Reviewing who our members are and how we bring them together

Following the AHUA Executive Committee review of feedback from members on possible changes to membership quota and criteria, I thought sharing some of the key themes and the next steps would be helpful. It is also a chance to thank all those who have contributed. There has been lots of discussion on the subject in my first two executive committee meetings, on my tour of regional meetings, in general discussions with members and via a feedback survey we did in November. Over 70 different institutions have explored the issue across various channels. This has allowed me to hear the breadth of opinion that exists, and start to consider concerns some people have so we can consider how to mitigate these. I’m determined to avoid using the breadth of opinion and the perceived risks as a reason for inaction. We can’t ignore the institutions for whom the current membership model is inaccessible and allow a perpetual debate on who our members are and how we bring them together. 

For a new Executive Director of a membership organisation to be undertaking an exercise to look at membership is not unusual. Perhaps it might be more common for the challenge to be to consider a strategy that would dramatically increase membership securing growth for the organisation. It would be much rarer to be asked to develop a strategy that protects and unifies a smaller and more exclusive membership. A more ‘exclusive membership’ club would tend to result in a business model that charged more as a result of that privileged status and the lack of commercial opportunity deriving from a narrower and more specific range of interests. The exercise I’m conducting is not designed to either dramatically swell our membership or to develop the business case for an exclusive private members club. However, it can help us provide some consistency, fairness and recognition of the changing make-up of administrative leadership in an increasingly diverse HE sector.

A reminder of the three options

In a consultation carried out in November, we invited feedback on three possible options for our membership criteria and quota:

1. To retain a maximum of 2 individual members per institution and keep the existing membership criteria.

2. To retain a maximum of 2 individual members including a ‘primary member’ (who must be a direct report to the VC) with relaxed criteria for the second member.

3. To increase to a maximum of 3 individual members per institution including a ‘primary member’ (who must be a direct report to the VC) with relaxed criteria for the other 2 members who are identified locally

Personally, I don’t feel any of these options represent dramatic shifts away from our current model. More a gentle evolution or slight tidy-up of our current and existing approach. The options represent only modest risks which, I anticipate, can be mitigated significantly (the proposal of a ‘primary member is designed to do exactly that in options 2 and 3). The biggest opportunity as I look at all three, is that which comes from a consensus; that by reaching a conclusion on a long-standing debate for the Association, we can invest our time in developing a broader strategy aligned to our chosen best fit. We can invest our time in trying to define what draws that community together and deploying our precious resources best to suit our collective development, advocacy and community needs.

Key themes from the feedback

The feedback included some key themes

A. A lack of clarity on the rationale for change.

The key motivation for this debate comes from a growing number of people currently excluded from membership that might benefit our community. Deputy Registrars reporting into Unitary heads of administration for example lack an alternative professional association and have roles of considerable influence, breadth, and resources that would help the association and their future development. There are also an increasing number of institutions who have cut Registrars and Secretaries into 2 or more roles and, in some cases, those institutions have to choose 2 of the three leads to benefit from and contribute to Association membership.  

We have also been asked to consider how we can deliver more value for money. It may be that we can offer more benefits to more people (and access more of our future talent perhaps) by slightly increasing the quota and providing slightly more people with the opportunity to attend our development programs, conferences, discussion forums, regional networks and resources.

B. General support for the primary members with some reservations about the extent to which they hold privileges for themselves or their institution.

The intention of the primary member is that they give institutions more power and autonomy to identify the right people to be AHUA members, the best person to be involved in any activities on such occasions where we need to cap attendance for reasons of limited resources, a lead member to act as the key point of contact. The idea isn’t that specific rights would be exclusively for them but that they could work with the local understanding to help us find our way to the right member or information or engagement.

C. Some nervousness about preserving a clear, distinct specialism across our membership.

The creation of the primary member role that would retain a limited breadth of definition (they would have to report into the VC and/or Chair of the Board and would commonly be the most senior non-academic) is designed to retain a strong core focus of membership. In addition, work on strategy that will be unlocked by concluding the debate on membership criteria and quota will be designed to do more to sharpen the focus and core agenda of the Association.

Next steps

Ultimately the final decision lies with a vote at our AGM at our annual conference (April 14th and 15th 2025). The work done so far has shown there is no perfect, one-size-fits-all all solution, and we are searching for the combination of a best fit and a set of initiatives that mitigate the risks of whatever that solution might be. For the Executive Committee to make a final decision about the specific proposed resolution and constitutional rules to accompany that to go to the AGM we are asking members to participate in a very short (2 minutes) non-binding preferential vote on the three options. The outcome of this along with all the other comments received so far, will return to our executive committee to consider a final recommendation to go to conference.

Reaching a Conclusion

A definite common factor amongst AHUA members, regardless of whether their title is registrar, secretary or COO, regardless of the specific range of functions that sit under their leadership, regardless of the size of their budget or team, is that they are excellent problem solvers and pragmatists who want to bring together a diversity of ideas and expertise. Those common characteristics should serve us well. They can help us reach a conclusion, mitigate any risks arising from them and develop a compelling strategy around our membership.

As always, I’m very happy to talk with any members who have specific concerns, questions or observations on this or indeed any membership interest.

Skip past comments, to footer Skip past comments, to main