13 April 2022
In the discussion around AFSC restructuring, your group reports hearing few alternatives to the structural proposals made in spring 2021 for “governance.” Since my open letter in January did that, I am writing to make sure you have seen that letter and to stress the connection to issues that are still under discernment.
In that earlier letter, I articulated my two deepest concerns with the 2021 proposals: (1) the exemption of international programs, which hampers AFSC’s ability to develop global strategy, and (2) failure to flatten the structure and move into shared decision making.
I expressed my concern with the power-over structure of current “governance,” where Quakers appear to have significant control over the work of program staff. I described an alternative power-with or shared program decision-making structure of goal-based councils with equal participation from front line program staff, movement leadership, and volunteers, including Quaker activists. The councils would have primary responsibility for crafting program portfolios in their thematic areas. General Secretaries would share their understanding of strategic possibilities, then respect the wisdom of the councils embodied in their recommendations.
I am concerned about the proposal to shift program decision-making entirely to staff, which creates a new power-over structure. This structure puts everyone at risk for program shifts decided unilaterally by General Secretaries and those close to them and leads to the widely expressed fear of “centralization.” Decision-making structures with more decentralized power are more stable and more likely to set long-term directions. Those that include non-staff stakeholders also bring broader wisdom and increase meaningful engagement. Surely we want these qualities for AFSC.
I see this as a power-with model and offer it for consideration in the ongoing process of discernment.
Before closing, let me applaud the commitment in the 2021 governance proposals to re-establishing local program committees for every program. Programs without such committees lack anchors and the communities they work with lack voice in AFSC decision making. Both U.S. and international programs need these committees. I join the wide agreement on this point.
I would be happy to discuss the proposals with any of you at any time. I continue to hold the whole AFSC community in the Light as Way Opens.
Susan Cozzens
Eastside Meeting, North Pacific Yearly Meeting, Redmond, Washington
Finding My Place 