a sizable number of members of the
ANA they are not the only members. Nurse managers, educators, researchers
and nurses in advanced practice - all are members of the ANA. In
simpler times, enroachments on professional practice were generally
faced and fought uniformly by nurses in a variety of roles. But
times have changed and increasingly nurses' interests are in conflict
with one another.
The corporatized health care marketplace has paralleled trends
in the US economy. Just as there has been an erosion of the middle
class and a bifurcation of American society into "haves" and "have-nots"
there has been a similar bifurcation of the nursing profession.
Some nurses have achieved unprecedented power, status and wealth
- while others have been deskilled and degraded setting the stage
for a record number of strikes and job actions. As the militancy
of staff nurses intensified, the differences between the two groups
grew starker.
The social class differences between nursing "elites" and the "rank
and file" have long been a lingering source of uneasiness within
the ANA. But the rapid corporatization of the American health care
system has shattered the fragile tolerance each group had for the
contrast in vision in how to best advance the nursing profession.
Many will argue that the professional and labor interests of nurses
are intertwined. Practically speaking, in the daily working lives
of staff nurses, yes. Historically strikes of staff nurses have
been precipitated by "professional" issues (i.e. - mandatory overtime),
rather than traditional "bread and butter" issues associated with
organized labor. However, as both a practical and organizational
matter, to continue to expect one organization to simultaneously
address the interests of both groups is to assure the ANA will consumed
with internal conflicts and divisions.
We all may wish it weren't so, but in my mind, a vote not to disaffiliate
is to delay the inevitable. The single most compelling fact in this
regard is that most registered nurses in the US belong to labor
organizations, not professional organizations like the ANA or it's
state affiliates and these numbers are rapidly growing. This "fact"
shouldn't be construed as an indictment against the ANA. On the
contrary, in virtually every industrialized country in the world,
the labor interests of nurses are represented by organizations separate
from those promoting nurses' professional interests. The experiences
of organizations representing nurses' professional interests globally,
and if we are to be honest, are own experience here, show us that
one organization can not do it all, or do it all well. It's simply
asking too much.
-- Judy Shindul-Rothschild
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Resuscitating professional nursing
Rational accommodation of systems which have failed miserably to
support nurses and our work is no longer an option. Ten years ago
while working on my BSN, student nurses questioned a nursing luminary
on why the nursing profession fails to exert powerful leadership?
We noted that the grass roots ecology movement, women's movement
and gay rights movement all had a global impact between 1970 and
1990, with in only 20 years. The professor was unable to respond.
Yet, professional nursing still ponders the question of entry level
nursing education and whether nurses should return to wearing caps?
(This was a recent debate in The American Nurse.)
A decade later we have witnessed what the anti-smoking movement
has done to the powerful tobacco industry in only 10 years. Now,
as the nation experiences a significant number of RN's unwilling
to work in nursing and plummeting enrollment in nursing programs,
there is fierce debate on whether MNA should continue paying $1.2
million a year to our Washington, D.C. based "national voice," which
represents less than 7 percent of U.S. registered nurses.
Freeing ourselves of fossilized bureaucracy is the first step to
resuscitating professional nursing with the talent and energy that
is still left. It can also send a message to potential nurses that
professional nursing provides room for participating in challenging
and exciting change and growth, not just victimized whining. Staff
nurses are the true leaders of the profession. We should receive
the support we need to move forward from our professional organizations.
John Bogrett, RN
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
ANA is the voice of nursing
Our forebears who founded ANA in 1896 organized graduate nurses
for purposes of providing professional and financial assistance.
Lavinia Dock, an articulate spokeswoman for the professionalization
of nursing, outlined the functions of a national association of
trained nurses saying it was "a policy-making body which supports
standards, sets forth principles of conduct and promotes the goals
and objectives of the nursing profession".
ANA served as the united voice for professional nurses; state organizations
worked with legislatures and individual institutions to assure nurses
would be "largely responsible for setting the standards of nursing
practice and nursing education." With "To advance we must unite"
as its organizing slogan, ANA moved nursing from an occupation controlled
by powerful others to a profession controlled by nurses.
Other health care professions have one national organization with
state chapters or affiliates. Nurses have learned by experience
that we must speak with one voice if our message of high standards
of nursing care and ethical principles of nursing practice is to
be heard. To lose our affiliation with ANA, representing all nurses
regardless of specialty or arena of practice, will weaken our voice
at the national level, send the message that no one organization
speaks for nursing, and dilute our power as a profession. Worse,
others in power positions will dictate the terms of practice and
education. To suggest that disaffiliation from ANA will strengthen
MNA is to discount what history has already taught us.
ANA is the voice of nursing. MNA must remain affiliated with ANA.
Joellen W. Hawkins, RNC, Ph.D., FAAN
Lucy Lincoln Drown
Nursing History Society
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Master of our own ship
It is not about the ANA. The ANA can not and will not be a tool
that aids the Massachusetts' nurses as we deal with our healthcare
system in chaos and nursing in crisis.
It is about the MNA. We must move confidently into a future where
we can direct our own resources (an additional $1.2 million without
an "out of pocket" increase in dues) and target those initiatives
that will advance the priorities of staff nurses. We shall form
working partnerships with like-minded nurses throughout our country
with an energized membership and a stronger better supported MNA
staff.
"Put your money where your mouth is" is a street phase appropriate
to our situation. We say we are "patient advocates," the "first
and last line of defense in this present bottom line driven healthcare
crisis," that "nurses are not exploitable or expendable," and that
the "integrity of the nursing profession must be upheld." We know
we have reached the lines in the sand where compromise is not the
answer. Solutions do exist, however, and will be reached by those
wise and brave enough to defend these principles and demand those
solutions.
We are the people who launched the "Safe Care Campaign," initiated
the BORN Reform Committee, supported Barry Adams, Massachusetts'
"Whistleblower" and won the strike at St. Vincent's Hospital against
the second largest for-profit in the country. We are ready to be
the master of our own ship.
Let's get on with it. We have a lot of work to do.
Denise Garlick RN
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Time to stand united as a profession
I strongly support open discussion and debate on the proposed bylaw
change regarding disaffiliation from ANA. However, I can not support
the proposed change in bylaws. These are my reasons:
Nursing/health care chaos can not be blamed on the lack of leadership
at the ANA, could they have done more? Sure retrospectively, but
we could all function better with 20/20 hindsight. I believe that
we as nurses have a duty to self and to the profession and I do
not believe it is in the best interest of the profession to fracture
and divide the power of a unified professional organization.
I believe it is time to stand united as a profession and fix the
ills with in the national organization. It is not time to turn our
backs on the profession. We must not sever ties with the national
organization because Massachusetts has a very strong, skilled and
talented pool of nurses. It would be devastating to the nation and
the profession if we dis-affiliate, we (ANA and the nation) would
lose a voice, which cares and has the power to make change. I saw
the power when Massachusetts' delegates defeated the proposed changes
in the code of ethics, which we in Massachusetts did not feel spoke
to all nurses. The challenge is to work with in the current system,
and make changes from with in. I ask you to vote on Nov. 9 at the
open business meeting.
Mary McCormick-Gendzel
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
ANA no longer meets our needs
The ANA no longer meets the needs of nurses in a progressive state
such as ours. We are past the point where we are impressed by the
temperate tones of ANA position papers. Position papers are merely
words on paper. Nurses in Massachusetts need action.
We need to act to protect patient care by forcing health care administrators
to provide adequate staffing levels. We need to act to protect nurses
from the abuses of mandatory overtime. We need to act to assure
that health care is available and affordable for all citizens of
the commonwealth.
Position papers will not make these things happen. We need financial
resources and MNA leadership that is committed to fostering these
and other similar goals. Some of the leaders are in place, the rest
are on the ballot - Garlick, Joubert, Healey, Watts, Arthur, Ouellette,
and Adams. The financial resources will be available to us if we
stop sending $1.2 million to ANA each year.
MNA accomplishments are cited in almost every argument that urges
a continued affiliation with the ANA. We can accomplish even more
if we are not hindered by a national organization no longer meets
the needs of the majority of its membership.
-- Teana Gilinson, RN
Staff Nurse
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation page
Leaving ANA will cost MNA members
On Nov. 9, the members of MNA will vote on disaffiliation from
ANA. I plan to be there. I do know that the vote to disaffiliate
is more than a vote to leave ANA. You can be sure that those who
want members to vote in favor of disaffiliation have plans way beyond
just leaving ANA. That vote on Nov. 9 will be step one in a larger
plan to form another national organization. Meetings have already
been held with MNA members and groups in California.
An important question for members to think about is the funding
for the new national organization. It has been said that if members
vote to disaffiliate, the money that is now sent to ANA will be
kept in Massachusetts. Don't believe it! I believe that MNA dues
money will eventually be used to form a new national organization
that we as members know little about today.
How would MNA members benefit from a new national organization
that will take years to build and years to exert any power and influence
in Washington, D.C.? We can get that work done with ANA now. What
guarantees that this new group can do it better and what is the
long term cost to nursing?
So why are we leaving ANA? We need to stay and change ANA to make
it more powerful, more effective. We need to keep nursing together.
We do not need another national organization – the costs are too
high for me.
-- Meg Perry
Staff Nurse, Cambridge Hospital
Back to Top
Back to Affiliation/Disaffiliation
page
