AUGUST 2004

Advisory Council Representation
Ad Hoc Committee

Tim Rynott, Chairman

After months of gathering data, including sending a questionnaire to every Advisory Council (AC) member since 1999 (questionnaire results), the Ad Hoc Committee on AC Representation convened in Dallas during the Annual AAPG meeting. The ensuing lengthy discussion/debate centered around the following questions: Are the Sections/Regions of the AAPG fairly and equitably represented by the current composition of the AC? Should distribution of Sectional/Regional representatives on the AC be more proportional to numbers of respective members (similarly to the House)?

The current Constitution and Bylaws states -- a Section or Region shall be entitled to elect an additional Advisory Council member for each additional five thousand (5000) members, or any fraction thereof. In 2001 a resolution reflecting a more proportionally represented AC was brought to the House floor whereby the 5000 member level would drop to 1500, thus increasing the Gulf Coast membership on the AC by 3, Rocky Mountain by 2, and Southwest and Mid-Con membership by 1. Although this motion was defeated on the House floor in 2001 and again by our committee during our Dallas meeting, the salience of the subject precipitated an alternative in which the level for an additional AC member would drop from 5000 to 3000 – the net effect raising the Gulf Coast membership from 2 to 3, and all other Sections/Regions remaining the same. The spirited debate which pursued boiled down to a vote between this alternate proposal versus no change, with the final outcome being 4 to 2 (with one abstention) for no change to the current AC Section/Region membership composition.

This split vote is illustrative of the complexity of this issue. Part of our AAPG population remains steadfast that any deliberative group affecting the future of the AAPG should be proportionally represented - the argument being that this promotes fairness and equity, particularly in the long term when considering the evolving demographics of the organization.

On the other hand, the current makeup of the AC didn’t happen overnight. In 1998, a distinguished 15-member committee came up with a final recommendation for the present reformulated AC. This new model, which was a compromise agreement and forwarded with 14 yeas and one abstention, was debated and successfully passed on the House floor in 1999. Therefore, there is also a large portion of the AAPG leadership who maintain that: 1) not enough time has elapsed for a qualified assessment, and 2) if it can’t conclusively be proven that the current AC structure is broken - it doesn’t need to be fixed.

In a very general sense, the latter argument led to the majority of our committee voting for no change.

The following items identify further arguments for no change as well as additional issues pertinent to our analysis:

1. Voting record for officer candidates and awardees. Although 2 to 3 more years of data would have been helpful, the last 4 years of AC voting information does not conclusively indicate that there is a trend of discrimination or bias against any Section or Region.

2. Size Matters. A resounding 81% of our questionnaire responders felt the AC would perform less efficiently if membership on the AC were increased.

3. The Equity Issue. When asked the question, How equitably do you think each member of AAPG is being represented by the Advisory Council?, a substantial 69% of our questionnaire responders picked 4 or better on a scale of 1 to 5. (5 being very equitably, 1 being not equitably).

4. The numbers game. One of the more legitimate concerns expressed by the Gulf Coast Section equates to a numbers issue. With a pool of 6000+ voting AAPG members, and only two Gulf Coast AC representatives, it has been a common occurrence that the 2 G.C. reps have neither met nor possess any personal knowledge of one or more of the Gulf Coast nominees. Since these awardee/officer candidate nominees are more likely to get through the first round of voting when someone on the AC has personal knowledge of them, the Gulf Coast Section is at a disadvantage when none of the Division Presidents or Past Presidents on the AC resides in the Gulf Coast. Our committee discussed Bylaw changes specifically addressing this situation, but failed to identify a procedurally practical plan, as permanent Bylaw changes to cyclical problems are difficult. On the plus side, there will also be times when the G.C. is more than adequately represented, as in this past year when 6 of the 17 voting members were from the G.C. Section. One could make the case that over time this averaging affect supersedes the need for a Bylaw change. The G.C. Section reps may need to realize that when their AC representation is low, additional pre-meeting work will be required.

5. Advisory versus Legislative. Recommended reading is an article by Lowell Lischer in the January 2002 Delegates’ Voice. Lowell’s emphasis is this -- The AAPG Bylaws (Article V, Section 1) describe the AC as an advisory group that recommends awardee/officer candidates, performs strategic and long range planning, etc. As an advisory body, it is important that all the Sections, Regions, and Divisions have equal input and are heard. When the less populous Sections/Regions do not feel they are part of the process they can feel disenfranchised, which sadly, may precipitate a negative bias against a qualified individual from a populous Section. Under this scenario, proportional representation can ironically work against a larger Section.

That being said, it is also important to keep in mind that the Executive Committee (EC) now requires a super-majority to re-prioritize the nominee list sent from the AC. At a minimum, one can conclude the AC is legislatively influential in the nomination process. Very important nomination decisions born in the AC are very apt to become ratified in adulthood. It is these semi-legislative actions, which cause proportional representation to become more relevant.

A primary culprit for the present debate amongst some members is this fuzzy definition of the administrative role of the AC. Under these circumstances, the perspectives of individual members will probably always cover the spectrum.

Conclusions

The current structure of the AC may not be perfect, but the majority of this committee has voted that the data at hand does not concretely prove that an alternate structure would be better. The AAPG membership is well served by this Advisory Council when said councilors exhibit the utmost professionalism and integrity. Anything less, and the proponents for proportional representation have a more valid argument.

Strong leadership and effective communication of AC voting procedures will always be essential to the process. Also, it needs to be stressed that all Sections and Regions should be very cognitive of the nominees selected for their respective AC seats since they share much responsibility in two very important functions of the AC: Getting the best AAPG members into leadership positions, and ensuring that those AAPG members who are most deserving are properly recognized.

The next step for this committee is to forward to the Chairman of the House, a culled down list of the answers to question #6 which pertained to miscellaneous suggestions/recommendations for improving the AC. Part of our original mandate was to consider every angle in which the AC could be improved and we appreciate the responders answers -- they have greatly facilitated this effort.

Finally, I cannot express enough gratitude to my committee members for their hard work and perseverance through this complex ordeal. Many thanks go to Don Lewis (Vice-Chairman), Sandi Barber, Will Green, Paul Hoffman, Jean Lemmon, and Peter Lloyd.