What Cost Progress and What Price Change

Its 9:30PM, Monday February 25th, and I’m putting the finishing touches on another issue. Soon I will be packing my bag for Chicago and the eighteenth (that’s 18th) annual Futon Association trade show. Over the twenty or so years I have been involved with the industry I have been privileged to work closely with some wonderful and very brilliant people. None of them (myself included) have been perfect or right 100% of the time. But for the most part each has been earnest and hard working, volunteering time, creative energy, and some serious dollars to the betterment of the industry and The Association that represents us.

The current FAI Board of Directors is no exception. Last year’s show in Las Vegas was a huge success and it looks like the providential choice of Chicago, where we are once again back to the benefits of a regional “retailer rich” environment, should prove to be profitable for all.

But amidst all the talk of growth and positive prospects for the future among industry manufacturers and retailers, and the statistical dollar volume growth reported in our last issue, the industry is still consolidating. Fewer manufacturers, though each with a growing market share, leaves us with a smaller industry footprint. From the outside our perceived size and influence in the furniture trade seems to be shrinking, in spite of the fact that our dollar volume is growing. This is a communications case study if there ever was one.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the size of this publication (and many other furniture and associated trades as well) has been down in recent months. For our industry, and many others for that matter, fewer player manufacturers means fewer advertisers vying for existing market share. A maturing marketplace is affecting how we tell the futon furniture story, and yet a large portion of our audience has a perception of the category that is far from reality.

The Association is also feeling the crunch of this phenomenon. Membership numbers are down, cash flow is tight, and like many businesses these days some serious belt tightening is in order.

Now if you’ve read this far you are probably a true futon furniture addict. You know the people and the personalities. You know why we are going to Chicago. You know why the SSA is showing with us, and you may even know who is running for the open FAI Board seats.

What you may not know is that some changes were made at the foundational level, and that is the essence of the discussion.

This past January (the 17th) I received a fax from The Association with the following announcement, “Final Call For Nominations, Nominations must be received by 5:00 p.m. January 31, 2002.” I contacted Tom Tedesco, FAI President, and he said that indeed the nominations were closed as of that date. He had also informed me that the term of office of four sitting board members had been increased to three years from two.

Muck Raking or Sound Reasoning

On principle I agree wholeheartedly with the inclusion of more members in the process, and because I do agree I questioned Tom as to why I, as a dues paying member, had not been duly informed of such a critical change as this? I asked, and still ask, how a Board so concerned about involving more members in the process, not involve members in this critical and fundamental decision in how we do business?

Tom agreed that perhaps more could have been done to inform members of the change, but that this was a better way to go.

Better or not, making this kind of change without the informed consent of the membership is just not right. There is no logic to taking an action with the express purpose of improving member participation without ample communication of such a critical change to the members themselves. Tom and the Board agreed with this point.

The extension of four Board member’s terms of office to three years from two adds fuel to the fire. The assumption here (by the Board) is that a two year term is insufficient to affect change. So, they reasoned, instead of changing the term of future Board members, why not just add a year to our (the current Board’s) terms?

In my opinion, foundational changes are what the election process is all about. If you want another year of leadership with a platform based upon member participation, why not ask the members to vote on it? It would have been better to involve the membership in this process than to act by fiat, changing the process and the outcome without communicating it openly and in an orderly fashion.

I have made my appeal to the Board in writing and by teleconference, and as of this moment I am not sure what they will do. My request was that they do their due diligence, communicate all these changes in detail to the membership, and in the mean time revert the nomination and election process back to the traditional method, and that the term extensions be cancelled.

In their defense the Board has commented on a declining participation in member activities, and that these measures are necessary for The Association’s growth and prosperity. This may truly be the case. But not communicating with the membership regarding a critical and foundational change like this is unfortunate. It only undermines Board credibility when they clearly need it most. I hope they see my point.

Pats Win Superbowl

What can I say? The New England Patriots Superbowl victory is a paradigm shift in New England and World sports history. Next we destroy the curse of the Bambino. GO RED SOX!!! FL