- Email: [email protected]
Should Federation be a nursing superorganization?
Ediforiul
Should Federation be a nursing superorganizat ion? I have now had the privilege of attending several meetings of the Federation of Nursing Specialty Organizations and ANA (American Nurses' Association). The Federation, which might be likened to a United Nations of nursing, brings together leaders of nursing organizations for discussion of mutual concern. In several states, similar federations are being organized among nursing groups. The Federation, which meets twice yearly, comprises 15 specialty nursing organizations and ANA. Each organization is represented by two members, usually the president and executive director. Presidents-elect are welcome to audit. Each organization has one vote and the voting member must be a registered nurse. At the two most recent meetings, the question of what the Federation i s and what it should be has been discussed at length. Should it be a superorganizution or, as its name implies, a loosely struc:tured Federation? Several of the newer specialty organizations want an aggrlessive, actiontaking Federation. Others, and probably the majority, believe that the Federation
should be a forum for discussion of nursing issues, not a decision- or policy-making group. The specter of a superorganization was raised at the January meeting in Atlanta with a proposal for a self-study of the Federation. Jerome P Lysaught, former director of the National Commission for the Study of Nursing and Nursing Education, presented a formal proposal to study the objectives and organization of the Federation and develop a five-year plan. Although some members were intrigued, the proposal was rejected but not without some sharp discussion. The proposal surfaced some basic conflicts among members. At the June 1974 meeting in Washington, several members were vocal about their dissatisfaction. They felt frustrated. "There i s nothing being accomplished for health care," said one. In discussing the Lysaught proposal, one member said, "We want a more aggressive Federation, one that can take action." Another thought it would be a good idea to sit down and determine the future of the organization. "This is still just a loosely structured organization; our organization wants more." However, one member reminded the group that while she had been vocal about the diffusiveness of the group at the Washington meeting, she now had revised her
AORN Journal, April 1975, Vol 21, No 5
759
feelings. “It i s exciting and challenging to sit down with the president of ANA and the presidents of all these other nursing organizations,” she said. ANA president Rosamond Gabrielson recalled the beginning of the Federation. In the fall of 1972, ANA called a meeting of the specialty organizations because “we wanted to communicate what was happening in ANA and cooperate and collaborate with the specialty organizations.” At the second meeting at San Clemente in January 1973, the concept of a superorganization was rejected by the group. At that meeting, the participants, still nameless, agreed in principle to “convene periodically and be mutually supportive in discussions of issues which face nurses and nursing in influencing constructive change in health care.“ The Federation acquired its name at the next meeting in Denver in June 1973. Although cumbersome, it reflects the autonomy of its members. Acknowledging that historically there had been a “feeling“ about AHA, Ms Gabrielson asserted that she had a positive feeling about this Atlanta meeting. She felt there had been more openness, a sharing, a collaboration between ANA and the specialty organizations that did not exist before. She also explained that ANA i s a complex organization with the House of Delegates as the ultimate authority and that in no way could she speak for the Board of Directors in establishing policy. Representatives of other specialty organizations have stated they also cannot make decisions or establish policy independently of their boards.
younger organizations‘ frustrations, but commented that she had found the discussion of mutual problems at the meetings beneficial. From an observer‘s point of view, increased communication and cooperation are evident at each meeting. Much of the dayand-a-half meeting i s spent discussing progress in such areas as standards of practice, certification, and continuing education. Members learn firsthand what ANA and other specialty nursing organizations are doing. Granted this is often not headline material; however, these discussions gradually are moving nursing organizations into concerted action in appropriate areas. For example, AORN was the first organization to collaborate with ANA on establishing standards of practice. Other organizations have followed. Clara A Donahoo, executive director of the Orthopedic Nurses Association (ONA), asserted that without the Federation meetings, ONA would not have collaborated with ANA on standards of practice for orthopedic nurses. It i s unrealistic to push the Federation in the direction of a policy-making, actiontaking organization for nursing. There is no need for another nursing superorganization. The Federation fulfills an important function as a forum for discussion of nursing issues among nursing organizations and as the basis for cooperation and collaboration among the specialty nursing organizations and ANA. There has been much progress.
Calling some of the things that have happened almost revolutionary, Patricia Rogers, then AORN president, pointed out the difficulty of predicting goals for a five-year period and asserted that in the six-months between meetings, ”things do happen.” She said that she could understand some of the
760
AORN Journal, April 1975, Vol 21, No 5
Elinor
S Schrader Editor
Should Federation be a nursing superorganizat ion? I have now had the privilege of attending several meetings of the Federation of Nursing Specialty Organizations and ANA (American Nurses' Association). The Federation, which might be likened to a United Nations of nursing, brings together leaders of nursing organizations for discussion of mutual concern. In several states, similar federations are being organized among nursing groups. The Federation, which meets twice yearly, comprises 15 specialty nursing organizations and ANA. Each organization is represented by two members, usually the president and executive director. Presidents-elect are welcome to audit. Each organization has one vote and the voting member must be a registered nurse. At the two most recent meetings, the question of what the Federation i s and what it should be has been discussed at length. Should it be a superorganizution or, as its name implies, a loosely struc:tured Federation? Several of the newer specialty organizations want an aggrlessive, actiontaking Federation. Others, and probably the majority, believe that the Federation
should be a forum for discussion of nursing issues, not a decision- or policy-making group. The specter of a superorganization was raised at the January meeting in Atlanta with a proposal for a self-study of the Federation. Jerome P Lysaught, former director of the National Commission for the Study of Nursing and Nursing Education, presented a formal proposal to study the objectives and organization of the Federation and develop a five-year plan. Although some members were intrigued, the proposal was rejected but not without some sharp discussion. The proposal surfaced some basic conflicts among members. At the June 1974 meeting in Washington, several members were vocal about their dissatisfaction. They felt frustrated. "There i s nothing being accomplished for health care," said one. In discussing the Lysaught proposal, one member said, "We want a more aggressive Federation, one that can take action." Another thought it would be a good idea to sit down and determine the future of the organization. "This is still just a loosely structured organization; our organization wants more." However, one member reminded the group that while she had been vocal about the diffusiveness of the group at the Washington meeting, she now had revised her
AORN Journal, April 1975, Vol 21, No 5
759
feelings. “It i s exciting and challenging to sit down with the president of ANA and the presidents of all these other nursing organizations,” she said. ANA president Rosamond Gabrielson recalled the beginning of the Federation. In the fall of 1972, ANA called a meeting of the specialty organizations because “we wanted to communicate what was happening in ANA and cooperate and collaborate with the specialty organizations.” At the second meeting at San Clemente in January 1973, the concept of a superorganization was rejected by the group. At that meeting, the participants, still nameless, agreed in principle to “convene periodically and be mutually supportive in discussions of issues which face nurses and nursing in influencing constructive change in health care.“ The Federation acquired its name at the next meeting in Denver in June 1973. Although cumbersome, it reflects the autonomy of its members. Acknowledging that historically there had been a “feeling“ about AHA, Ms Gabrielson asserted that she had a positive feeling about this Atlanta meeting. She felt there had been more openness, a sharing, a collaboration between ANA and the specialty organizations that did not exist before. She also explained that ANA i s a complex organization with the House of Delegates as the ultimate authority and that in no way could she speak for the Board of Directors in establishing policy. Representatives of other specialty organizations have stated they also cannot make decisions or establish policy independently of their boards.
younger organizations‘ frustrations, but commented that she had found the discussion of mutual problems at the meetings beneficial. From an observer‘s point of view, increased communication and cooperation are evident at each meeting. Much of the dayand-a-half meeting i s spent discussing progress in such areas as standards of practice, certification, and continuing education. Members learn firsthand what ANA and other specialty nursing organizations are doing. Granted this is often not headline material; however, these discussions gradually are moving nursing organizations into concerted action in appropriate areas. For example, AORN was the first organization to collaborate with ANA on establishing standards of practice. Other organizations have followed. Clara A Donahoo, executive director of the Orthopedic Nurses Association (ONA), asserted that without the Federation meetings, ONA would not have collaborated with ANA on standards of practice for orthopedic nurses. It i s unrealistic to push the Federation in the direction of a policy-making, actiontaking organization for nursing. There is no need for another nursing superorganization. The Federation fulfills an important function as a forum for discussion of nursing issues among nursing organizations and as the basis for cooperation and collaboration among the specialty nursing organizations and ANA. There has been much progress.
Calling some of the things that have happened almost revolutionary, Patricia Rogers, then AORN president, pointed out the difficulty of predicting goals for a five-year period and asserted that in the six-months between meetings, ”things do happen.” She said that she could understand some of the
760
AORN Journal, April 1975, Vol 21, No 5
Elinor
S Schrader Editor