On the face of it, the November 1998 vote by the National Association of Fleet Administrators' (NAFA) November 1998 vote to allow full membership to its affiliates looks like a clear mandate. Members voted 840-182 in favor of the membership expansion. But after hearing from members who are in strong opposition to the expansion and from members who say they did not have a firm grasp of the vote's implication, Automotive Fleet interviewed a number of NAFA members to get their opinion first-hand. Although a large number of members either did not vote or didn't remember voting, most were not shy about expressing their opinion.

Those in Favor Want Expanded Membership

William Amundsen, manager, fleet administration, Perkin Elmer Corp., Norwalk, CT, favored the expansion because of the positive change which will result. "I think that any time you get additional people who are in the business to be part of your organization, who have the knowledge of things that maybe we don't have access to readily, it can only help. I think we have such a good working relationship with the affiliates, that, why not include them? You can only gain information from it; you're not going to lose anything. It's only going to be a positive step," Amundsen said. Leland Parks, fleet operations administrator, GTE Northwest, Tigard, OR, also voted in favor of the expansion.

"A lot of the time, affiliates do more than the full-time members," Parks said. "They're where the tire hits the highway. They have more hands-on experience with the vehicles. They see what's really happening a lot quicker." Many fleet managers who voted in favor of the change shared the sentiment that affiliates had previously been denied privileges they deserved. Thomas Guiney, fleet and support services manager for Multnomah County Department of Environmental Services, was typical of this viewpoint. "I've always thought that sometimes the affiliates were treated at arm's length, like they were second-class folks, and I don't view them that way," Guiney said. Others in favor of the proposal cited the support affiliates have given to NAFA as a key factor in their decision. Carlene Sharkey, fleet and insurance administrator, ICI Paints North America, Cleveland, OH, expressed this view: "I think they should be full members because they support NAFA financially. NAFA gets a lot of sponsorship support from the affiliates. A lot of the affiliates come from companies that provide a lot of products and services that are valuable to fleet managers. And it would mean increased revenue for NAFA," Sharkey said. Other fleet managers kept their responses simple. "I voted for it. I didn't see any particular reason to exclude them, they're part of the fleet business," said Jose Gonzalez, fleet manager for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Richardson, TX.

Those Opposed Fear a 'Diluted' Membership

Alan Binstein, fleet manager, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, liked the NAFA membership requirements the way they were before. "I feel that full membership in NAFA means that you're a fleet manager or fleet administrator. I couldn't find any reason for them to change it," Binstein said. Steven Reich, operations manager, Film Vehicle Services, Van Nuys, CA, also opposed it for similar reasons. "I voted against it because it dilutes the NAFA voting base. It goes against what NAFA is set up for, to help fleet managers coordinate their fleets. Any 'Joe' coughing up money doesn't qualify them as a fleet manager. Now, it's about clients for the fleet leasing companies, and I see that as a disturbing trend. It's serving the leasing companies," Reich said.

These opinions typify a view, commonly held by those who opposed the measure, that the vote was orchestrated by the large fleet management companies as a ploy to gain voting power within NAFA. Charles Bowen, fleet director, Rollins Inc., Atlanta, GA, is undoubtedly the most vocal proponent of this view. Through numerous letters to NAFA members, Bowen tried unsuccessfully to rally support in order to overturn the vote. "There is definitely a hidden agenda from the 'power brokers' within NAFA to allow these people membership," Bowen stated. "The organization is supposed to act in the best interest of the members. Politics has no place in this organization. Leasing companies are biased because their primary concern is selling. I have no problem with the leasing companies having affiliates, but they should not be given the power to make decisions in NAFA, because they cannot make unbiased judgments in the best interest of the membership. This is not an issue between the leasing community and the membership; this is an issue between the membership and the board that's making the decision," Bowen stated. Graham Perrett, fleet manager, American Family Insurance, Madison, WI, also supported this view.

"I voted against it because I feel they have a different agenda than the majority of members who run fleets. Regarding those who say we need to work together, that's what I thought we were doing when they were affiliates. Private fleet managers feel threatened by them. Now we're accepting them as full members? Why?" Perrett said.

In between this position were many who were unclear exactly what the vote meant. Deborah Brown, fleet vehicle coordinator, Air Products and Chemicals Inc., Allentown, PA, was one of these. "I believe there's been a lot of confusion about what the real issue is," Brown said. "There may be a clear reason for it, but I don't believe most of the NAFA members feel it was made clear what the purpose of that recent vote was. Including lease company members, allowing them to become members, is a very touchy issue with fleet managers. I voted against it because I was concerned that I didn't have enough information. I was confused as to what the issue really was. I didn't want to vote for it, and make a change, without fully understanding what it was," said Brown.

Although the wording of the vote seems very specific, many people seemed to think that the proposal excluded anyone associated with a fleet management company. This is not the case. Those who are employed by fleet management companies are eligible as long as their main duty is fleet management or administration, and they are not involved in any way with sales. In fact, affiliates must sign a statement that they are not involved with sales in any way in order to apply for full membership. Although many fleet managers are clearly opposed to the vote, it is unlikely to be overturned. In response to complaints about the change, the possibility of reconsidering the motion was brought up in February at a NAFA board meeting in Las Vegas. But none of the 80 delegates present volunteered to make a motion to have the vote reconsidered.

How Did the Ballot Read?

Here is the wording of the affiliate membership vote exactly as it appeared on NAFA members' ballots: (Additions are in Bold type, deletions are in brackets and Italic type.) Article III - Membership
2. FULL MEMBERSHIP.
Any person who subscribes to the aims and purposes of the Corporation is eligible for Full Membership if that person is one: (a) who is responsible for the administration of a motor vehicle fleet of twenty-five or more [passenger automobiles and/or light commercial] vehicles (as said vehicles shall from time to time be defined by the Board of Trustees); and (b) who performs the usual and customary duties of motor vehicle fleet administrator (as those duties shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Trustees) for a firm or unit of government or other entity; and [who is not engaged in the sale, rental, lease of, or services to, motor vehicles] (c) whose duties do not include the sale, lease and/or rental of products or services for or relating to motor vehicles or motor vehicle management. (Ballot section)

Issue 1 - Membership
Change the Code of Regulations to permit individuals who demonstrate that they perform specific fleet management responsibilities in their employment to be eligible for Full Membership or Associate Membership, regardless of employer. If approved, this change would be effective January 1, 1999. Approve Disapprove

Issue 2 - Affiliate Trustee Seat Change the Code of Regulations to permit Full Members and Associate Members to elect one NAFA Affiliate to the Association's Board of Trustees. If approved, this change would be effective with nominations and elections for the 1999-2000 term. Approve Disapprove