DECEMBER 2003

Point-Counterpoint

Jim Tucker, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

The Delegates' Voice is a welcome and informative communication for proposal of new matters for consideration and discussion of current matters for the House of Delegates (HoD). The year-round airing of views ensures the widest exposure of ideas as Delegates exercise their responsibilities, and prepare for the annual HoD Meeting. Also, the points of view have been discussed and thought out, and the annual meeting can cover more ground, with fully-informed Delegates. Although long-range planning is the function of the Advisory Council, the Delegates are closer to, and presumably more representative of, the varied perspectives of the membership and will be responsible for implementing any changes in the Constitution and Bylaws.

I have enjoyed seeing the legislative workings of the Association over the past two decades as either a Delegate or an Alternate from the LA Basin, Dallas, and Houston Affiliated Societies, and the Middle East International Region. One pattern of the past several years is the forecast for likely decrease in Association membership during the next two decades. The beginnings of this trend have shown up in the thresholds for membership representation in the Advisory Council, for example. The number of 750 members for representation as a member of, or Observer to, the Advisory Council meetings is chosen as the membership threshold for each United States Section, International Region, or Technical Division (Article V Sections 8, 11, Article VI Section 1). This number was affirmed in the Houston HoD meeting of 2002. This number is approximately 2.5% of the current total membership and 4% of the Active, Emeritus, Honorary, and Life membership. It would be more durable if we chose a percentage of total membership as this threshold, rather than a specific number, which would likely decrease over time, and require periodic modification of the Constitution and Bylaws. After all, we chose a number two years ago that represented a percentage of total membership, intentionally or not.

This leads into the larger topic of representation in the House of Delegates legislative body, Advisory Council, and any other Association body or Committee where membership is based on representation of a geographic area. To what degree is it still appropriate to have representation based on residence or work location, rather than professional geographic or technical affinity? The efforts over the past several years to ensure that all member geographic areas are fairly represented have been largely successful. The guideline number of 70 members (approximately 0.23% of the membership) per Delegate gives us both a reasonable representation and a manageable size for the HoD.

However appropriate work/home location is to geological work province, is geographic representation the most representative for legislative matters? When the Association began, Members' work locations were close to geographic areas of professional interest, since travel and communications options dictated that. As our profession and industry have evolved, offices have centralized, and geographic location is not the indicator of geologic interest it once was. As a member of the Houston Geological Society since 1980, I have seen the growth in HGS members' diversity of interest as our industry gradually migrated to Houston. Affinity groups have grown within the HGS over that time. And the delegation from Houston has represented that diversity, at least in my recent experience as a delegate from Houston over 2001-2002. However, I was always concerned, as a past Delegate from the LA Basin GS that I was adequately representing the members spread from San Diego to Ventura.

Local societies and regions have always been at the forefront of geological inquiry and publication in the US, publishing valuable studies that would not easily find exposure in national or international publication. For example, the RMAG and GCAGS have long published papers, maps and cross-sections covering the geology of their regions. These publications are the first place to look for geological information in these areas, rather than the AAPG Bulletin, or other publication sources. For geological affinity reasons, the GCAGS is now establishing relations with the area geological associations in Mexico. It makes sense, and is good for geoscientists.

But GCAGS is also the source of representation on the Advisory Council. And AAPG members in Mexico are represented in the HoD by the Latin America Region. This sort of inconsistency will likely increase in the future, as the current pattern of AAPG proportional membership increases in both the Houston area and outside North America continues.

We should consider some alternatives for fair representation that are not necessarily based on place of residence. One idea is for members to “pick your precinct” by professional affinity. For example, the DEG and EMD members might feel a closer affinity in their professional practice to HoD representation by Delegates from those groups than Delegates from their local societies. Petroleum paleontologists often work in numerous geologic provinces. Similarly, petroleum geologists focusing on structural geology, many of whom live in the Houston area, work worldwide, and may feel a greater professional practice affinity for structural colleagues than the HGS membership with whom they are currently grouped. Many of the geoscientists working on African geology live in Houston or London, and may feel a closer affinity with colleagues working on similar problems living in that International Region. These groups would be similar to special interest groups (SIGs) in some of our geological societies, as well as in computer and other non-geological groups. Representation, not balkanization, is the objective.

Currently, members are represented by HoD Delegates from Affiliated Societies or International Regions. So, in order to be recognized, these affinity groups or SIGs (by whatever name) would need to have some of the same organization, including constitution/bylaws, as local societies currently have. This would definitely be in contrast in intent and function to the non-representative relationship of Associated Societies (Article VII, Sec. 2). Initial interest of at least 70 Members (or 0.2% of membership, or whatever) should be required for initial recognition, and a minimum threshold (e.g. 0.1%) to maintain recognition. These qualifications could be annually validated on October 1 and April 1 for voting qualification. As mentioned in the first paragraph above, the number thresholds could be set as percentages, in order to have a manageable number of Delegates, but ensure representation, and be durable over a time of membership decline

Members should annually choose their preferred affiliation, similar to GSA Members (geographic) or AGU (professional interest), although the GSA Sections do not have broader legislative/representation functions. Members will choose whichever primary affiliation they feel will represent them the best. The default choice will continue to be area of residence. Many of us remain members of local geological societies after we move away, although we do not count on them to represent us at the AAPG. So it is time to consider whether area of residence still is aligned with professional interest, and should necessarily frame the future legislative activities of the Association.