The American Numismatic Association election is over and the membership has made a choice. Steve Ellsworth will become the new President of the American Numismatic Association at the World’s Fair of Money in August. Ralph Ross will become Vice President.
Although these were not my choices for leadership, I will support them for their two-year term. Both men deserve the support of the entire membership regardless of what you thought about the election.
The ANA is at a critical juncture in its modern history. There is a societal change happening that is affecting many hobbies and traditional institutions. It is a change borne out of changes in ideas, ideals, and how the new generation thinks about hobbies and their traditions.
The status quo is no longer acceptable. Millennials and those identified as Gen Z, who graduated from high school this year, grew up in a different world. In their world, money is electronic, stamps are utilitarian only used when necessary, and the concept of formality is reserved for a noncontroversial post on social media.
With the Millenials and Gen Z now in that numismatic black hole between being a Young Numismatist and their reawakening when they get older, it is time that the ANA adapt to the new world order of technology.
Adapting traditional hobbies between the past and technology will be difficult. Ask the philatelic (stamp collecting) world how technology has upended what they built. Technology has changed many aspects of our lives, and if numismatics do not change along with it, numismatics will become a minor aspect of the hobby community.
Making this bridge between the traditions of numismatics and the future is what the new ANA leadership and the Board of Governors will need your help. The only way the ANA will change to meet the needs of the membership is for the association to speak out. Members, especially those that are not of AARP eligible age, must be the ones to speak to the Board and let them know what the ANA has to do to have a healthy future.
One of the most significant issues is that the membership is not engaged. Maybe it is time for the ANA members to get off the sidelines and become involved.
Members must open lines of communications with the Board of Governors and let them know what you think. They cannot perform their jobs without knowing how to respond to the membership. Your input will help President-elect Ellsworth, and the rest of the Board set their agenda.
Help Ellsworth and the Board have a successful term. Let them know what you think. As a member you can contact the ANA directly. When you do, please keep it respectful and include your membership number.
Those who want to add their comments to a public forum, the ANA gives you that opportunity. Go to the ANA website, register, and post your message as an open blog post. Yes, the ANA website has a blog section for you to post whatever you like. Keep it clean, respectful, to the point. If you can add details to your ideas, I am sure the Board would appreciate the help.
In case you did not know, the ANA website also has a section of numismatic forums for collectors to talk with other collectors about numismatics. For those who are not happy with other forum sites, you might want to take the opportunity to see what the ANA has to offer.
If all else fails, you can write to me. Although I am one voice in the numismatic wilderness, I am a collector who wants to see the ANA remain a thriving home for numismatic collectors. You can write to me directly or post a comment here.
It is your ANA.
Your ANA needs your input.
Support the new Board and help them find their direction.
Loading ...
I sometimes find myself wondering how many of the 68.94% of the membership that did NOT vote are deceased members that the ANA does not yet know about. I used to run a county election office for actual real world elections and there the average figure of dead voters hovered around 15% at any given time.
Kurt and Scott
That’s a good point. Some members are probably deceased and others probably have Alzheimer’s disease or dementia.
To show how real world politics can be, I had a College professor whose family was from Chicago. They found out that his grandmother voted three times after she died. They hired a lawyer and took the City of Chicago to court to get her name unregistered. Also, I am certain this is not unique to Chicago and that it doesn’t go on in ANA elections.
Also, after my sister got married and moved to a different part of of NJ, she registered to vote in her in new hometown.
But, she remained registered where the rest of the us were still living for several years. The new county never notified the old one to unregister her. We used to joke about her voting twice when she got a sample ballot to her old address.
Sincerely
Bob
Bob,
You’re not wrong. In public elections, if a person dies in a different state from where they are registered, or moves to a different state that doesn’t communicate across state lines well, even if the previous jurisdiction “does everything right”, it can take up to 9 years for a person to be removed from the voters’ list. That’s a maximum. It might be as quickly as 6 years.
Kurt
Thanks for the information. Here in NJ, I believe the law requires people to be removed from the list of registered voters if they don’t vote within 5 years. My sister was eventually removed when she did not vote at her old address in 5 years. I say rough things about NJ politics and NJ voters, but I will always say NJ has passed laws to reform the system.
So the answer might depend on state law.
I think to reference in the article to “Although these were not my choices for leadership,” was inappropriate and in poor taste. It represents an unnecessary shot at the winners and is contrary to the rest of the article which is otherwise well done.
I don’t understand how saying that the elected leaders were not who I wanted to lead the ANA were not who I wanted in that position? Especially after I call for the members to support them! Did you read something into this statement I am not aware of?
You called for support after you made a negative statement, not before. It was not necessary to say it at all, is my point.
I happen to be friends with and know both candidates for many years, more years than I care to admit! I would never state which I preferred in a public venue. They are both good men with entirely different management styles and I am sure either one would give his best effort for the Association.
Harry: I know both gentlemen and have done business with them. I am not disparaging either one. If you read my original endorsement (see this post), I did not endorse the eventual winners. My statement was written as a mea culpa and not to disparage. My statement was to say that even though I did not support them for election I support them now. It is an acknowledgment of my choice that was not shared by the majority of the ANA membership. It is saying that even if we did not support Ellsworth and Ross to put those feelings aside and support them now for the good of the ANA. I think you are reading more into the statement than its intent!
I don’t think it’s taking a shot. A previous column says who Scott endorsed and he said to support the newly elected leaders.
Even if it can be construed as a “shot”, I’m less charitable. “Shots” need to be taken, especially in this situation, where a President-Elect has publicly disparaged the exhibiting part of the ANA’s convention program. I fear for the future of the ANA.
I agree Kurt. I don’t think it was a shot, but sometimes shots have to be taken. I also fear for the ANA’s future. Issues I think are important weren’t discussed.