The Board of Directors is pleased to announce we are working to formalize membership structure for the Higher Education Web Professionals Association.
Membership is an important step for the Association, and we want to get it right. Membership represents that we, as an Association, have established ourselves as an acknowledged and respected professional body. It means that we, as professionals, have elected to join a group to support each other. It means that we can join the W3C and contribute to the Web standards we use every day. And it means that we, together, will grow and move forward to continue to advance Web professionals, technologies and standards in higher education.
We considered a number of membership models, based on a survey of similar organizations and on potential member feedback, and believe the initial levels we are proposing represent a positive starting point for the development of Association membership.
Initial benefits of membership at all levels would include:
- Discount on conference registrations
- Access to locked conference and Association-related content
- Early conference registration notice
Further benefits will likely be added in the future, and might include things such as access to white papers/research repositories on technical and professional issues, salary surveys, standards and job descriptions. Much of what is included will depend on feedback from you, our future members.
Please take a moment and to review this proposal, and give us your feedback below. With your help, we anticipate finalizing membership before the first of the year.
Membership Level: Professional
Purpose:
- To provide an official representational body of professional knowledge and support for higher education Web professionals. This will be the most common membership type.
Eligibility:
- Professional employed by an institution of higher education whose area of work (including, but not limited to technical, content, management, emarketing, etc.) contributes to the Web presence of that institution
- Has an .edu email addresses
- Dues paid**
Additional Benefit:
- Eligible for service on the Association Board of Directors
Membership Level: Affiliate
Purpose:
- To allow those who work closely in the higher education sector, but not directly for an institution of higher education, to be a part of the larger higher education Web community.
Eligibility:
- paid consultant or freelancer, not directly employed by an institution of higher education, but predominately works with higher education
- Considered on a case by case application
- Dues paid**
Membership Level: Honorary
Purpose:
- To establish lifetime recognition for outstanding contribution to profession or to the Association
Eligibility:
- Nominated and selected by board resolution
- Limited number per year (Perhaps only one)
Additional Benefits:
- Eligible for service on the Association Board of Directors
- No dues required
Membership Level: Student
Purpose:
- To foster the next generation of Web professionals
Eligibility:
- Sponsored by a Professional Member or by application (considered on a case-by-case basis)
- Must submit a copy of student ID
- May be extended for up to one year after graduation
** Please note: The Board is currently benchmarking to determine the appropriate dues & fee schedule for each membership level.
Great stuff so far!
Outstanding work, as usual.
Initial comment I have is to ask for clarification on the Eligibility section of Affiliates. Was it worded this way to exclude non-consultant, non-freelancer members of the Higher Ed vendor community?
Obviously, this question comes from a place near and dear to my heart
Great question! No, the idea with Affiliates is to make sure there’s a space for folks who are not directly employed by colleges but who DO contribute to the work being done. I think we were thinking that “vendor” = “higher ed consultant” — but that may not be the case. We didn’t want to *over* wordsmith (or exclude, really) but would love to hear some suggestions if you think there’s room for adjustment there.
Excellent! How about an independent consultant, freelancer or employee of a company which, while not employed directly by an institution of higher education, works predominantly with higher education.
I like it and look forward to joining.
I think this looks great so far! Love the idea of encouraging students to join #highered – looking forward to seeing ideas around how to make that happen.
Agreed. I’d also love to see the Association offer a few scholarships each year for student members to attend the conference (perhaps with a bias toward students with accepted poster or other presentations). I have high hopes for my student employees but funding is tight for most of us.
I absolutely agree! Many students are seeing our industry as a viable career choice. As professionals we can really contribute to their development and work to train the incoming generation!
Model looks good!
Great work. I like the simplicity of the options. I will definitely become a professional member.
This looks great so far. I’m sure some people will buck at having to pay dues, but I think that’s a necessary next step and totally support it.
I’d suggest a Standard Level membership to encourage those who have no budget for a professional level membership with a distinction being ‘voting’ and governance only for professional members and standard level members would only be in a subscriber type role.
Alvin, are you thinking that this would be free, or at a very reduced rate?
Colleen,
I’d see something being either free or very reduced where someone could join personally for a lower cost, especially if a Professional level membership is something in the range of $75 or $100 annually( which I imagine something like this might be in that range). A Standard could be somewhere between free and $25 a year? Or I also support Kirk’s suggestion of an institutional fee like Educause that included memberships for up to 5 individuals.
How about an institutional membership? I could envision an institution paying for a spot or set of spots for their employees. If there is change in their web lineup, there would still continuity for institution, similar to the Educause model. http://www.educause.edu/about/membership/ten_ways
Kirk, an interesting suggestion — thanks! That may be something for us to grow into as we eventually refine & potentially expand membership.
Great idea, and the model makes perfect sense.
A couple of questions:
–Would the “affiliate” level also be available to previous professional members who may have lost a job in high ed web, who are seeking re-employment, and for whom maintaining communication with the membership might be a boon in that search?
–Will there be a perpetual “charter member” status for professional members who join the first year … or maybe for everyone who attended a conference in 2011 or before.
John, great questions! I don’t have set answers for you now — these are the kinds of questions we were hoping you all would help us identify and think through! — but we’ll definitely be sure to consider these as a Board so we can let you know. Thanks!
Perhaps it’s vanity but I like the idea of becoming a charter or founding member. I also like the idea of an honorific designation for the people who’ve been working so hard for the association and its conferences all these years.
Many schools outside the US do not have .edu email addresses (like mine for example – it ends in .eu). Could there be an alternative qualification for those of us at institutions that missed getting grandfathered into .edu?
Great point, Jodi … thanks for bringing that up. I’ll be sure to raise that to the Board so we can adjust as appropriate.
I also have an interest in the outcome. As a Canadian institution, we do not have an .edu extension.
Looks good. I would like to second 2 opinions brought forth by other. First, a category for those who are not involved directly in higher ed but rather support the mission of higher ed through their function as consultants, vendors, etc. Second, a scholarship fund for students interested in the future of the web in higher ed I believe would be an excellent idea.
Finally, what about rather than just admitting individuals the organization also admits schools. This could perhaps eliminate the .edu issue faced by non-US members. Perhaps a school could automatically be enrolled with a member or, to keep it even more simple, a database of institutions could be kept and updated to fulfill criterion for an individual pursuing membership (when needed).
I think there should be an insiutational rate option. This way if more then one person at same inisution wasnts to join it would help keep cost down.
I like the direction you’re taking. I would echo the desire for an institutional membership or bulk membership to easily register a handful of professionals at an institution. I also like the idea of fostering student involvement but I wonder how to fold students into conferences/events when there seems to be a capacity issue forcing wait lists at the annual national conference.
As the membership/marketing board chair for our CASE district, we’ve seen steady, rising institutional membership numbers, while our professional (individual) memberships are much weaker and falling. Universities just tend to just purchase one professional membership and share the benefits. I definitely think the board should consider institutional memberships!
My opinion greatly depends on the level of the dues. The model overall looks fine.
do it
These options look great. I support this model and would definitely pay for membership. I like the idea of the student membership. Someone in the comments expressed concern for how students would be folded into conferences; maybe that could be a track idea for a regional and/or niche conference. I also really like the idea of a level for someone in between higher ed jobs so that they may still be part of the supportive community if something were to happen with their current employment situation.
I like it and am looking forward to this becoming a reality. As a content strategist in higher ed, I’ve been searching for a formal network for some time. Keep up the great work!
As you move to a membership model, it behooves you to make sure the governance model is also addressed to give voice to all the membership in the decisions of the organization. Casual membership with no fee (to this point) does not compel nor require membership governance, but upon moving to a fee-based model, you perhaps want to look at your overall structure for committees, leadership and overall governance to make sure the voice of the membership is represented.
I commend you on moving in this direction and suggest you also consider team membership options that combine three to four or more pro memberships into a discounted rate.