8.2.2. President-Elect. Candidates for President-Elect must: (1) have been general members for a minimum of three consecutive years immediately preceding filing for office, (2) be the author or co-author of at least five published romance novels as defined in RWA policy, (3) have contracted to publish at least one romance novel with an RWA-Recognized Publisher, as defined in RWA policy, within the four years immediately preceding filing for office, and (4) cannot have more than six years of accumulated Board service.

Isn’t restricting the leadership of the organization in such a way moving far beyond cost considerations for Nationals?

I don’t understand why no one has addressed this leadership issue, because IIRC someone on DA indicated that *anyone* is eligible to run for RWA president. But that seems not to be true, yes? And isn’t this a pretty strong statement on RWA’s part, albeit quietly and somewhat indirectly delivered?

It’s true that not all members go to conferences. As far as I can tell, however, RWA Eligibility of publishers matters for three things:

1. Determining RWA Eligibility of agents (they have to sell to RWA Eligible publishers)
2. Market updates in the RWR.
3. Pitch appointments at conference
4. Offer workshops at conference (I need to edit the above post because I missed this one in the P&PM)
5. Comped registration fee.

I imagine that #1 may matter more in the future, but right now very few agents sell to e-publishers, so that’s not at issue. The main advantages of RWA Eligibility of publishers is at conference.

They’re also featured in the Market Update of RWR, and that’s significant for the membership and I don’t want to downplay that, but I do want to point out that RWA Eligibility right now is almost entirely about benefits at the National Conference.

I know that many local/regional conferences include digital publishers and their representatives.

You have outlined some of the problems but I believe you’ve missed something. Not all members of RWA go to conferences. I’ve been to a couple, and I rather got the impression published authors were there to promote themselves and their books, and not much else. Nothing wrong with that, because I try to promote myself, but I think small chapter conferences are a better deal for all concerned.

They are much less expensive, usually closer and less time consuming. They also provide
easier access to the attending publishers and agents. I hesitate to suggest this, but in the
current financial situation, perhaps a national conference is not a good idea.

I will also add there is an organization in RWA for e-published authors, and another organization which is growing as the industry grows, EPIC.

I get to straddle the fence, because I am print published and now e-published. If I didn’t think the business models for the better e-publishers was good, I wouldn’t be contining to pursue my career in the digital market. There are good publishers out there.
They should be included, at least at chapter conferences.

Allison Knight

It’s true for agents as well. The answer appears to be that if they weren’t subsidized they wouldn’t come, and if they didn’t come, there would essentially be no conference.

Apparently they tried not comping publishing professionals one year and it just didn’t work out.

I completely agree that publisher recognition should be about more than the cost of Nationals. I probably should have prefaced this with the comment that, at least under the current Policies & Procedures, publisher eligibility is tied to the cost of Nationals. Is that the only consideration? No, nor should it be–and if the cost issues become prohibitive for members, P&P may need to be amended to prevent such effects.

All I meant to say was, the members of RWA effectively pay for publisher recognition–and that means our hands are doubly tied, not only by the important issues that you mention regarding viable business practices, but also by some very real cost concerns.

I don’t have a good answer to any of this either. Jeannie’s suggestion, that we consider decoupling certain comps, might be a good way to proceed?

One thing that concerns me about your post, though, is tying publishing recognition to the cost of Nationals. I think it’s incorrect to suggest that the cost of the National conference is the sole criteria for RWA recognition. I hope like heck it’s not.

I have heard, practically ad infinitum, from RWA that recognition standards are in place to give authors an assurance that a recognized publisher has accepted business practices from the author’s point of view. This has been tied, more and more directly to the payment of royalties and now to advances.

I do believe that the ePublishers can make a good case that their business model does not necessarily require an advance. When a print publisher may not have your book in the retail chain for 1-2 years after the sale, the advance against royalties is, for the author, if not a necessity, certainly close to it.

ePubs, as I understand it, get an acquired book into their retail chain much more quickly and because they’re not dealing with the effect of returns, can account for sales much more quickly. The advance, in such a case, does not seem quite as necessary.

As an RWA member, what I want from RWA is for them to be looking out for my long-term interests as a writer and that means examining the financial impact of a new or changing model.

I do agree that the spigot needs to be placed elsewhere, and perhaps it doesn’t need to be so restrictive, where publishers who are comped are the only ones allowed to take appointments. If an epublisher or small press wishes to pay for their conference attendance and be available to authors to take appointments, I believe RWA should consider it.

They can be selective about those publishers, without excluding them all together or making it impossible for those who ARE going, who are paying, to have access to members who want to meet them.