ASA reviews applicants for category fit, accurate information, and acceptance of membership responsibilities. Accountability continues after admission through annual reaffirmation, record updates, and a defined process for material concerns.
Admission is reviewed
The process includes:
- completeness and identity review;
- category and eligibility assessment;
- review of relevant, requested disclosures;
- conflict controls for reviewers;
- clarification where needed;
- a decision by the authorized body;
- written notice and any available reconsideration route.
Payment or commercial participation does not determine admission.
Decision standard
The question is whether the available record reasonably supports eligibility and acceptance of ASA responsibilities. Review may consider candor, material legal or regulatory history, corrective action, recurrence, misuse of association or official claims, and ability to meet the Code.
ASA does not treat an allegation as a final finding without considering its source and status. It does not use membership review to exclude lawful competition or decide ordinary commercial disputes.
Continuing member obligations
Members must:
- remain eligible for the assigned category;
- keep legal identity, representatives, contacts, directory, and conflict information current;
- pay dues according to the approved schedule;
- reaffirm the Code annually;
- use ASA status and marks accurately;
- protect member and committee information;
- cooperate with legitimate reviews;
- notify ASA of material changes requested by policy.
Annual reaffirmation
ASA should require an authorized representative to confirm the organization’s information, Code commitment, directory choices, material disclosures, and relevant contacts. Failure to complete reaffirmation can affect account access or status under the approved policy.
Status review
ASA may review current membership when credible information indicates a material eligibility or Code issue. The notice defines the concern, authority, requested information, confidentiality, reviewer conflicts, timing, possible outcomes, and response route.
Possible outcomes include:
- no action;
- clarification or correction;
- education or informal resolution;
- written corrective action;
- a condition or monitoring period;
- restriction of an affected role, mark, or privilege;
- suspension;
- termination under the governing documents;
- referral to a public authority when required or warranted.
An interim restriction may be used to protect people, records, legal obligations, or the integrity of an active process. It is not a final finding.
Fair process
Material decisions should use:
- a stated rule and authority;
- conflict-free decision makers;
- reliable and relevant information;
- notice and an opportunity to respond where practicable;
- consistent standards;
- a documented finding and effective date;
- reconsideration or appeal where policy provides it.
Confidentiality is limited by law, safety, fair process, and the need to correct public status.
Reconsideration
An applicant or member may request reconsideration within the period in the decision when it identifies a material factual error, relevant new information not reasonably available, a procedural failure, or a conflict affecting the result. The reviewer should not be the sole original decision maker.
Public status
The Member Directory shows only approved public fields for current, consented records. When status changes, ASA updates or removes the public listing promptly. Historical status is disclosed only when necessary and authorized.
Membership never means that ASA has approved every product, facility, claim, or action of the member.
Understand the membership standard
Read the Code of Responsible Practice
To provide evidence of a possible material issue, report a membership concern.